Would you have supported renaming the Brahim if ..

Would support renaming Brahmin if he was named after priest of your faith?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 13.3%

  • No

    Votes: 26 86.7%
  • Total voters
    30
No I am not offended by the Shiva Start pulse-power-device.
Every religious belief deserves to be mocked, and every sensibility needs to be offended. That includes atheism and its various offsprings.: That's a good scientific attitude. Whether we like it or not, religions are not scientific, large number of people adopt them, and what you are professing is in the social contract terms (see my post on that), called the state of absolute freedom or the 'Natural state'. Not possible for everyone to be in this state in a civilized society since their interests will collide and will lead to unrest and even wars.
 
Last edited:
Are you typing all this gibberish because you think it's a valid argument? Nothing you say is correct, and literally no one here agrees with you. Stop spamming 4 posts in a row, stop spamming other internet forums, and go do something productive with your life.

None of us desire to live in a country run by religious fanatics that dictate what is and is not acceptable based on what hurts their personal feelings.

Welcome to my ignore list.
 
Irwin John Finster said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think my posts are locked on Bethesda because they only believe in their freedom of speech.
Look at the poll numbers, do you really think I were 'drumming up fake Internet outrage', I would not get more than 2 votes? I can get more than 2 votes in my own house!
 
Last edited:
Irwin John Finster said:
Are you typing all this gibberish because you think it's a valid argument? Nothing you say is correct, and literally no one here agrees with you. Stop spamming 4 posts in a row, stop spamming other internet forums, and go do something productive with your life.

None of us desire to live in a country run by religious fanatics that dictate what is and is not acceptable based on what hurts their personal feelings.

Welcome to my ignore list.
Click to expand...
It is valid argument because many constitutions and legal systems in the world are based on the Social Contract and it explicitly talks about rights. I think freedom of speech is misused when one uses it to address real religions in video games. All the examples people are giving about games killing this God and that, are just more cases in point.
Thanks for ignore list, one less annoyance to deal with. Make sure you stick with it though, you said the same thing yesterday.
I posted many messages because there were many that had made distinct points. But if one thinks in terms all or nothing, they will look the same.
About spending too much time, realize this is holiday season here.
 
Last edited:
laxite,Freedom is more important than people's feelings and the state should never be able to modify or censor anything.
for example,Germany censored Wolfenstein:the new order (the first game of this famous and important saga). The censorship changed the word nazism with "regime",changed swasticas with another symbol and so on. Can't you see how wrong it is? this is like try to make people forget about nazism becose governement and pression gruops are worried that nazism is a too blunt theme to appear in vieogame in germany in 2015. Also censorship treads on the personal freedom and cretivity of an artist/producer and on personal freedom of the consumer who cannot buy something with the money for which he has worked for
 
Laxite said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why limit yourself to the mundane? (Worse... why hope to limit others to the mundane?)

1_zpsiyuetx3d.jpg


3_zpswdbrbnz3.jpg



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.
Click to expand...
Read 1984, and Hellstrom's Hive sometime [soon]. This may be true for a unified one-world, but that's neither what we have, nor what we should sanely pursue... like moths to a flame.
 
Last edited:
@Walpkunt:
Your posts fall into these categories:
1> Early posts: You disagree, which is fine, this is what the debate is for.
2> Giving examples like: This offends Walpkunt so remove this. It just proves that you are easier to offend than me. I am only talking about one thing that has offended me in many years.
3>Giving me examples of similar situations in game: Which is great, it just gives me more examples of how frequently it is done. Keep it coming.
4> Building a consensus against me as a person: with pretty much copy paste posts, he is just like this or that, ignore him etc. and personal attacks, which is not cool, IMHO. It is borderline flaming.


Why don't you drop that and respond with actual arguments which Freedom of Expression in Arts guys are doing? If you look at the forum, there is a plethora of folks against my argument and I am the only one defending. Don't you think that means I will post frequently and do around 50% of posts? So drop the too many posts offending me attitude and to throw an argument back, 'develop a thick skin'?
 
Last edited:
I think the only thing caregory 2 proves is that you are unable to understand pretty unsubtle sarcasm.

Also that last paragraph didn't make any sense.
I am also only asking you to keep your replies to a single post, double posting is already breaking forum rules and makes the poster look like a noob.... Quintuple posting? That's beyond the pale of not knowing how to use a forum or follow etiquette. You do know there is an "Edit" button right? Maybe you should develop forum rule following skills...
 
@Gizmojunk
Thanks for making actual arguments and taking the pains to post the pictures.
1> I don't see anything offensive in Reagan's portrayal. He is man, shown as a man (as against as a beast), shown in patriotic colors, it is possible you could kill him in the game, but I think it is extremely unlikely that you would have Reagan Steaks, Reagan Hides and Kill Regans massacres.
2> Social Contract only needed in homogeneous on world: It is already pretty much one-world as far as media and communications go, and it is heterogeneous which means differing conflicting views are likely to arise. If we routinely go against these views as an expression of freedom of speech, then we should expect a conflict filled world and outside video games this time.

Thanks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Walpkunt: I am hitting reply with quotes and sometime reply which is what is shown to me next to the message. I do not see any Edit button on your posts. You have 8291 posts, may be that gives you some privilege to edit other's posts? About sarcasm, I don't think anything you shown in that category falls in the category of 'Show existing class of humans as deformed beasts, kill them, hold massacres of them, eat their meat and hide' kind. So I had to assume that it could not be sarcastic and you were genuinely affected. I don't know why the last para did not make sense? It uses common English, some math and some sarcasm.
 
You don't see the GREEN edit post option under your own messages? Maybe you should look into getting some glasses before complainning about the name of mutated cows on a game....
 
@Walpknut: That would mean I will just have one post that keeps on changing and becomes a response to disparate points and a large number of replies under-which it is then hidden!?
Why don't you follow that logic about your own posts? You will have one post on page 1 and people reading just page 6 will never see it.
Besides your post with a large image and a quoted banner at the bottom take up so much screen space and are partly responsible for the page sprawl. My points about Social Contract are becoming insignificant by the 4 posts that you have with a picture that does not say anything about this thread and then another unrelated quoted box. May be that is the strategy, eh? When you cannot make a logical point, drown it out in unrelated scooby-do spam?
 
Last edited:
@Walkumpt: Why did you not hit the 'green edit button next to your own post' #113 to make that personal attack?
@Walkumpt: Post #117: They blocked me out of Bethesda because of this, and I quote: 'No religious discussions are allowed in this board even though they may be present in the game. There is swearing in the game but we don't allow swearing in the board as an example (if you don't understand what 'as an example' means, it does not mean I was swearing on that board, but that this is another example of something in the game but they don't allow in the board. I thought it was a good point. But still think if you are foolish enough to put a real religious icon in the game (foolish not because they are sacred or deserve special treatment, but because it may inflame a large group of people) then you have an obligation to allow discussion of it in your board.
@Walkump post #117: No not five but you only posted 4 which took the space of 10
@Walkump post #117: I would like to understand how my posts are irrational, but you are not able to do that, you just know how to flame. Hard as it may sound, Freedom of Speech in Arts is not a rational argument. It is a utopian one. Nothing rational can justify limiting your TAM (total available market) by exercising freedom of speech offensively.
 
Last edited:
Because I didn't write 5 posts in a row? Do you even understand how forums work? This is why they blocked you on Beth Forums I gather, not only are you completely irrational but you can't even follow basic instructions like "don't post 5 messages in a row, edit your previous post if you want to add something"...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top