Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[simonthedwarf]

triple post forum lag bug sry

[catoblepas]

Also: Where do we stop?

I mean if we have detailed representation bout gender/sexual identifies, how about masochistic dwarves that love pain, legendary masturbator and peeping urist the grand master observer? I would love all these things because it sounds fun to me, but it all might become too tentaclish when Urist McLeatherThong throws a tantrum because of having no chains in his bedroom.

I would think it rather natural to with homosexuality introduce inter-species marriage. Here, Urist. Marry your pet pig, involve yourself in a romance with a kobold swinger's club.

Nice try, but Homosexuality is not equivalent to beastiality. Also, nice slippery slope fallacy.

FYI nobles already throw tantrums and have people executed if you don't meet their mandates (including chains).

[simonthedwarf]

I'm for all of it, the only resource here is what Toady wants and when he can do what it want.

The way I see things, it can only be a slippery slope fallacy if I actually think any of those things are connected or bad.

Also while kobold is bestiality I would not say that a human-dwarf or a elf-dwarf coupling is beastiality. Lets work within the confines of the world here and not start applying hard to compare concepts like RL bestiality to DF.

[NW_Kohaku]

Also: Where do we stop?

I mean if we have detailed representation bout gender/sexual identifies, how about masochistic dwarves that love pain, legendary masturbator and peeping urist the grand master observer? I would love all these things because it sounds fun to me, but it all might become too tentaclish when Urist McLeatherThong throws a tantrum because of having no chains in his bedroom.

I would think it rather natural to with homosexuality introduce inter-species marriage. Here, Urist. Marry your pet pig, involve yourself in a romance with a kobold swinger's club.

Slippery slope arguments are considered logical fallacies for a reason.

They try to eliminate all distinctions but a single one to create black-and-white contrasts that ignore all middle grounds and argue only extremes exist. 

To give an example of why this is such a flawed argument, I need simply make a slippery slope argument in the other direction:
"Clearly, by denying the ability of dwarves to have different kinds of sexualities or relations with one another, you are denying ALL relationships and distinctions of dwarves.  WHERE WILL IT STOP?! Obviously, you won't be happy until there are no castes or genders or personalities at all, and dwarves are simply spawned periodically out of the spawning workshop."

Picture this with gratuitous obnoxiously large text if it helps make it seem more ridiculous to you.

Slippery slope arguments like yours ignore the distinctions between one thing and the other.  Homosexual dwarves never have to have sex, so comparing them to masturbation is invalid, as masturbation is solely about actual sex, and Toady is drawing the line at actual representations of sex, yet not drawing the line at representations of relationships.

Likewise, there is nothing wrong with interracial relations (Toady even says he wants half-elf, half-dwarf hybrids to be possible), but the line gets drawn at sentient beings, for the same reason that beastiality is forbidden in real life - relationships between two consenting adults are proper, but any non-sentient animal is incapable of consent. 

Your entire argument is completely invalid.

[Capntastic]

I would think it rather natural to with homosexuality introduce inter-species marriage. Here, Urist. Marry your pet pig, involve yourself in a romance with a kobold swinger's club.

As stated by Catoblepas, you're equating homosexuality with bestiality, which makes no sense.  What makes your mind go from two people consenting into a relationship to someone marrying an animal?  That's pretty offensive.  And, again, it's a slippery slope argument.  I mean, if Toady doesn't allow gay dwarves, what's to stop him from removing straight dwarves, and then stop working on the game all together?? It'd be anarchy!!

Again, please consider what you're saying before you post.

I've yet to see anyone pose a good reason why there shouldn't be gay people in DF, in response to the multiple reasons there should be.

[simonthedwarf]

Please dont harp about the slippery slope like rabid dogs . It was not meant to implicate that we introduce 1 controversial thing tons of other controversial things will follow. To me homosexuality is normal and just as commendable as hetrosexuality.

I was just wondering what level of sexual identify people wanted in DF. To me all of these things would be fun, and I dont see how the explicit violence of DF and the depth of depravity you can otherwise indulge in points towards detailed sexual individuality being a problem. My thoughts go to the great hypocrisy of american cinema if Toady finds sexuality more offensive than violence towards animals for instance.

Slippery slope arguments like yours ignore the distinctions between one thing and the other.  Homosexual dwarves never have to have sex, so comparing them to masturbation is invalid, as masturbation is solely about actual sex, and Toady is drawing the line at actual representations of sex, yet not drawing the line at representations of relationships.

Then I definitely do not see problems with representations of a tigerman and a dwarfette having some kind of relationship.

I mean if we have detailed representation bout gender/sexual identifies, how about masochistic dwarves that love pain, legendary masturbator and peeping urist the grand master observer? I would love all these things because it sounds fun to me, but it all might become too tentaclish when Urist McLeatherThong throws a tantrum because of having no chains in his bedroom.

I thought I made it extremely clear that I would want homosexuality and more in my initial post. Now, I haven't read all of the early posts of this thread but this humpty dumpty jumping to conclusions about my equalizing bestiality and consenting homosexuality seems kinda reflexive. I've had relations with both sexes so consider my feelings as well when you liken me to some kind of prosecutor of non-hetrosexuals.

[DirtyChineseCigarettes]

i have nothing against gays but this is a huge waste of toadys time, mod it in yourself. not enough people care about this for it to be an issue, there are FAR more important things to work on.

[EmperorJon]

Firstly it would be up to Toady to decide whether it was a waste of time or not. Personality rewrites will happen some day.
Secondly, it's not possible to mod things like this.

Anyway, this is the sort of suggestion I'd support, just because not supporting it seems to be offensive to me. It's a case of "Why not?" and if the only argument against is "Because some people will kill all gays in game and that's offensive" then... well, some people kill all elves. Some people kill all cats. Some people kill every CHILD they get in their fort. Children haven't been removed though, have they?

[Capntastic]

Please dont harp about the slippery slope like rabid dogs .

Now, I haven't read all of the early posts of this thread but this humpty dumpty jumping to conclusions about my equalizing bestiality and consenting homosexuality seems kinda reflexive.

I would think it rather natural to with homosexuality introduce inter-species marriage. Here, Urist. Marry your pet pig

You very clearly lump them in together.  It comes off as super offensive whether you intended it or not.   This is why I am telling people to consider what they are saying.

i have nothing against gays but this is a huge waste of toadys time, mod it in yourself. not enough people care about this for it to be an issue, there are FAR more important things to work on.

First off, tons of things are a 'waste' of Toady's time, and yet he gladly does them.  See the dozens of soils, monkey types, and rock types which offer no real gameplay bonuses.   

Second, on what grounds do you say 'not enough people care about it'?  What data do you have to say how many people care about it, and how many people would have to care about it for it to be relevant, and what basis do you have in making those claims? 

Third, thank you for caring so much to jump in without reading the thread, but absolutely no one has said that this needs to be A+ Super Priority.  All people are saying is that it should go in when convenient, most likely during the planned relationship re-writes.

[catoblepas]

So you don't remember saying

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

"I would think it rather natural to with homosexuality introduce inter-species marriage. Here, Urist. Marry your pet pig, involve yourself in a romance with a kobold swinger's club."

. Of course, we are the ones who are rabid dogs for questioning the validity of this position. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, please proofread your posts to clear up any misunderstandings such as these in the future, assuming your intention was not a slippery slope fallacy.

On topic, I see a lot of potential for the development of homosexuality in DF, but it will require a lot of rewrites of different areas before its potential (as well as that of heterosexual relationships) can be fully realized. Politics, culture, and discrimination would involve changing how ethics, wars, etc work rather drastically, so it's probably a ways off. Simply allowing dwarves to form the 'lover' and 'spouse' relationships would seem to be a bit easier, as it wouldn't change much drastically and would still have the potential for later expansion. I think dwarves reacting in different ways to a loved one or a friend in danger as opposed to a migrant they never talk to would also go a long ways towards making dwarves seem more 'real', and would have the added benefit of appplying rather nicely to heterosexual relationships and friendships as well. "Urist came to a friend's aid recently" would be a nice thing to see on their profiles, IMO.

[simonthedwarf]

Well the first step in a right direction would be for Toady to make dwarves do something social with those they have a relationship with of some form other than loitering.

[NW_Kohaku]

Please dont harp about the slippery slope like rabid dogs . It was not meant to implicate that we introduce 1 controversial thing tons of other controversial things will follow.

Actually, yes, that is the exact thing you were doing:

Also: Where do we stop?

I mean if we have detailed representation bout gender/sexual identifies, how about masochistic dwarves that love pain, legendary masturbator and peeping urist the grand master observer? 

A "where do we stop?" followed by talking about how if we are going to do one thing, it necessarily leads to another is the definition of a slippery slope argument, and was done for the express purpose of comparing homosexuality to masturbation, masochism, and beastiality. 

(Furthermore, I don't think rabid dogs are particularly known for harping.  Nor do I believe that Humpty Dumpty is known for jumping to conclusions.  Your metaphors are bewilderingly mixed.)

Well the first step in a right direction would be for Toady to make dwarves do something social with those they have a relationship with of some form other than loitering.

Which is already planned in the Personality Rewrites and beyond.

Nobody is saying that this must be the top and immediate priority, and basically every proponent of gay dwarves has said that it should wait until after Personality Rewrites, so saying it should wait is not a valid argument.  Of course it will have to wait - every suggestion is going to have to wait.  That says nothing of the validity of the suggestion.

[simonthedwarf]

I can see what you mean, but you should also observe youself in receiving it as inhospitable a way as possible. But I will take my leave of this thread and wish you good luck in continuing a constructive discourse.

[Baselope]

LOL, this thread sux.  Too many lawyers, retoriticians and hurt suggestion makers, too few willing modders.

I would suspect the willing modders are waiting for the personality rewrite before they invest time?  Just ignoring this thread?  More interested in making mine cart weaponry?

ABANDON Thr......(!!!!)

[Capntastic]

As stated above this isn't something that can be modded in at present time.  Don't know what you're trying to achieve by coming in here and calling everyone names, though!