It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
We agree, more or less, that we like games. Some people like talking about games more than playing them, but I think that still counts to some degree.

The smarter individuals among us also agree that discussing politics and religion are generally bad ideas. I'm not sure we can all agree that such subject matter is also not at all fun. I've never had fun in political or religious debates, anyway. I have my views, you have yours. I don't recall ever being able to influence somebody else's views in the past, so I don't see all that much point in trying. Some people must take some sort of pleasure in it, though, or else they wouldn't waste so much time here doing so!

All I can say is that cigarettes will kill you, weed should be legal, I have a phobia of being around homophobes, the left exists to fight the right, the right exists to fight the left, both sides exist to fight amongst each other, I have no love for religion, there are too many people in the world, most of them are dumb as hell, the ones with all the power have a way of making those morons look sharp, I can't claim to know anything about the opposite sex outside of what my hormones tell me, and we're all a bunch of greasy monkeys that will be forgotten once our mechanical successors wipe us out with a death ray and build a great citadel from our bones.

It is at that point where we, as a people, will be at our most valuable, as human bones will be a satisfyingly crunchy and non-renewable resource. Robots don't steal, of course. Especially not from the great bone citadel. Well, maybe just one won't hurt...
avatar
Skunk: We agree, more or less, that we like games. Some people like talking about games more than playing them, but I think that still counts to some degree.

The smarter individuals among us also agree that discussing politics and religion are generally bad ideas. I'm not sure we can all agree that such subject matter is also not at all fun. I've never had fun in political or religious debates, anyway. I have my views, you have yours. I don't recall ever being able to influence somebody else's views in the past, so I don't see all that much point in trying. Some people must take some sort of pleasure in it, though, or else they wouldn't waste so much time here doing so!

All I can say is that cigarettes will kill you, weed should be legal, I have a phobia of being around homophobes, the left exists to fight the right, the right exists to fight the left, both sides exist to fight amongst each other, I have no love for religion, there are too many people in the world, most of them are dumb as hell, the ones with all the power have a way of making those morons look sharp, I can't claim to know anything about the opposite sex outside of what my hormones tell me, and we're all a bunch of greasy monkeys that will be forgotten once our mechanical successors wipe us out with a death ray and build a great citadel from our bones.

It is at that point where we, as a people, will be at our most valuable, as human bones will be a satisfyingly crunchy and non-renewable resource. Robots don't steal, of course. Especially not from the great bone citadel. Well, maybe just one won't hurt...
Coldn't have said it much better meself. Especially the part about the bone citadel. ;)
I've always wondered how the Republicans will feel in 20-30 years when it's extremely clear that they came down on the "wrong side of history" in the whole gay marriage thing. It's pretty clear that in 20-30 we'll look back at the opposers as bigots, about like we do for people who made excuses for Jim Crowe-ism. Sure, there will always be people against it, just as there are people still for Jim Crowe-ism now, but the sympathizers will be on the outside and merely tolerated so long as their beliefs remain in the realm of free speech.

I know some people are prickling right now, but seriously, there's ideas from only 100 years ago that one can imagine a hillbilly holding today. This one is no different and the controversy is simply growing pains a portion of the population always seems to have admitting to themselves, "I was wrong."

Seriously, sometimes I think the best life skill I ever picked up was learning how to admit that to myself and be okay with it. I know I seem like an intractable, opinionated prick, but I assure you if you'd met me 20 years ago you'd have found someone almost so unlike me you'd have laughed seeing how I am today.
avatar
DieRuhe: Actually, this is the "general discussion" forum. If you're going to say that to the OP, you may as well say it to at least half of the other threads. :-)
avatar
Licurg: Don't give me any ideas :P Still, I would prefer if we kept political issues off the forums. Such things tend to degenerate very fast, and it would be a shame if that happened on GOG.
Agreed, they do tend to get out of hand, which is too bad. But I do feel that discussing things on a forum can be useful - I've often found myself responding to posts, here and elsewhere, and then I start THINKING about what I'm writing, and then asking myself, "Do I really think that? What am I saying here?" So if nothing else, it allows me to examine my own beliefs more closely before "putting them out there." I think one of the best ways to know yourself is to try to explain yourself to others.

Of course, I'm not talking about the "I'm smart and you're dumb so bite it" posts, but the ones that actually have some thought and rationale behind them, whether we agree with them or not.

From what I've seen of specific political forums, they're even worse when it comes to zealots.
avatar
orcishgamer: I've always wondered how the Republicans will feel in 20-30 years when it's extremely clear that they came down on the "wrong side of history" in the whole gay marriage thing. It's pretty clear that in 20-30 we'll look back at the opposers as bigots, about like we do for people who made excuses for Jim Crowe-ism. Sure, there will always be people against it, just as there are people still for Jim Crowe-ism now, but the sympathizers will be on the outside and merely tolerated so long as their beliefs remain in the realm of free speech.

I know some people are prickling right now, but seriously, there's ideas from only 100 years ago that one can imagine a hillbilly holding today. This one is no different and the controversy is simply growing pains a portion of the population always seems to have admitting to themselves, "I was wrong."

Seriously, sometimes I think the best life skill I ever picked up was learning how to admit that to myself and be okay with it. I know I seem like an intractable, opinionated prick, but I assure you if you'd met me 20 years ago you'd have found someone almost so unlike me you'd have laughed seeing how I am today.
Marcus Bachmann is going to look even worse then 20-30 years :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCu67Dw05wc
avatar
Telika: Actually, I don't have the impression that things degenerate that fast, on gog.
Just try making a thread about piracy and see what happens.
Is the OP broken from some other thread? I don't get who the argument is referring to.
avatar
Telika: Do we agree about the liberty of cults ? There is a strong trend of islamophobia (partly as a reaction to islamism) that makes me doubt it. Many people consider christianism as inherently superior to islam, and lately, Switzerland has voted against the right to build mosquees (while christian churches can still be built).
There is a difference between cults and religions. The examples you gave are religions.
avatar
orcishgamer: I've always wondered how the Republicans will feel in 20-30 years when it's extremely clear that they came down on the "wrong side of history" in the whole gay marriage thing. It's pretty clear that in 20-30 we'll look back at the opposers as bigots, about like we do for people who made excuses for Jim Crowe-ism. Sure, there will always be people against it, just as there are people still for Jim Crowe-ism now, but the sympathizers will be on the outside and merely tolerated so long as their beliefs remain in the realm of free speech.

I know some people are prickling right now, but seriously, there's ideas from only 100 years ago that one can imagine a hillbilly holding today. This one is no different and the controversy is simply growing pains a portion of the population always seems to have admitting to themselves, "I was wrong."

Seriously, sometimes I think the best life skill I ever picked up was learning how to admit that to myself and be okay with it. I know I seem like an intractable, opinionated prick, but I assure you if you'd met me 20 years ago you'd have found someone almost so unlike me you'd have laughed seeing how I am today.
avatar
Elmofongo: Marcus Bachmann is going to look even worse then 20-30 years :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCu67Dw05wc
Holy shit, that's the best thing I've seen on Youtube in weeks, lol!
avatar
Telika: Do we agree about the liberty of cults ? There is a strong trend of islamophobia (partly as a reaction to islamism) that makes me doubt it. Many people consider christianism as inherently superior to islam, and lately, Switzerland has voted against the right to build mosquees (while christian churches can still be built).
avatar
MonstaMunch: There is a difference between cults and religions. The examples you gave are religions.
Yes, religions are the ones you personally like, cults are the ones you don't. See? Easy:)
Post edited September 25, 2012 by orcishgamer
avatar
orcishgamer: Yes, religions are the ones you personally like, cults are the ones you don't. See? Easy:)
Ok, they are all cults then... :p
avatar
MonstaMunch: There is a difference between cults and religions. The examples you gave are religions.
The funny thing is that the difference is mainly who's referring to whom, aka the "we are religion, they are cult" distinction. if you objectively try to find the difference, the lines blur.
Oh well, in the end it's all about the numbers.

Edit: Ninja'd :(
Post edited September 25, 2012 by AndyBuzz
avatar
Telika: 5) Homosexuality.

Now, this, just like other gender issues, is a matter in mutation. I'd say that, on this forum (and most forum I've seen), homophobia is accepted as not cool. But, there are still some vocal homophobes who feel more at ease, more backed up by society, than, say, racists would. And homosexual marriage, and homosexual adoption, are being currently discussed. These discussion will certainly look as stupid in 30 years as the old discussions about black people in public transports and in school, or about women's vote. But we're not there yet. However, it still seems that there is already a dominant tendency to accept homosexuality. We're still at the "different strokes"/"passenger 57" level (when main characters are homosexual, it's a "thing", even if we are starting to see -with Torchwood for instance- the first fictions that are not about the sexual orientation of the hero. We're still not colourblind, when it comes to this. But I'd say we're on the way. Few politicians, even right-winged, are openly homophobic. And when they ask to maintain restrictions of rights for homosexuals, they generally do the effort of trying to not look directly homophobic. It's an evolution.
I just can't wrap my brain around why people oppose gay marriage. Why are you allowed to marry the partner of your choice, but I'm not? I'm confident that in twenty years, we'll all look back at this and laugh at the sheer idiocy of it all.
avatar
Skunk: /snip
It's true that political debates can degenerate very quickly and I usually try to leave once they do, but you do get interesting discussions and as DieRuhe said, if your opposite number is himself/herself knowledgeable, then it can force you to really think about what you believe and accept the rationality of the other person even if you disagree. This is counterbalanced by the idiots who have no rationality, but one does one's best to ignore them (if sometimes unsuccessfully).

For instance, I'm a fairly liberal guy, but I've enjoyed my debates and discussions with HerefortheBeer and Krypsin who are conservative/libertarian. I disagree with them, heartily on some issue, but they are both intelligent and knowledgeable posters on economics and politics who have a different world view than myself. I can respect that. That I always win doesn't diminish the fact that they post logical, intelligent arguments without flaming. (just for you, if you're reading this guys :P) I've also been on the same side as HerefortheBeer during some discussions/debates on the forum.

You just have to be picky about who you choose to engage (sometimes difficult, especially if the thread has already blown up with inflammatory rhetoric which makes people emotional instead of rational) and you just have to be careful with wording - on the internet even two otherwise nice, rational people can have their debate/discussion degenerate into a flame war without either of them meaning to do so. With those caveats in mind, it is worth it ... (sometimes) :P
Post edited September 25, 2012 by crazy_dave
the problem with eugenics was that it wasn't a science, rather a pseudoscience. I could see a "neoeugenic" movement with REAL science backing it up. And we already have the technology to go through it with genetic screening, genome sequencing, reprogenetics... we woudln't be talking about "eliminating undersireables". a) the welfare state would support any and all disabled people during the transition and b) "undesirables" wouldn't be determined based on pseudoscience, but rather on science: "oh, you and your spouse have a XX chance of passing this, this, this and that allelic variants with strong correlation to [horrible disease], we'll make sure your offspring doesn't get 'em"

Wouldn't it actually be extremely ethical to remove all the suffering that certain genotypes have upon the human condition?

Abortion is another thing that you don't mention that is very controversial and I see moving into greater legality and acceptance in the coming decades.

The future is a technocratic state were legislation is based upon real science in order to minimize suffering and maximize happiness, productivity and, well, science.
Post edited September 25, 2012 by Tychoxi
avatar
Telika: Actually, I don't have the impression that things degenerate that fast, on gog.
avatar
jefequeso: Just try making a thread about piracy and see what happens.
This went pretty well. :P

avatar
Telika: Do we agree about the liberty of cults ? There is a strong trend of islamophobia (partly as a reaction to islamism) that makes me doubt it. Many people consider christianism as inherently superior to islam, and lately, Switzerland has voted against the right to build mosquees (while christian churches can still be built).
avatar
MonstaMunch: There is a difference between cults and religions. The examples you gave are religions.
Yes. Sorry. French. "Liberté de culte" is the term we use for "freedom of religion". We use "culte" in a broader sense. For the english "cult", we say "secte".

So, my bad, wrong wording.

Edit:
however, yes, i oppose islamism to islam (islamism as a fundamentalist proselyte version of islam), saying that today's islamophobia (hostility to islam) is due to an assimilation of islam and islamism in the eyes of christians.

and i don't think we have a similar opposition in the vocabulary for christians. we have christianism as an equivalent of islam, but no christianismism for the fundamentalist christian equivalent of islamism.
Post edited September 25, 2012 by Telika