Re: "Gay" as a trait -- split from Suggestions

[Pactrick Willis]

As a transgender woman, I would requrest you to refrain from adding trans with the likes zoophilia. Zoophilia is a paraphilia, not a sexual orientation, and is highly frowned upon. Zoophilia is beastiality and beastiality is always rape because animals are incapable of consenting. On the other hand, transgender is an identity where a persons gender identity doesn't match their biological sex. They are in no way related and  its quite frankly insulting to see them next to each other in the same sentence. I'm not saying you intended to insult, but as a trans person it came off that way.

Also, transgender people added to this game would be... I don't know... difficult. Transgenderness has no effect on gameplay besides character detail. It depends really. Transgender people fully transitioned look almost indiscernible from their gender identity, so new models for them wouldn't be necessary. However, transgender people need to take hormones all their life to maintain their bodies. But then again, this is the future and we've probably got the technology to make it so that trans people are indiscernable to cis people entirely. But thinking about it, that sounds like something only Glitterworld tech or great Urbworld tech could do, not mining and underground colonies.

What I would do is have it come in different stages. Pawns have a chance to be transgender, but based on their background, they are at different stages of transition and look different. If a trans pawn is from an Urbworld/Glitterworld and isn't poor, then they look like the gender they are and have some biological upgrades (hormone regulator or something) on them. If a trans pawn is from anywhere else and/or has a poor background, they look more like their biological sex. Some gameplay things about transpeople would probably be their moods. Fully transitioned transpeople have a permanent mood buff while untransitioned transpeople have a permanent mood debuff. Sort of like the prostophile trait, except instead of bio-augmented parts its hormone replacement. If you transition an untransitioned transperson, you get a pawn with a better mood that is less likely to break, along with them looking like their gender identity.

I don't know about this ever being implemented in vanilla. It would be super sweet if it was. More representation of minorities is great, especially mine. It takes some more dev time, but I feel like it would be worth it. Definitely would recommend this game more to my trans buddies if trans people were included in vanilla.

I might not agree with your choices, Buts that's a whole other can of worms that would best be left unopened. I feel that, being a Classical liberal, minority's are people who do your gardening and such- Again, another can of worms. I feel that transgenders would be unnecessary, from a game play view. We can assume that, Either transgenders died off, where there was no need to change your sex, or, I assume that many of the glitter worlds are the result of a fascist regime/communist, both extremely intolerant, and as such, no people changed. Realistically speaking, upon landing the trans would go off hormones (None around) and revert to there original self.

[Pactrick Willis]

 Quite seriously, I will speak my mind here. Screw the PC Bull. LGBT people are mentally ill and should seek help for there most -Unfortunate- position. Specifically I would like to say this more to the Trans; Lesbian/Gay/Bi have been observed in the wild, but never until recent history has there been people thinking there are the opposite sex; that is delusion, and they should get help.

[mumblemumble]

I think comparisons to animals, for one is a shit argument to begin with,  animals aren't human. Seals for instance rape and kill penguins just because they can. This doesn't mean raping and killing random things is ok.  Also I don't see why people can't say animals are having chemical issues, hyper inflated sex drives,  or other issues causing it.  Its incredibly hard to tell either way,  but saying animals are gay isn't an argument for it being normal.

As for transgenderism being mentally unwell,  i agree,  every case I've seen that really open up usually have grievous abuse, absolutely no same sex role model,  and a different sex role model they looked up to a lot, chemical issues (prescriptions,  street drugs,  ect)  or physical issues to begin with (excessive testosterone in the womb for some girls,  boys eating a bunch of soy causing estrogen mimickers) a reason for thinking their own gender was inferior / the other superior, or other reasons.  I've seen it too much,  its incredibly sad. I had a trans friend for 5 years who was ftm, eventually talked about what happened,  being raped as a small child, feeling weak and helpless,  and wanting to become a big strong guy become of it,  word for word what she said.  She also defined herself as lesbian for years,  but after 5 years of me being there for her through all sorts of hell,  she confessed she had grown to like me,  and wanted intimacy.  This was a huge problem because it was extremely sudden bringing it up,  and eventually ended in breaking her heart because i rejected her because the hormones made her by no means attractive and frankly disgusting by a straight mans standards for desiring femininity ...  Really is a shame,  but i hurt her badly from that.  After she spiraled into alcoholism m,  i started to piece things together and it all made sense,  compared to before  i would ask her questions and never get it but still  "treat her like a guy".  Except treating her like a guy didn't work,  because she wasn't a guy,  I'd have to watch my step and be very selective how i spoke about anything,  and there would often be tantrums thrown for no explained reason. I had to try and give respect like she was "another dude",  yet put on kid gloves,  tolerate shit talking / other crap that she would throw a fit if u ever turned it around back on her. Would literally push buttons all day then get all hurt if i do it even once back.

So yeah... I think there's dozens of reasons they are mentally unsound.  The only situation im less quick to say this is hermaphrodites, they cannot change the flesh they were born with,  and that us truly difficult, but them i don't mind them being whatever, because genital mutilation sucks.  That said,  these people are extremely rare,  and most definitely caused to be that way from birth. 

[JesterHell]

First, I'd like to call you out on your manipulative attempts to win the debate by virtue of persistence. If I don't reply, or don't make a lengthy response to your arguments, that doesn't automatically mean I agree - or even that you must be right.

In any competitive endeavor if your opponent gives up you do win by default.

I'd like to know where that comes from, because I assume it's a US thing, for two reasons. First, in Europe, freedom of religion, as does any freedom, stops where someone else's freedom begins. If your freedom of religion allows you to discriminate toward other groups, you're infringing on their fundamental rights, and their freedoms.

Yes, "my freedom to swing my arm ends at your freedom to not be hit" is how I've heard that put before, also there are no "fundamental" rights, only privileges given to you by the society that you live in, go somewhere those rights aren't recognized and you won't have them.

Freedom without boundaries is no freedom at all.

This is the most ludicrous thing I've heard in a while, imho freedom with boundaries is not really freedom as freedom is the ability to do what you will, and the text book definition of freedom agrees.

1The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants: we do have some freedom of choice [count noun]: he talked of revoking some of the freedoms
More example sentences Synonyms
1.1Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government: he was a champion of Irish freedom
More example sentences Synonyms
1.2The power of self-determination attributed to the will; the quality of being independent of fate or necessity.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/freedom

Second, in Europe, I can very much decide not to work for a project I don't support. There's two exceptions to that; I can't make those decisions based on race, sexuality, religion, and so forth (because that'd be discrimination, see above), and second, if I am a government employee, I have to put my personal preferences aside and provide equal services for everyone and everything.

I think that only the government should be bound by such laws, If someone in private industry wants to refuse service because of reasons then the consequences shouldn't be legal but economic and social, a business that refuses service can loses customers and a individual could lose friends and if people don't care then its just freewill at work.

So to put it another way, I CAN decide not to make a cake depicting zoophilia - because I think that's statutory rape, but I CANNOT decide not to make a cake for a zoophile - because that would be discrimination based on sexuality. There's a difference.
(actually zoophilia and bestiality are both illegal here, so I probably can refuse, but that's a different point).

But I think you should you able to do it for no reason other then it disgusts you personally, personal freedom and all that, why should your freedom be limited by someone elses emotional stability?

Again, especially in this light, I find it so troubling that a seemingly well reasoned individual, would come here to make such an appalling and misleading argument. I don't always agree with the LGBT community, and I certainly don't always agree with their methods - but to paint them as the cause of the problem is like blaming a slave for rebelling against his master.

A slave that rebels against his master should not be surprised by his fate and a master should not be surprised by a slaves desire for freedom, for reference I personally disagree with slavery but I don't think its wrong from an objective standpoint.

As a relativist I believe that whats right is based on nothing more the subjective values of the society and individual and that there is no correct answer when it comes to questions of right and wrong.

As Nietzsche once said.

You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.

[mumblemumble]

Haha, glad to see i can take a break from responding,  thanks jester.  I admit i don't agree with you entirely on everything,  the philosophical quote at the end im particularly on the fence about,  but i agree with pretty much all you said there.

On the slave thing fluffy ,  this is an overboard comparison. Gay,  les,  trans people are not viewed as property,  nowhere near as oppressed as many people have been in the past,  legal means defend and protect them,  and often times the  "self defense"  they do legally is grossly disproportionate,  shutting down a business and ruining lives over someone's feeling getting "potentially"  hurt emotionally.  This is like if you came up and called me a douche and i pulled out a knife and stabbed you 37 times in the chest.  Yes, its reactionary.  Yes,  you "started"  the conflict.  Yes I'm doing it "to protect myself"  in a really weird way (I'm no in any danger of course it would be to protect my "feelings" )  and yes,  it wouldn't of happened if you didn't call me a douche,  but there's dozens and dozens of better responses,  like,  i don't know,  walking away? Calling you something worse? Smile and shake my head? This is why many people have issues,  the response is generally militant,  and people are getting sick of being pushed around by the smallest resistance being met with lawsuits,  threats,  violence,  ect.  Its unjust to do so, law in itself is not morality,  understand that. Just because law allows something,  does not make it right. Oh also unlike slaves,  LGBT have the choice to avoid these issues by choosing not to act on the feelings they have. Just because you feel something doesn't mean you must act on it.

[RickyMartini]

What media outlet covers it even? Most media gets blasted for even pointing out a rapists country of origin. Most places that i hear stuff about are investigations,  personal accounts,  or other stuff. Mainstream media almost completely ignores it.

Only thing i can think of was the magazine depicting a woman being assaulted,  but AFTER  countless assaults were made.  We can argue it's not all Muslim people,  certainly,  but something is very very wrong with the immigration system,  I've even heard of 35 year old men getting labeled as youth,  and treated as minors because they in no way can verify information,  and people are extremely encouraged not to doubt them on what they say.

I can understand some flexibility,  but there's way too much. And those who are immigrants should be,  if violent or criminal,  deported immediately.

I mean, again, like Mathenaut already said, I think the fact that you are basing your understanding of Europe on sensationalist media says enough.

[Didact04]

Why does this thread even exists? It's an outlet for screaming and ingratitude. There's no place for this here and it should not be provided for people.

I'm sorry about however offended or hurt or what the hell ever people have to say about anything regarding this topic, but this is a game. Just play the fucking game and stop screaming and demanding more things. I don't care who you are.

[Fluffy (l2032)]

@Didact; I tend to agree - but this is in offtopic, and the mods have so far allowed it to continue, so I feel like I have to give a countervoice - if only so random bypassers don't get the wrong idea about this forum.
@Skissor; yep - but see above reasons. I have little hope my voice will convince either Jester or Mumble, but at least others who come by here will hopefully see that their view is not uncontested (and maybe even that it's just plain wrong - one can hope).

In any competitive endeavor if your opponent gives up you do win by default.

Thats the thing. Society - the civilized kind - shouldn't be a competitive endeavour. Neither is a debate - the point is to convince the other. If that point is clearly out of reach, why continue?
(Which is a question I'm asking myself right now, but screw it - I have work to avoid, and a bone to pick.)

there are no "fundamental" rights, only privileges given to you by the society that you live in, go somewhere those rights aren't recognized and you won't have them.

Thankfully, the United Nations would disagree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

freedom with boundaries is not really freedom as freedom is the ability to do what you will, and the text book definition of freedom agrees

That doesn't work in a society. If you define freedom like that, it inevitably means there's a suppresed minority that enjoys no freedoms at all.
Try googling for "freedom in society" instead of just looking up textbook definitions. Here's a decent start: http://www.energygrid.com/freedom/freedom.html

I think that only the government should be bound by such laws, If someone in private industry wants to refuse service because of reasons then the consequences shouldn't be legal but economic and social, a business that refuses service can loses customers and a individual could lose friends and if people don't care then its just freewill at work.

That's an incredibly laissez-faire point of view, which might even work if we had perfect information. Just letting companies do what they want has proven time and again not to work, which is why there's rules and regulations limiting their activities - and ideally independent oversight making sure those rules are abided by.

why should your freedom be limited by someone elses emotional stability?

Why should someone elses freedom be limited by my personal opinion? What makes me (or us) more important that someone else (or them)?

You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.

Let's get philosophical then; ever heard of Kant's categorical imperative?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

Or, in plainer and more familiar terms, the golden rule?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

Equal application of laws to ALL is the foundation of the rule of law, the foundation of the modern state, and the ONLY way EVERYONE can have their fundamental freedoms. The moment you start making exceptions for particular groups, you break down the foundations of freedom. To paraphrase the golden rule; what if you lived in a predominantly gay/black/whatever society? Would you not want to be protected from discrimination and suppression? Without the rule of law - and the boundaries on personal freedoms that brings - you would be at the mercy of the majority's kindness.

Oh, some final points. Europeans have, only 60 years ago - which in the grand scheme of things is quite recently, had a first hand experience with fascism, oppression and the cessation of rule of law. The absolute freedom you're describing is actually much, much closer to fascism than the bounded freedom I'm describing. After all, fascism basically means that one group (be they arians, christians, heterosexuals, or all of the above) have unlimited freedom, at the expense of everyone else.

It is the horrors that happened in the second world war that lead to the creation of the United Nations, the declaration of fundamental human rights, and ultimately the European Union and it's open borders. I personally find it extremely disappointing how quickly we have forgotten these horrors, and how unwilling we are to help those that are experiencing events - war, oppression, etc. - that are (thank god!) now almost impossible to imagine within the EU's borders. There's one thing I can agree on with you, those who abuse our hard-won freedoms should be punished - sent back if need be. But the sporadic (and they are sporadic - 'mundane' crime committed by native citizens isn't quite so interesting to the media) incidents involving immigrants should absolutely not be a reason to allow the suffering of hundreds of thousands of humans to continue, while we look the other way.

[RickyMartini]

Freedom without boundaries is no freedom at all.

This is the most ludicrous thing I've heard in a while, imho freedom with boundaries is not really freedom as freedom is the ability to do what you will, and the text book definition of freedom agrees.

Lol please, this is ridiculous how old are you? Tell me one respectable country that doesn't have "restricted" freedom? Pretty much every first world country lives by the rule of "your freedom ends where my rights begin" so what you are saying is impossible to implement in any society anyway. Every democratic society is a nation with "freedom with boundaries".

Seriously, it's like were debating Sociology 101 with teenagers here. I didn't really want to chime in in this thread anymore but things like this just have to be addressed.

there are no "fundamental" rights, only privileges given to you by the society that you live in, go somewhere those rights aren't recognized and you won't have them.

Ever heard of the united nations?

[milon]

Okay, I'm going to stop this train now.  It's gone way off the tracks and tempers are running a little too high.  Take a break, and thank you for your participation.

If there is any thoughtful discussion you'd still like to have, I invite you to start a new thread about it in the appropriate subforum.  No personal attacks or sustained hostility/venting, please, but on-point discussion & debate are welcome.  I've been lenient with our rules so far, but that isn't helping the forum be the welcoming community that we all want.

If you need a reminder of the forum rules, they're here:
https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=122.0

Let's all work together to keep this forum great!