Of course. In mid 19th century slavery was a political issue in the US (and also elsewhere) and one of several or maybe the most important or even the only issue (i read varying claims about that) that caused a civil war to erupt. And majority does not equal right.Two sides in the sense that major opposing political factions exist.Personally, I don't think are two sides in this matter. It's no different than the other two. Sorry that you're not able to see that.
In that sense, there were two major opposing sides in the American Civil War. And there have been often been two major opposing sides with regards to other civil rights issues. Doesn't mean that the perspective of both sides have equal merit.
I think the bolded is relevant to your points earlier that there are a large number of people who voted against marriage equality in some jurisdictions in the US. That fact does not imply that it is right to oppose marriage equality. Paizo are no doubt of the view that those people were wrong to do so - even if they were a majority.
And I'm still not seeing where Paizo is specifically calling you evil.By saying that a good god cannot be against marriage equality.
For the record, whilst I share the view that a good god wouldnt be against marriage equality, I dont think that people who disagree with me are evil. I just think they're mistaken about what consitutes "good". From what I know of them, I'd suspect Paizo employees to have a similar view, by and large.
And it looks like the forum broke, and ate my last six attempts to post. If they suddenly come flooding through, I apologize.
Trying this one last time:
Anti-equality? What the hell does that mean? Does everything need to be equal between different people or just what YOU think needs to be equal?
What that means is - homophobic, racist, or sexist comments are listed as being against forum rules (and I also find them distasteful myself) Therefore I would expect anyone posting here not to make those kind of comments. I thought that was pretty easy to understand, but looking back I can see why how I said it could be taken differently to how I intended it.
"anti-equality =/= not pro-equality" It's possible to just not express any opinion on the matter, which is what I would suggest any racists, sexists, homophobes, or other bigots do on these forums, to avoid breaking the "not being a jerk" rule. Within reason, opinions are okay, as long as they don't cross the line into homophobic/racist/sexist hate speech.
EDIT: I'd also suggest that posting anything that directly insults a portion of the Paizo staff is probably a bad idea on their own forums.
Hopefully, that has made it clearer than my earlier single line of text did.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Until you address my original points we have nothing to discuss I guess.
You made a silly statement, you were called on it, and in answer you made another silly statement about strawmen and tangents.
I am not intending to have a 'discussion' with you, I was calling you out for what you wrote. Frankly I think you get it, you are just chosing to be obtuse about it.
I really don't like people who try use 'free speech' on one hand when it comes to having to abide people actively disenfranchising others of their rights, but then try and claim 'intolerance' when those people being attacked and disenfranchised argue back.
Voltaire my foot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Free speech is also a weird thing to try to invoke on a privately owned and moderated forum. There's nothing compelling any company to allow expression to all points of view on their forums.
Nobody has a right to post here that isn't granted by the site's owners.
Any argument trying to show that operating a brothel is not good, is rather complicated and has many twist where one could go wrong and arrive at the wrong result. So i am doubtful about my conclusion in this regard.a NG herbalist who (amongst other things) helps people end pregnancies. By your definitions, those are as much "political messages" as the current issue under discussion, arent they?Yes, that is also one.Not the CG brothel owner?
Cheers. This clarifies things somewhat. Earlier I said you were singling out some issues (abortion and marriage equality) because you noticed them. That seems unfair - you're just specifically calling out those you have a strong view on. That said, I think you should tighten up your initial query. It seems you're not really concerned that paizo might be making political comments (I presume you'll concede the morality of running a brothel is a political issue? Even if you're unclear on the absolute nature or otherwise of that morality?)
I think you should rather list those issues you find objectionable and explicitly ask whether they are issues paizo feels strongly about including. (I think that will help you answer your question as to whether to continue subscribing).
Of course, but if they elevate some issues to "until...", this influences the product i am buying, hence, i care what exactly they consider relevant enough to whack me with their moral club.
To be clear, I'm not really interested in arguing morality with you - I'm just trying to point out that by your definitions of political statements it is necessarily true that any producer of an RPG (which includes concepts like alignment) will have to make political statements. I think you're noticing some specific ones (like homosexual marriage and abortion being consistent with LG and G alignments respectively) because they bother you, but glossing over others which dont.
Again, any stance they take is "whacking" someone with "a moral club". I don't think you need to use aggressive language to learn whether the product is something you want to support. I dare say many who think it is right to be inclusive feel as strongly about the morality as you do.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, that is also one. Can someone confirm that?That would make my decision whether to unsubscribe rather simple.
He's probably referring to this:
While Abstalar Zantus (area 1) does his best to take care of Sandpoint’s truly sick and needy, he can’t help everyone. For minor aches, pains, and illnesses, most of Sandpoint’s citizens depend on Hannah Velerin (NG female elf cleric 3/expert 1). Hannah spends most of her mornings out in the surroundingsimply enjoying Gozreh’s bounty. In the afternoons, she returns to her shop and home here to prepare medicines and receive patients. Hannah’s ironically the one to go to when either one wants to end a pregnancy or needs a midwife to aid in a birth; Hannah encourages all of the women she sees to carry to term, and advises the use of pinberry extract to young women as a way to prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place, but in cases where there’s no other option, her other services are discrete and confidential
Now, if that passage causes you to drop from the product line, I am sorry for you. Simply because you seem to universalize your viewpoint, and reject material that does not reflect it outright. That makes for a nice echo chamber where your views never are challenged and thus cannot evolve past their current state.
I find Lovecraft reprehensible in some fields, and still I read quite a few of his stories. Howards writing is not only racist in places, but downright misogenic. You can reject parts off or all of these messages for yourself.
I for one am very glad about the inclusivness paizo has displayed. Even if it does not profit me personally, I know enough people who deal with these issues, and are thankful for finding some reflection of their lives in fiction - even if it is only a fantasy.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP. I think you can expect inclusion of politics in most all Paizo products in the form of gender equality, race equality and other similar topics.
All entertainment productions are inherently political.
Political agitation in favor of the status quo is still political agitation.
|
|
To the OP. I think you can expect inclusion of politics in most all Paizo products in the form of gender equality, race equality and other similar topics.Examples for similar topics?
The (historically accurate) inclusion of people of color in the Inner Sea region instead of a fictionally-homogenous White Europe.
The (historically accurate) inclusion of women in roles of power in the Inner Sea region.
There are certainly missteps (some of which were bad, and some of which have received a successful Author's Saving Throw since). But overall inclusion is the norm, not the exception.
And its not about feeling strongly about it. From my feelings i am rather indifferent, slightly liking gays more over lesbians as they increase my market value. I just feel strongly about the utter arrogance and bluntness of "until..." as that is not what i would like to pay for.
So would you say your objections are based on the product "promoting inclusiveness until such a time as that issue in our society today is successfully dealt with"?
I'm sorry if I'm misreading you, and understanding the intent behind your words is obviously very important which is why I find it important to ask for this clarification.
Yes, IF inclusiveness is not only promoted by NPCs being that way, but by promoting the idea that paizos version of what the result in society of inclusiveness should be, is painted as the only moral choice.
So would you say your objections are based on the product "promoting inclusiveness until such a time as that issue in our society today is successfully dealt with"?
Okay. So...
1) Do you object to what is being said, or just the way it is being said, or both?
2) From what I've read, I have the impression you would describe yourself as "Tolerant of differences in others, but not a proponent of equal rights due to my moral code defining the prerequisites for those rights" Would that be accurate?
1) both
2) There are no prerequisites for rights. Is just that there is no right to marry people of the same sex.
Thanks for clearing that up :)
Okay, if you're at all interested in my opinion (and nobody says you have to be):
- I don't like the views you have on marriage rights. it offends a lot of the people it affects, and I think people have a right to go through life without their personage offending others. Obviously, I don't expect you to like my views on that either :)
- I respect your right to object to Paizo's stance on what I've heard from you so far.
- That doesn't mean I dislike you. I don't know enough about you to make a judgement on that one thing. If you were saying "ew omg GAY!" then I'd dislike you immediately and feel that you were an undesirable presence on these forums due to the hurt it would do to others. I haven't been around here very long, but I'm starting to like a lot of people here - plus I don't need to like them to not want to see them hurt by others.
- Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, including Paizo, in any of the above. Some people may hate you for your views. Some probably hate me for mine :)
A clarification of my own viewpoint:
- Beliefs can harm others. The right to express those beliefs within any given space therefore should depend on whether expressing those beliefs harms anyone present. Now, I accept that that's somewhat hypocritical, but preventing the harm to a person because of who they are overrides preventing the harm to a person because of their beliefs.
- My objection to your views on marriage are primarily because the implementation of those views causes emotional harm to others that have done nothing to deserve that harm.
- People are people. I prefer to classify/judge/assign rights to them because of what they do, not who they are. I believe at least we have the first two in common there, which while not perfect is somewhat of a progressive step.
Yes, IF inclusiveness is not only promoted by NPCs being that way, but by promoting the idea that paizos version of what the result in society of inclusiveness should be, is painted as the only moral choice.
So would you say your objections are based on the product "promoting inclusiveness until such a time as that issue in our society today is successfully dealt with"?
Okay. So...
1) Do you object to what is being said, or just the way it is being said, or both?
2) From what I've read, I have the impression you would describe yourself as "Tolerant of differences in others, but not a proponent of equal rights due to my moral code defining the prerequisites for those rights" Would that be accurate?
1) both
2) There are no prerequisites for rights. Is just that there is no right to marry people of the same sex.
Well, here in the US there is a (Constitutional) promise of equal protection, which means that heterosexual couples and homosexual couples have the same right to marry.
But really Carn, given your "I don't have a problem with the products, I just don't want to pay for them," statements, it sounds like you're complaining that you didn't educate yourself on Paizo's stance before purchasing a subscription.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, its about "If you're against homosexual marriage, you're probably not good aligned and if you actively oppose it you're evil (deity or not)".And we have yet another thread created because someone's concerned about which fictional character is fictionally sleeping with another fictional character.
Considering that those who actively oppose same-sex marriage are actively spreading lies about the LGBT community and agitating in foreign countries for laws calling for the extermination of queer people, I think "evil" is a pretty fair word to describe it.
|
|
The state cannot and should not care about emotional harm. It has to respect individual rights and otherwise pursue what is deemed to be of general interest for the nation.
- My objection to your views on marriage are primarily because the implementation of those views causes emotional harm to others that have done nothing to deserve that harm.
And the ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger demonstrated that the state has no interest whatsoever in restricting marriage to a single religion's definition of "one man and one woman."
Forgive a poor Englishlich, who has been following the thread for some time, but determinedly keeping his jawbone shut, from begging the question:
What exactly does the legislations of one state of one country have to do with... practices? Policies? For want of a better word, for a global company in regards, to well, anything?
Is Paizo's head office in California or something?
Is California a very significant portion of their continuous revenue stream?
If not, then I have to geniunely ask: what does California's state laws on, well, anything (from age of consent, which is towards the upper half of the world distribution, as I recall off the top of my head to marriage to whatever else have you) have to do with Paizo's company policies and practises, given that Paizo's market is, y'know, global and thus reaching to a far wider audience than just that one American state?
I'm genuinely curious.
- My objection to your views on marriage are primarily because the implementation of those views causes emotional harm to others that have done nothing to deserve that harm.
The state cannot and should not care about emotional harm. It has to respect individual rights and otherwise pursue what is deemed to be of general interest for the nation.
I wasn't talking about the state though, I'm talking about whether or not it belongs in society in general, or on the Paizo forum in particular.
The state allows me to insult people in the street. That doesn't mean it's okay to do so :)
If not, then I have to geniunely ask: what does California's state laws on, well, anything (from age of consent, which is towards the upper half of the world distribution, as I recall off the top of my head to marriage to whatever else have you) have to do with Paizo's company policies and practises, given that Paizo's market is, y'know, global and thus reaching to a far wider audience than just that one American state?I'm genuinely curious.
I'm not sure California state laws were ever a part of this discussion - if so I must have missed it. I'm also not entirely sure what you're saying though :( Do you believe what Paizo is doing is right or wrong?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just like miscegenation laws limited everybody's rights in the same way. Everyone could only marry within the same race.Rights are not directed at couples but at individual. And one man one woman obviously does limit everybodies right to marry in the same way.
Well, here in the US there is a (Constitutional) promise of equal protection, which means that heterosexual couples and homosexual couples have the same right to marry.
As far as i know, nobody ever claimed that black + white was not a marriage. It was a marriage, just an illegal one. Even if preformed in secret it was punishable.
If two men exchange vows that is not of anybodys and especially the states concern. Instead of what is asked for, is a change of definition. And the reason given is that not changing the definition causes emotional harm.
What we have here is a classic Catch-22.
There are somewhere between 1,200 and 2,000 (depending on state) legal rights and privileges that are accorded only to married couples and cannot be simulated by any other legal arrangement.
But if LGBT people argue about those rights, we are accused of only wanting to be married for the money/privileges. And if we ignore those rights and concentrate on our personal experiences, we are told that the state should not change the "definition of marriage" for our emotional well-being.
So which side do you want to argue from? The emotional side, or the civil rights side?
|
Forgive a poor Englishlich, who has been following the thread for some time, but determinedly keeping his jawbone shut, from begging the question:
What exactly does the legislations of one state of one country have to do with... practices? Policies? For want of a better word, for a global company in regards, to well, anything?
Is Paizo's head office in California or something?
Is California a very significant portion of their continuous revenue stream?
If not, then I have to geniunely ask: what does California's state laws on, well, anything (from age of consent, which is towards the upper half of the world distribution, as I recall off the top of my head to marriage to whatever else have you) have to do with Paizo's company policies and practises, given that Paizo's market is, y'know, global and thus reaching to a far wider audience than just that one American state?
I'm genuinely curious.
California is known to have a large homosexual population so how that state deals with them sets the precedents for the nation in many ways. Outside of that it has no impact on anything outside of it's borders.
|
|
Just like miscegenation laws limited everybody's rights in the same way. Everyone could only marry within the same race.Rights are not directed at couples but at individual. And one man one woman obviously does limit everybodies right to marry in the same way.
Well, here in the US there is a (Constitutional) promise of equal protection, which means that heterosexual couples and homosexual couples have the same right to marry.
As far as i know, nobody ever claimed that black + white was not a marriage. It was a marriage, just an illegal one. Even if preformed in secret it was punishable.
If two men exchange vows that is not of anybodys and especially the states concern. Instead of what is asked for, is a change of definition. And the reason given is that not changing the definition causes emotional harm.
Wow. Nice stretch.
A black person and a white person did not have the right to legally marry each other. This did not infringe on their rights because they both could marry people of their own race. Equal protection satisfied.
Two gay people of the same gender do not have the right to legally marry each other. This does not infringe on their rights because they both could marry people of the opposite gender, just like straight people can. Equal protection satisfied.
The details of how the ban was enforced are irrelevant to the argument about rights.
in all fairness cousins cannot legally marry either, is that a violation of rights?