WHAT ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW?

Posts

pianotm
The TM is for Totally Magical.
29589
author=turkeyDawg
Yeah, Freya was pretty cool. Too bad after meeting Fratley at Cleyra she just kinda drops off the face of the earth plot-wise. Or at least that's how I remember it - I haven't played that game in years.
It's a brief disappearance. She comes back before you even leave Cleyra.

Anyways, in the Castlevania games, Dracula tries to revive every 100 years, right? So, eventually, they'll start taking place in the future, and we can have a Gradius/Castlevania crossover? I mean, who wouldn't want to pilot the Vic Viper through Dracula's Space Castle? Or at least a moon base? It'd certainly beat another pachislot or mobile spinoff game.


Yeah, that would rock.

author=LockeZ
replace "openly gay" with "openly a pedophile, but hasn't actually molested a child"

and I think then you'll at least understand the level of moral disgust going through those people's heads, even if you disagree with the comparison


And it continues to be so much bullshit. The people who think that way are the pedophiles. I've certainly gathered evidence on and turned enough of them in to know (I volunteer on a couple of child frequented sites). Pedophiles are rarely gay.

author=Corfaisus
Because, you know, gay people are disturbed enemies-of-the-state with their fingers on the trigger just waiting for a reason to bring about World War III...

I don't give two shits what churches preach in the way of "we love you but you're a wretched sinner who will burn in hell for eternity for simply existing" as I've heard and dealt with enough of that in my life (though never having been on the receiving end of it) to know that these are not the people I should be looking towards for moral guidance. You're either a carbon copy of their book, cherry-picked to not come across as equally wicked, or you're a spawn of Satan who, despite having been given your life and your soul from the Heavenly Father, has no place in His presence, nor those who follow the infallible doctrine of any one sect.

Perfect love is not exclusive.


Yes, they take their Bible seriously, right down to raping women and them blaming them for it.

Sorry, this is a bit of a sore spot for me.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
6138
author=pianotm
And it continues to be so much bullshit. The people who think that way are the pedophiles. I've certainly gathered evidence on and turned enough of them in to know (I volunteer on a couple of child frequented sites). Pedophiles are rarely gay.


I wasn't saying gay people tended to be pedophiles or vice-versa. I was saying that if you are morally disgusted by pedophiles even when they haven't raped anyone, then you should be able to understand how and why other people are are morally disgusted by homosexuals. They feel the same way about homos that you feel about pedos. It's equivalent. The reasons for feeling that way are equivalent ("it's disgusting and tolerating it will corrupt society") and the arguments against it are the same ("no one is actually getting hurt"). In fact, I'd probably go so far as to say it's hypocritical to be outraged at homophobes if you're a pedophobe.

author=Corfaisus
I don't give two shits what churches preach in the way of "we love you but you're a wretched sinner who will burn in hell for eternity for simply existing" as I've heard and dealt with enough of that in my life (though never having been on the receiving end of it) to know that these are not the people I should be looking towards for moral guidance. You're either a carbon copy of their book, cherry-picked to not come across as equally wicked, or you're a spawn of Satan who, despite having been given your life and your soul from the Heavenly Father, has no place in His presence, nor those who follow the infallible doctrine of any one sect.

Perfect love is not exclusive.


I've never been to a church that taught this way. But then, I've never been to a catholic church. I was pretty sure the point of what the churches taught was that every single person is wicked and has no place in God's presence, without exception. But that you will be forgiven anyway if you repent.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7419
author=LockeZ
author=Corfaisus
I don't give two shits what churches preach in the way of "we love you but you're a wretched sinner who will burn in hell for eternity for simply existing" as I've heard and dealt with enough of that in my life (though never having been on the receiving end of it) to know that these are not the people I should be looking towards for moral guidance. You're either a carbon copy of their book, cherry-picked to not come across as equally wicked, or you're a spawn of Satan who, despite having been given your life and your soul from the Heavenly Father, has no place in His presence, nor those who follow the infallible doctrine of any one sect.

Perfect love is not exclusive.
I've never been to a church that taught this way. But then, I've never been to a catholic church. I was pretty sure the point of what the churches taught was that every single person is wicked and has no place in God's presence, without exception. But that you will be forgiven anyway if you repent.

The million dollar question for me is: is homosexuality something that must be repented for in order to obtain salvation in the life after? That's where I draw the line with the church as this automatically condemns anyone who they feel have either made a choice to sin or are under strict obligation to remain celibate and to never search for love in the here and now.

My adopted foundation of selflessness and forgiveness prevents me from pursuing hatred or condemnation towards those who walk beside me, hence why I believe so strongly in this perfect love. I'd throw up my diagram of how life and the branches of belief systems work, including our own imperfect perspective's limitations and why we must remain open to the opinions of others, but boy that's just not something that's relevant to this thread.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
6138
You can actually love someone without sticking your penis in them, though.

(In theory.)
I can appreciate LockeZ taking the Deil's Advocate role here. Especially since religion probably shouldn't be seen as inherently bad. Like LockeZ said, to them everybody's a sinner no matter what in their eyes.

I don't know, selflessness is cool, but not when you take a stand against religion. Some people need it in their life.
author=LockeZ
You can actually love someone without sticking your penis in them, though.

(In theory.)


I haven't read on this thread in awhile and this is literally the first thing I read. I've got a lot of catching up to do...
pianotm
The TM is for Totally Magical.
29589
author=Gourd_Clae
I can appreciate LockeZ taking the Deil's Advocate role here. Especially since religion probably shouldn't be seen as inherently bad. Like LockeZ said, to them everybody's a sinner no matter what in their eyes.


That was the Jewish religion, which gave birth to Christianity, which gave birth to Islam...which is why these three religions together are called the Abrahamic religions. Everybody is NOT a sinner to religion. Just THOSE religions. Only the the children of Abraham were masochistic enough to believe that you can't take a shit without sinning. Then again, they also believed that a circle that was exactly 10 inches in diameter was exactly 30 inches in circumference, which isn't totally off the mark, but I think that most people would agree that SKEWED is a good word for what it is. I was on a thread awhile back in which a Creationist was arguing pi did not exist because of the passage in the Bible about that blasted bowl that was 10 inches across.

Have you ever read a Creationist text book? When Neil Armstrong first walked on the moon, he reported the landing foot and ladder only went a few inches into the dust. To Creationists, this is proof that the Moon has only existed for 6000 years. Why? Because the amount of dust the moon has gathered since it's creation is only a few inches thick. What is Creationism? The belief that the Bible is literally true from beginning to end.

Meanwhile, Creationists are trying to get Creationism taught in schools and Darwinism kicked out, and THEY ARE STEADILY GAINING GROUND.

Original Sin is a concept that tends to turn you into a lunatic and I'll not have any part of it, thank you.

author=LockeZ
author=pianotm
And it continues to be so much bullshit. The people who think that way are the pedophiles. I've certainly gathered evidence on and turned enough of them in to know (I volunteer on a couple of child frequented sites). Pedophiles are rarely gay.
I wasn't saying gay people tended to be pedophiles or vice-versa. I was saying that if you are morally disgusted by pedophiles even when they haven't raped anyone, then you should be able to understand how and why other people are are morally disgusted by homosexuals. They feel the same way about homos that you feel about pedos. It's equivalent. The reasons for feeling that way are equivalent ("it's disgusting and tolerating it will corrupt society") and the arguments against it are the same ("no one is actually getting hurt"). In fact, I'd probably go so far as to say it's hypocritical to be outraged at homophobes if you're a pedophobe.


Okay, first of all, homosexuality generally occurs between two consenting ADULTS, and in many cases, they never have sex because that's not what love is about, as you so eloquently stated.
author=LockeZ
You can actually love someone without sticking your penis in them, though.
Now, to tell someone that being a pedophobe and not being a homophobe is hypocritical, requires a deeper examination.

Now, let's accept that morality and immorality are philosophical ideas that exist only in perspective and not in nature, thus nothing is right or wrong. If we don't adjust that view, then we can say that neither homosexuality nor pedophilia is wrong. And we can still that neither are they right. Now, let's do what humans are so good at doing, and complicate things. Let's say we, being mortal and conceptually limited (that erroneous, religious idea of "imperfect"), cannot escape the concept of right and wrong.

Thus, we must establish limitations on right and wrong. We do this by assessing how we feel in certain matters (i. e., we don't like being hurt), and then applying those feelings globally (and we therefore deduce that it is wrong to hurt others). The flaw in this logic can be immediately seen because morality, thanks to our limited perspective, must necessarily be based on what we, on our most primitive level, like and don't like. This is, of course, the caveman's morality. I like possessing things so possession must be good. I don't like being stolen from so stealing must be bad.

And as the caveman, being a learning creature, develops more complicated insight. He comes across what, to his small mind, is a paradox. I like sex, therefore sex must be good, but women push me away and say they don't want it. It may occur to him that people like him think on the same level that he does, and this creates a moral dilemma. One man facing this dilemma becomes a rapist. Another man facing this dilemma decides to defend women from rapists.

In just a few minutes of establishing the concept of right and wrong, we've already seen the beginning of conflict. So let's get deeper. We come up with a set of laws that are based on the primitive concepts of morality. Do not steal, do not kill, do not have sex with everything that moves...but are these the Ten Commandments?

Actually, I just steered us into Hinduism. These laws are Niyama, which are essentially the laws of peace. So you see, man immediately saw that conflict was bad and enacted a philosophical ideal to avoid conflict. In Hindu spirituality, is believed that when a man gets excited, he becomes violent, and so he should act to remain at peace. The procedure necessary for remaining at peace is written in the Yoga Sutra. Judaism borrowed the concept of Niyama for its own Ten Commandments.

It is in religion that we see abstracts form; abstracts like greed and adultery. Greed is the one I'll tackle, because we've already used the concept of possession and stealing. The concept "possession is good" versus "Greed": is there really a difference between the two?

Now let us run this into the next logical conclusion. Morality leads to government. It becomes clear over time that everyone wishes to behave morally and so, we establish a system of government whose function it is to regulate human behavior. Now don't go into all that bullshit Dynhalto thinks government is about. Barring natural disaster, everything the government regulates is, by design, affected by human action.

There came a moment in history where some men pondered whether or not government should have the power to control morality. These men had renounced Christianity with a document called "Common Sense", and wondered how far religion went into morality. There was, in their view, a point where religion ended and common sense began. Now, I think everyone knows what happens next, so let us get back to what we were talking about and try to employ a little common sense.

It is not what you think that defines you, it is what you do. Psychology already reports that the majority of people find members of both genders attractive and that sexual attraction to children is just as common. Therefore, a homosexual can only be someone who has ever attempted to establish relations with another person of the same gender, and a pedophile can only be someone who has ever attempted to establish relations with a child. Whatever happens, unknown, in the mind, cannot be factored because it cannot be known by another person. If we don't create that limitation, then we would be able to call everyone we see a gay pedophile and I think you know that there would be consequences for that.

Now, when two adult men fall in love with each other, it is the act of a consenting adult. There is a philosophical question regarding when a child is sufficiently mentally developed that he or she is an adult, but I think everyone can agree that below the age of puberty is young enough that the child could not possibly intellectually consent to what a pedophile is about to do to him or her, and I think that most young people who do understand sex, are likely not mature enough to understand their decisions regarding sex.

Thus, where two consenting adults have engaged in homosexuality, there is no victim. Where an adult has engaged in sexual relations with a child, there IS a victim. That is why a "pedophobe" as you call them, is not a hypocrit for not being a homophobe.

About that word "pedophobe"...you should know that it was that very word that launched me into this tirade. I don't like that word, LockeZ. It reminds of a faction of children's advocacy groups and a few fathers rights groups that think pedophilia shouldn't be illegal. The suggestion in the word "pedophobe" is that pedophiles should be accepted and allowed. Please try not to suggest such a thing. Children don't recover from sexual assault.
Let's talk about games, bay-bee

Just watched Star Trek 5. So much better than Star Trek 4. Save the whales? WTF kind of probe was that anyways? Was it sent by a race of alien whale things? I just don't get it. I hope Star Trek 6 is good!
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7419
Raise the roof!

author=pianotm
Judaism borrowed the concept of Niyama for its own Ten Commandments.

Also, there are 613 commandments (mitzvot) in the Judaic faith.
pianotm
The TM is for Totally Magical.
29589
author=Link_2112
Let's talk about games, bay-bee

Just watched Star Trek 5. So much better than Star Trek 4. Save the whales? WTF kind of probe was that anyways? Was it sent by a race of alien whale things? I just don't get it. I hope Star Trek 6 is good!


Dude, you need more sci-fi in your life. The concept was that aliens were communicating throughout the galaxy searching for intelligent life, and found whales, which many oceanic scientists believe may indeed be more intelligent than humans. When the whales died, the aliens sent a probe to find out why they lost contact. These concepts don't seem so strange once you accept the possibility that humans aren't as great you think they are.

6 is the second best of the films, IMHO opinion. It's got conspiracy, assassination, intrigue, Kim Cattrall; what's not to like?
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
6138
I did very specifically say "pedophiles who haven't raped anyone" in order to prevent your stupid tirade about child abuse. It apparently didn't work because you only read every other word or something and decided to rant for a page and a half anyway.

I don't actually particularly care about whatever we were supposed talking about before I got a concussion when your train wreck of thought crashed. (Dicks, I think?) Not enough to argue any more, at least. Mostly I just think that being offended simply that other people are offended is probably kind of stupid.

☪☮⚥✡☥☯✞
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7419
author=LockeZ
"pedophiles who haven't raped anyone"

Is that like murderers who haven't killed anyone? Thieves who have never stolen? Deceivers who have never lied? So, people?

Guilty until proven guilty.

author=LockeZ
Mostly I just think that being offended simply that other people are offended is probably kind of stupid.

It's called empathy, compadre.

Pianotm makes plenty of good points; you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss him just because it wasn't complacent agreements to your position.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
6138
It'd be like people who are sexually aroused by the idea of murder, but haven't killed anyone, I guess?
unity
You're magical to me.
12577
While I get that the particular devil's advocate argument is an effective way to convey empathy with people who are morally outraged with homosexuals, as a bisexual I find it particularly gut-wrenching to find my attraction to the same sex compared to pedophilia.

However, I calmed down a bit and examined the statement "pedophiles who haven't raped anyone." I can only work with that if we amend it to "haven't harmed a child," to eliminate any middle ground, and then it comes down to "a person who is attracted to children, but knows its wrong and would never act on their compulsions," then I can agree with the point that we shouldn't hate someone in that position as they haven't actually harmed anyone. Is that in the ballpark of what you were after, LockeZ, aside from giving us a parallel for the feeling that some have against homosexuality?

When it comes to religion, I understand completely the knee-jerk reactions against it, but also that spirituality is a powerful factor in people's lives. I was raised Baptist, and as a child I talked to the pastor after Sunday School. I asked questions about some things in the Bible that didn't make sense to me, and I was told, flat out, that my questions would send me to hell. As an eight year old child. The whole message of forgiveness and love wasn't even mentioned in that conversation, and I was filled with despair for a long time.

To avoid going all walls-of-text here, let me just say that as a teenager I began to hate Christianity, and it took me until my mid-twenties let go of that hate. I met people who were Christians and actually lived as loving, forgiving people in a way that I found touching, and who didn't cherry-pick the scriptures to reinforce bigotry as many members of my family did. I also learned that you can be spiritual without being religious, and now I understand how important spirituality is.

Whoa, I totally went all serious and personal. So much for the fluffy light-heartedness of the "What are you thinking about right now" thread.
As far as I know, "pedophile" is a term that belongs only to realm of psychiatry. If colloquially speaking, people conflate it with the actual act of abusing a child, is either due to ignorance, which is understandable to a point; or because they don't care about the difference, which is just dumb. So no, is nothing like "murderers who haven't killed anyone" and all that...

Man, this thread never fails to amuse. It always takes a turn for the weird. xD ...Talking about "weird". Where's Mr_Detective? =P
author=pianotm
The concept was that aliens were communicating throughout the galaxy searching for intelligent life, and found whales, which many oceanic scientists believe may indeed be more intelligent than humans. When the whales died, the aliens sent a probe to find out why they lost contact. These concepts don't seem so strange once you accept the possibility that humans aren't as great you think they are.
So why couldn't the aliens make contact with humans? Humans are intelligent life. I guess so the point could be made that "maybe we aren't as great as we think we are". Star Trek likes to do that. Even if Whales are more intelligence in certain ways, it doesn't mean that Humans aren't intelligent. All humans are not equal, there are some really stupid people.

Most of the arguments seem to be "humans overpopulate and deplete natural resources, whales don't". When a wolf population gets out of control, they deplete their food resources.

Most of the problems we face today are because there have been a small % of humans in charge making bad decisions. Using fear and power to control the masses. Any species that gains protection from all threats and predators will eventually grow to a large population. And since the days of Kings and overlords, one man's greed usually determines the progression of things. Regardless of "best intentions".

Before we developed technology humans lived harmoniously with nature. It's only within the last century that we started poisoning the planet because of those people in charge and general ignorance of our past. Over dependance on that technology is a big part of it, too. Without proper planning these things are bound to happen.

Most people know that we shouldn't be burning so much oil and cutting down all those trees, but greedy people have too much power already so it will continue to happen.
kentona
Your mom is a hero
20851
Nuke the gay whales for Jesus!
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7419
Where's some black materia when we need it?
author=kentona
Nuke the gay whales for Jesus!

If I were a mod, I would change your status to this right now
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
6138
author=unity
However, I calmed down a bit and examined the statement "pedophiles who haven't raped anyone." I can only work with that if we amend it to "haven't harmed a child," to eliminate any middle ground, and then it comes down to "a person who is attracted to children, but knows its wrong and would never act on their compulsions," then I can agree with the point that we shouldn't hate someone in that position as they haven't actually harmed anyone. Is that in the ballpark of what you were after, LockeZ, aside from giving us a parallel for the feeling that some have against homosexuality?
That was the parallel I was going for, yeah. Not saying they're totally equivalent; there are some very important differences, obviously. But I find that almost everyone is morally outraged and disgusted by pedophiles, even if they've never harmed a child, so I was trying to point out the cognitive dissonance between feeling that way and thinking homophobia is intolerable.

I mean, calling it hypocrisy is actually incorrect. You can still be offended by one and not the other; just recognize that the reason you are offended is because you're judging people's thoughts, not their actions. You've got a line where you believe that certain thoughts are immoral enough that they make you a bad person for thinking them even if you never harm anyone. Other people just draw that line in a slightly different place - if they condemn homosexuality even if it doesn't harm anyone, you should at least be able to empathize with them, even though you disagree.

Villainizing them as hate-spewing idiots, as I see too often, doesn't help make things any more civil. Them villainizing homosexuals as corrupters trying to tear down society isn't improving matters either. As with most issues, both sides need to be able to recognize the other as a legitimate point of view that can be debated against, instead of a threat to modern civilization that needs to be stomped out as soon as possible.

It's possible to think something is wrong without thinking that everyone who disagrees with you is either insane, evil, or an idiot. For example, I think RPGs are often good purely because of the gameplay, and I think that there's nothing special about the genre that makes them any better suited to having a story than other genres of games. I think people who try to make RPGs where all the gameplay is optional or where there are no battles are bad designers making games in the wrong way. I don't think Liberty is a supervillain corrupting our game design society though. I just think she probably had some really unfortunate experiences with RPGs in her formative years, or some really good experiences with visual novels, and ended up not particularly enjoying the type of experience that dungeon crawlers provide. Then she started assuming that approach to RPGs was bad because it was unenjoyable for her. She's played a few thousand games by now, so I still respect her viewpoint on the matter even if I strongly disagree with it.