Do Gays Not Exist in Bioware's Star Wars?

[Thanatos34]

By all means, ignore my point to engage in yet another ad hominem attack. I specifically said that if you had proof, then I would answer it, yet you ignored this entirely to post exactly what I had just said.

In your example, you would have to know that John is a pathological liar.

The fact that someone is a pathological liar is only one way to impeach a witness with a justified ad hominem attack.

Another way is to show someone has bias [http://books.google.com/books?id=NUiqfszTvV0C&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=bias+ad+hominem+testimony&source=bl&ots=S37QkfDCYi&sig=KYi8qYKugUprbUAeiYW9yvf_Xng&hl=en&ei=91MKSti_A4mmM_OxhdoL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1]. That's why I said you were a homophobe: a homophobe is biased when it comes to issues of homosexuality. Hence the relevance and the lack of a logical fallacy.

The fallacy occurs from your lack of evidence. As I pointed out.

As well as your consistent failure to produce such evidence.

Apparently you are incapable of drawing a logical conclusion from my example, as follows:

You must know John is a pathological liar to call him on that issue, so you must know I am a homophobe to call me on this one. That was my point, and since you don't know me, and you have entirely zero evidence for calling me one, you are no longer debating, you are merely being an ass.

Also, now that I think about it, proving someone has bias is a bullshit argument. By the same logic, one could say that a pro-gay person is unqualified to state their opinion on such an issue, or unqualified to be listened to, because they are biased towards homosexuals.

 

[Alex_P]

Less snippy argumentation, please.

-- Alex

 

[Thanatos34]

By all means, ignore my point to engage in yet another ad hominem attack. I specifically said that if you had proof, then I would answer it, yet you ignored this entirely to post exactly what I had just said.

In your example, you would have to know that John is a pathological liar.

The fact that someone is a pathological liar is only one way to impeach a witness with a justified ad hominem attack.

Another way is to show someone has bias [http://books.google.com/books?id=NUiqfszTvV0C&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=bias+ad+hominem+testimony&source=bl&ots=S37QkfDCYi&sig=KYi8qYKugUprbUAeiYW9yvf_Xng&hl=en&ei=91MKSti_A4mmM_OxhdoL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1]. That's why I said you were a homophobe: a homophobe is biased when it comes to issues of homosexuality. Hence the relevance and the lack of a logical fallacy.

The fallacy occurs from your lack of evidence. As I pointed out.

Lack of evidence is not a fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

Also, now that I think about it, proving someone has bias is a bullshit argument. By the same logic, one could say that a pro-gay person is unqualified to state their opinion on such an issue, or unqualified to be listened to, because they are biased towards homosexuals.

There's a difference between what is a fallacy-free response to a person making an argument and to a person giving testimonial evidence you still don't seem to grasp.

I didn't say it was a logical fallacy, merely that it was a fallacy, i.e. a fallacious argument, meaning a false argument.

Do you have a point, besides ignoring my actual arguments, or are you just satisfied with being an ass, and picking and choosing what you answer?

 

[Thanatos34]

Less snippy argumentation, please.

-- Alex

This isn't argumentation, he is merely name-calling.

 

[Thanatos34]

By all means, ignore my point to engage in yet another ad hominem attack. I specifically said that if you had proof, then I would answer it, yet you ignored this entirely to post exactly what I had just said.

In your example, you would have to know that John is a pathological liar.

The fact that someone is a pathological liar is only one way to impeach a witness with a justified ad hominem attack.

Another way is to show someone has bias [http://books.google.com/books?id=NUiqfszTvV0C&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=bias+ad+hominem+testimony&source=bl&ots=S37QkfDCYi&sig=KYi8qYKugUprbUAeiYW9yvf_Xng&hl=en&ei=91MKSti_A4mmM_OxhdoL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1]. That's why I said you were a homophobe: a homophobe is biased when it comes to issues of homosexuality. Hence the relevance and the lack of a logical fallacy.

The fallacy occurs from your lack of evidence. As I pointed out.

Lack of evidence is not a fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

Also, now that I think about it, proving someone has bias is a bullshit argument. By the same logic, one could say that a pro-gay person is unqualified to state their opinion on such an issue, or unqualified to be listened to, because they are biased towards homosexuals.

There's a difference between what is a fallacy-free response to a person making an argument and to a person giving testimonial evidence you still don't seem to grasp.

I didn't say it was a logical fallacy, merely that it was fallacy.

1) Please click on my links and read the material before responding to me: if you click on that link, you will see that the page is titled "Fallacy" and addresses fallacies other than logical ones. The url is not a perfect description of the content of the webpage it links to.

2) You said: "ad hominem attacks, unless you have proof of your claims" and an ad hominem attack *is* a logical fallacy.

Do you have a point, besides ignoring my arguments, or are you just satisfied with being an ass?

My point is that it is perfectly acceptable to disbelieve your testimonial evidence that your friend is not bisexual.

Dear god, it's like talking to a small child. Fine, we will do this the hard way.

On what grounds do you say that it is acceptable to disbelieve my evidence?

Your Answer: Because Thanatos is homophobic.

Let us examine the evidence for and against your answer.

For this statement:
-ERROR: NO DATA FOUND-

Against this statement:
1. I was *kicked out* of my church because I told them they were being unchristian and practicing bigotry if they didn't allow homosexuals to come to service.
2. Two of my best friends, Jon and Alex, are both gay. If I were homophobic, then this would make no sense.

Now, the way the debate goes is you present your side. Be my guest.

 

[Thanatos34]

By all means, ignore my point to engage in yet another ad hominem attack. I specifically said that if you had proof, then I would answer it, yet you ignored this entirely to post exactly what I had just said.

In your example, you would have to know that John is a pathological liar.

The fact that someone is a pathological liar is only one way to impeach a witness with a justified ad hominem attack.

Another way is to show someone has bias [http://books.google.com/books?id=NUiqfszTvV0C&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=bias+ad+hominem+testimony&source=bl&ots=S37QkfDCYi&sig=KYi8qYKugUprbUAeiYW9yvf_Xng&hl=en&ei=91MKSti_A4mmM_OxhdoL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1]. That's why I said you were a homophobe: a homophobe is biased when it comes to issues of homosexuality. Hence the relevance and the lack of a logical fallacy.

The fallacy occurs from your lack of evidence. As I pointed out.

Lack of evidence is not a fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

Also, now that I think about it, proving someone has bias is a bullshit argument. By the same logic, one could say that a pro-gay person is unqualified to state their opinion on such an issue, or unqualified to be listened to, because they are biased towards homosexuals.

There's a difference between what is a fallacy-free response to a person making an argument and to a person giving testimonial evidence you still don't seem to grasp.

I didn't say it was a logical fallacy, merely that it was fallacy.

1) Please click on my links and read the material before responding to me: if you click on that link, you will see that the page is titled "Fallacy" and addresses fallacies other than logical ones. The url is not a perfect description of the content of the webpage it links to.

2) You said: "ad hominem attacks, unless you have proof of your claims" and an ad hominem attack *is* a logical fallacy.

Do you have a point, besides ignoring my arguments, or are you just satisfied with being an ass?

My point is that it is perfectly acceptable to disbelieve your testimonial evidence that your friend is not bisexual.

Dear god, it's like talking to a small child. Fine, we will do this the hard way.

On what grounds do you say that it is acceptable to disbelieve my evidence?

Your Answer: Because Thanatos is homophobic.

Let us examine the evidence for and against your answer.

For this statement:
-ERROR: NO DATA FOUND-

Against this statement:
1. I was *kicked out* of my church because I told them they were being unchristian and practicing bigotry if they didn't allow homosexuals to come to service.
2. Two of my best friends, Jon and Alex, are both gay. If I were homophobic, then this would make no sense.

Now, the way the debate goes is you present your side. Be my guest.

My side is presented in the prior responses I have made to your posts. I see no need to clutter up the thread by rehashing them.

No, your whole side was taking a single quote that I had said entirely out of context. I was attempting to get you to see how absurd this is when it is weighted against the other side by making it crystal clear exactly what the evidence was, so there was no way you could confuse them, since you seemed to continually do so.

So humor me. Is there any other reason that you think I'm homophobic besides the single quote where I say I don't like homosexuals that shove their homosexuality in my face?

 

[Writero]

Allright.. behave you two.. ... (Back from having a life)

I have giving youre arguments much thought thanatos34 (You're not homophobic by the way, as you are debating with a gay guy.. that would be me), It all sound very logical. However I detected a flaw.

We are going back to the fundamentals of choice. "Eating a sandwich or going for a snack bar" That is a very clear choice, with sexuality as a whole not even mentioning the fact that there is a certain psychological element. The choice of lunch is only a very small one. It doenst affect you in a very deep way. This does not seem to be with the choice of partners.

This choice affects you on a very basic level. However, is the choice of sexuality not already being made in the womb of the women? This is not a concious one either. I'm attracted to males. I have been this way since I'd discovered how that little thing works. I have made no concious choice. I have tried it with women, but alas that always ended in a mutual Armageddon. If you are right, then I can make a choice to go with women once more and forget that Ive dated man. It is not that simple. I just do not get a stiffy in the neighbourhood of women (To put it very very crudely.)

To point out that the LGBT community is just plain wrong because they have an agenda is not much of an argument if you think about it. They are people with many lives and many way's to live. To just assume they are against that choice is ludicrous. They do however fight against the stigma that would be presented if that theory would be pushed trough. Consider what would happen if this would be generally be accepted. You would argue that it would be true and we all will be living happily with these choices. This would be naief. The stiff fact remains that not only the religion would pounce on this as a few vultures who went without oxes for a few years, the would prosecute and put the people who made the wrong choice in the asylum but the people who do not like the gay people would jump up and try to convert us to the heterosexual path.

Before you say that I'm being very defensive, consider this, you haven't walked in a gay mans shoes. You have not really an idea what these kind sayings mean or do to a person who has come out.
To state another thing for you to think about; "A gay duck, can the duck make a choice to be straight?"

Greets and salutations,

Writero (Who is his his owne gay jedi in these games)

 

[13lackfriday]

Call it prejudice, but I think EA's ownership of the company has something to do with it.
They're pretty famously retarded when it comes to cultural sensitivity, usually just opting for whatever pleases the greater majority.

One of the characters in KOTOR used her sentient droid as a sex toy :shudder:

Hahaha, I remember that.

I actually went and fetched back that poor, lost soul so he could continue in his rather deviant servitude.

 

[jthm]

C3P0 any one?

 

[Thurmer]

The Mandalorians in Star Wars (boba fetts people) don't care if someones homosexual or not, they instead place importance on the individuals abilities to raise a family unit and in the future help strengthen their race and conquer worlds. We can learn alot from these people.

 

[hyperdrachen]

I really wish people did not care period. Same sex relationships really shouldn't draw this much controversy. I see the problem as two fold, one being a bit of an old fashion prejudice against them, the second being those that support it creating a bit of a scene of it. Let me clarify. I've not seen a movie, TV show, or video game, where a character in a homosexual relationship does not have that fact overshadowing any and all other character development. It reduces the character to "porn depth" where they are thier sexuality and nothing else. It's not to say the same thing has not been done with heterosexual characters, but it reminds me of blacksploitation, where we have a movie with an all black cast, trying to be as "black" as possible. It's rediculous. Closest exception I can think of is John Ritter's character in Sling Blade.

The real progression of society here is to stop making it headlines. For it not to be a spectacle, just another accepted personal choice. That said, I don't think game developers "owe" you making all thier characters bend to your ideas of sexuality. For instance if bioware decided that Kaiden from Mass effect was homosexual, I don't think they're really robbing you by making him uninterested in a female Shepards advances. At the same time, writing a world where homosexuality, apparently never occured to anyone, while improbable is not really a crime against humanity. Trying to stamp out people discussing it on your forums is in pretty damn poor taste... I don't see it as a violation of personal liberties, the forums belong to them... but it's a bad message to send to your customers. Still it's some pretty shotty equivication to compare them to methodical ethnicity based mass murder on the stage of human liberties as opposed to privatly owned forums.

 

[gavox]

i dont see why there is no gays in any of the kotors its pretty pg any way so i cant see it being offensive