Glad I could entertain you. I am not able to enforce anything, it is either voluntary or job of the courts to hear and decide. I do not think world revolves around my beliefs. Maybe you think it revolves around yours and bring in that theist/atheist divide. I believe that theist borrow from a ready made value system in the form of religion. Atheist by their choice have responsibility to develop a moral and self consistent value system. When developed, I doubt it will condone insulting people unlike you either.
Would you have supported renaming the Brahim if ..
- Thread starter Laxite
- Start date
Like 100 years ancient vs 5000 years ancient?
Beaushizzle
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
Troll confirmed.
MercenarySnake
Kept you waiting huh?
My God, this turned into a great big religious debate for the grand purpose of what exactly?
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
Yes.
You and I are concerned with different things in this conversation. You brought up a fictional story [Fallout], and the apparent dismay by real people about fictional people. I cannot take this perceived affront seriously, and personally think that it casts doubt on the sanity of those who do. Am I mistaken, or are you suggesting they have ~or be given the legal right to inflict their censorship upon authors in every country on Earth? (...and seem to be suggesting that they lack the maturity to accept imagined tales that contradict their own beliefs... Is this any way essentially different from taking offense at the existence of elves or dragons in fiction also?)
There is a difference between fiction as fiction, and fiction as fact. An author can write a story about Ronald Reagan personally invading a country ~Rambo-style, and freeing POWs, but the line is crossed when a news corporation prints the same tale as fact. Fallout has never been presented as fact; there is no affront to correct ~unless the people you mention cannot abide others freely thinking as they wish [and/or whenever they write fiction].
A strange thing happened a few years ago... A studio released a game with a playable Kali in it... And the character was over-sexualized and made some people very uncomfortable; and the company caved to their pressure and re-drew the art to be more prudish and blandly acceptable... and yet, just google Kali and one will see the traditional art that depicts Kali as violent and over-sexualized. Rather hypocritical is it not?
**Do they take offense at the Kali Linux distro? [The one known specifically for penetration.]
Last edited:
Every religious belief deserves to be mocked, and every sensibility needs to be offended. That includes atheism and its various offsprings. People absolutely need a thicker skin when it comes to their prefered metaphysical point of view because in the end it doesn't really matter. It's a personal matter for everyone and it shouldn't matter what someone else says about your belief.
That being said, I don't really get what's offensive about "Brahmin", but
Are christians offended by the M7 Priest artillery, or the Bishop or Deacon? I mean, they are machines designed for killing, that's certainly not something I'd want associated with representatives of my faith?
Yo, Laxite, are you also offended by the Shiva Star pulse-power-device?
That being said, I don't really get what's offensive about "Brahmin", but
Are christians offended by the M7 Priest artillery, or the Bishop or Deacon? I mean, they are machines designed for killing, that's certainly not something I'd want associated with representatives of my faith?
Yo, Laxite, are you also offended by the Shiva Star pulse-power-device?
Mishmash
First time out of the vault
In Assassin's creed 2 the main antagonist was the pope (even if alexander VI was also a corrupt,maybe incestuous tyran),and in assassin's creed's saga is clearly stated the all monoteist religions are wrong.
i'm an agnostic and i'm not offended by it,but also my catholic friends who played the game weren't offended by it. Not even the vatican was against that freaking game
[h=2][/h][h=2][/h]
i'm an agnostic and i'm not offended by it,but also my catholic friends who played the game weren't offended by it. Not even the vatican was against that freaking game
[h=2][/h][h=2][/h]
Irwin John Finster
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
I think it's pretty obvious this guy is just trying to drum up fake internet outrage for nothing. We have all gone to great length to explain facts about this being a non-issue and all he does is say "my logical argument says this is an issue." His "logical arguments" and statements are so false he actually has NMA defending Bethesda. Think about that for a moment.
There is a reason his posts are instantly locked on Bethesda forums.
There is a reason his posts are instantly locked on Bethesda forums.
Last edited:
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
THis thread is still going? Goddamn.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kinda reminds me to something I saw while browsing old cartoons by Warner. It's really great stuff, if you want to get a glimpse of the mindset that people had 80 years ago! But the way how Warner warns it's viewers about it, is really interesting and in my opinion a good way to deal with it.
Last edited:
Spacemunkey
Vault Senior Citizen
If we're going to start changing names in this game I say we start with Fallout, I'd say more than a few people are offended by that in the game.
Indeed.
That reminds me, some time ago when The Game Station rebranded itself as Polaris some guy in the comment section claimed to be offended by the name because it might remember some old people of the Cold War and impending nuclear doom because of the Polaris SLBM. He actually realised how stupid that was, though.
Spacemunkey
Vault Senior Citizen
This culture of people being offended over everything just boggles my mind. As an adult I have never expected some random corporation to make concessions in their business model simply to suit me. If I don't like something I simply don't buy it/read it/watch it, but I will not spend my time and energy protesting a corporation because i don't like said products design choices. I would also have zero respect for any form of media that bends to the PC/religious agenda, at that point you have lost all credibility in my eyes. Maybe it's because the group of people I hung around growing up did nothing but talk smack to each other, hell by today's standards I don't even think we were friends, and I have a thick skin because of it.
whirlingdervish
Brahmin Cavalry Commander
If what we see in Fallout regarding the use of the term Brahma/Brahmin is offensive, I wonder if other companies are being scrutinized for their less tactful use of the same:
Mishmash
First time out of the vault
by the way,why is this topic on fallout 4 discussion board? brahmins appear in every fallout
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Because the guy getting offended hasn't even played the previous games.
These are all good points. I would think that if one is writing a fictional tale, I would be more worried about creating the atmosphere, the characters and the plot. Why would I start with a well-known figure like Regan/Clinton/Trump anybody like that and develop a story around it, unless I specifically wanted to insult him? Then I should have the guts to actually write a non-fictional book about Regan/Clinton/Trump whoever. Doing other wise is just being coward and dishonest and hiding behind the poetic license.
I spent some time on reading about why should one person's opinion matter and freedom of speech and rights. As you may be aware, there is a non-religious theory called the Social Contract that was developed in the 17th century. Many of the constitutions are based on it, including the US constitution which follows the Locke version of this theory and I will talk about it in a bit. All the variants start with the assumption premise that there is a state of absolute freedom, but in order to form a civil society you have to give up some of it so that you can co-exist and co-operate.
The Hobbes version of the theory says that you must give up some of your rights that existed in your natural state so that I can cede mine and we can live in harmony. In our case this would mean that I agree not to dis you so that you don't dis me.
The Rousseau version of this theory says that it is the collective will as opposed to egotist considerations that decides what is wrong or right and then we become a part of that and the collective will decide what is wrong or right (laws). In our case it means that if there is a law against religious slander so that different religions can get along then they should be applied to this case.
The Locke version says that giving up of rights happens naturally when people make a moral decision not to hurt each other and come together to create a state which need impose no restriction on their rights. In this case it can mean anything. Someone will say, as in a recent post here, my morals and rights allow me to 'mock any religion, question every belief and if you don't line it, it is your fault because you are easily offended'.
Now US constitution adopted this concept at time when it was a small, homogeneous population that wanted to cede from a much larger empire. We have seen in recent times that as the nation got bigger and heterogenous, people do not have the same notion of what 'moral' means, some people downright do not want to be constrained by anything and want to be in the 'natural free state' which is not possible unless you live on an unconnected island. We need to evaluate the Constitution and see what still is applicable and what is not. We have seen the result of not doing this in numerous free speech abuses and once you think a little bit another right that has harmed innocent civilians and claimed many lives comes to mind, but off topic here.
1> First fallout game I played.
2> Till before Fallout 3 when Bethesda was not aware of, the name choice was unintentional. After Fallout 3 release they knew.