• Announcements

    • cri du coeur

      Logging in   05/10/2017

      If you had an account and can't log in as of 5/9/17, this may be because of a change in logins with new forum software. You can log in using your publicly displayed name (not your username) or your email address and the password you used before.   If you have problems with this, please ask any of the mods or admins. 

Edgwyn

Member
  • Content count

    772
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Edgwyn

  • Rank
    Avernite Dervish

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Home

Recent Profile Visitors

163 profile views
  1. I do not identify as Cis (as in it is extremely unlikely that you will hear/read me apply that label to myself), but, it is accurate as a label for me and so I selected it for the purposes of the poll, just like Sylae choose a term that she doesn't particularly like. Being fortunate enough to be in the position that I am in, the label is 100% accurate and has no emotional context to me, it is just not a term that I use outside of answering demographic information. I do believe that if you are going to answer a friendly poll that you should provide as accurate information as possible. While this poll is unlikely to effect anything, poll, surveys and samples have huge impacts on the goods and services that we are offered and the more garbage fed into them, the more inaccurate they are and the poorer the decisions that will be made from them.
  2. I found it interesting that there is not a single game that every respondent reported owning. And that is despite multiple sales over the last few years where you can buy the A1-6 series for very little.
  3. While I did not choose 72-84 for favorite video game era, I would have chosen 77-87 had that been an option.
  4. I agree that it is important, and I think that a review would have found it important and would have better articulated why the right of marriage should be extended. It hopefully would also have resulted in a national standard (in the US, there are differences at the state level) as to what age one has to be in order to be married. The other part of the question though is why is two the magic number for a secular legal contract? The question of what is the maximum number of people who could be married to each other would need to be part of any realistic study of the secular benefits of marriage.
  5. I agree and I did not oppose federal recognition of same sex marriages, but lots of people from every side of the spectrum like, and believe, in slippery slope arguments. My position during the debate on recognition of same sex marriages was "why does the government recognize marriage at all? I would have loved for their to have been an answer to that question first, but since that was not going to happen, marriage equality was the right thing to do. You are the legal expert not me, so I had assumed that when President Clinton signed the executive order banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in federal government employment that it was part of a broader policy. I assume that I am wrong.
  6. Religious institutions are considered protected as one of the freedoms enshrined in our constitution. They should by treated differently because the power to tax (like many other government powers) is the power to destroy. The area subject to debate is when the church runs a commercial enterprise such as a day care or school. Everyone is allowed to be (and practically everyone is in one way shape or form) bigoted. Again, under our fundamental rights as Americans, we are allowed to be bigoted in our own personal lives. You have the right to choose not to associate with me because I am white, left handed, male, believe in Xenu, do not like ponies or any one of a thousand reasons (or for no reason at all). [please note that three of the five things listed at not actual characteristics of mine]. In general I believe that most forms of bigotry are morally wrong (including bigotry agains Muslims and LGBT individuals), but that does not take away my right to be bigoted. I do not have the right to be bigoted in my professional life (nor should I have that right). The nature of the employment that I have chosen puts me in (what I consider) the highest category of not allowed to be bigoted in my professional life. If I cannot carry out the duties of my employment without discriminating against people in any category protected by law I should resign. If I cannot carry out the duties of my employment without discriminating against people in a non-protected way (say because they like Shapers) I should really look at myself and figure out why I can't be nice to people. So, my religion gets to set whatever standards it wants for its members. That is religious freedom, free speech and free association. That does not mean that my religion gets to set standards for non-members. Tax dollars going to gay conversion camps is of course a stretch, but you can make the stretch. Realistically, I can make the same stretch to abortions after the first trimester where the life of the mother is not at risk, the mother was not raped and incest was not involved. Neither one of us is ever going to like all of the things our tax dollars are spent on.
  7. Sylae, marriage for any two people who are 18 or over would qualify in my mind as an expansion of rights that many conservatives did not support without justification. I suspect that a number (though probably not a majority) of the people who did not support it were concerned about it trampling on their right to freely exercise their religion (Church X does not recognize marriages which is recognized by the US government and so refuses to host certain marriage ceremonies in their facility, so Church X should lose its tax exempt status and be sued out of existence). While many of us hope that a Church would be seen as different under the law than a commercial enterprise (baker, restaurant, etc), the dividing line between church as religious institution and church as commercial enterprise is gray and wavy making it not unreasonable for some people to be concerned that the government would attempt to dictate policies inside of the church. The question becomes even greater when you get into how much religion is one allowed to practice in your private life. For example, can an Amish, Orthodox Jew or devout Muslim establish a separate school system that instead of differing in relatively small (but important) ways from the public school system the way that most Catholic and Christian schools do, differ in larger ways from the public school system. The answer has been yes, especially with the Amish and Orthodox Jewish population. I am not sure that I personally approve of some of the exceptions that have been made for their boys and girls, but I am not sure how to properly and fairly split the baby between what I would like to forbid and what I would like to allow. Some "liberals" would say tear it down right away (after all, all religion is wrong), some "conservatives" would say as long as there is a religious motivation it is fine (as long as it is a religious motivation they believe in). I firmly believe that the better public policy is somewhere in the middle and that given the lack of center we will never see it.
  8. ADOS, you are conflating social and economic terms to a point that is frankly insulting. An American with Libertarian, Classical Liberal or Free Market views on the economy is generally farther to the right than their European counterparts, but is in no way shape or form a fascist (a term which has a pretty significant negative connotation to all of us). Dikiyoba, I am in no way about trampling minority rights. Nor are most American conservatives. Some conservatives do not support an expansion of rights (sometimes without justification, sometimes with), but they generally do not go around attempting to curtail existing rights. In general, the conservative side of American politics is too likely to oppose the creation of new rights and the "liberal" side of American politics is too likely to curtail existing rights sometimes in support of creating new rights. Neither approach is very good, but as both parties have moved away from the center, both sides have gotten worse about rights, just in different ways. As to the so called "Muslim Ban", the executive order effects around 13% of the world's Muslim population. So calling it a Muslim ban is a pretty far stretch. If its purpose is to prevent the movement of Muslims into and out of this country, it is completely ineffective. If its purpose is to prevent the movement of nationals of the countries that supplied the 9/11 terrorists, it is also completely ineffective. About the only thing that it does do is make it harder for nationals of six war torn countries that have a somewhat significant number of Daesh and Daesh affiliated groups from traveling to the US, plus of course Iran (because I guess Iran is Iran and I certainly have a lot of personal reasons to hate Iran and they do support terrorist groups, but Daesh is not among the terrorist groups that they support thanks to that whole Sunni vs Shia thing). Of terrorist attacks in Europe in the last couple of years that were committed by people who claim that they are Muslim, the attackers were significantly more likely to either claim Daesh affiliation or be claimed by Daesh than by any of the traditional terrorist organization that claim they are Muslim (and are more prevalent in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lebanon, etc). The vast majority of the 13% of Muslims effected by the executive order are not terrorists. The text implies that this measure will lead to enhanced screening of visitors into this country from those countries in order to prevent the movement of terrorists into this country. If I wrote an opinion poll where the question was "Do you support screening of visitors to this country to prevent terrorism" I suspect that most of us would say yes, but of course the devil is in the details. One of the problems with being the government is that as soon as something bad happens, the question is why didn't you prevent it, how could you let this happen. That attitude from the public drives politicians to make bad policies (terrorism, natural disasters, finance, crime, etc, etc, etc). I am not saying that this executive order is a good policy, I am saying that its merits need to be debated based on what it actually is (a travel ban from seven countries) and not what the majority (who haven't actually read it) are saying it is.
  9. Sorry, yes they do.
  10. I think that the issue comes down to why wear a pixilated dragon fly. Wearing a pixilated minecraft character ties into a recently popular game. Wearing a pixilated Mario invokes nostalgia. The nostalgia is not for a simpler time when graphics were highly limited. The nostalgia is for the enjoyment from playing the 8, 16, 32 or 64 bit game when life was simpler. Obviously you cannot sell pixilated Marios because of copy right issues, but I doubt you are gone to find a market for pixilated random objects.
  11. Even She Hulk was drawn with an athletic body type instead of a weightlifters body type which would make more sense than the shot putters body type. The body type in the third picture might be more realistic than Gal Gadot or Lynda Carter's or the comic book wonder woman, but all three at least have something close to the right skin and hair color for an ancient Greek. At least they never made Wonder Woman blonde. Most male superheroes are attractive as well though there are of course more exceptions than there are with female superheroes, but of course there are a lot more male superheroes. I remember the 1980s Rogue as being (to me) less conventionally pretty than the typical female superhero (or Storm or Kitty Pryde). Some of it is objectification, some of it is that teen/tween age boys want pictures of pretty girls, and some of it is that "good is handsome/pretty, evil is ugly".
  12. I just looked up the details and despite the headlines (and what I wrote), Thor is not female, but Jane Foster took over the role and more importantly name of Thor (and the comic series) because Thor could no longer wield Mjolnir. This happened three years ago. And yes, you are correct, there were some sections in the poetic Edda where Thor dressed as a bride, so anime is useful.
  13. One of the reasons that I was so happy with the success of Wonder Woman is that the DC comics movies (and as a kid I was much more of a DC fan than a Marvel fan, which I suppose could be another grand poll question) have been underperforming in comparison to the Marvel movies (which talked about a Black Widow movie but never did so). Release a DC based action movie with a female lead could definitely been seen as a big risk, but it did well, and I believe primarily because it was a "pretty good" film. I wasn't as impressed with Rogue One having a female lead, because I am convinced after the success of episodes 1-3, you could put the label "Star Wars" on just about anything and it would make a lot of money (unfortunately including my money). In what will I am sure not surprise anyone I am not a fan of he SJWs and their tactics. I was very disappointed when the decision was made to make Thor female, but since I haven't bought a new comic book in close to 30 years, my opinion has zero impact on Marvel's bottom line.
  14. I do not disagree with your statement of the results, but I do suspect that most authors of those games were not part of a vast conspiracy to maintain gender roles. I believe that the most likely motivation was a lack of imagination and unwillingness to take risk. Very little fiction/games had strong female protagonists not because strong females are bad, but because "stories with strong females do not sell". There is still a lot of uncertainty over the question of can a female led movie make lots of money. The success of Wonder Woman will hopefully clear the way for more female led movies in the future. I also do not think that the failure of the Ghostbusters reboot was that it was female led, I think that the failure was that it was simply a bad movie. People sell things to make money. With todays storage mediums it is trivial to have multiple skins for characters which was not the case with 30-40 years ago. With the limits at the time, did you risk your company on a female lead or go with the safe bet of a male lead. I am not attempting to deny the tendency to turn the female protagonist into a sex object (Ripley, Metroid, Laura Croft, Jiggle Physics, fan service, etc, or for that matter the Avernum character choices which still reflect the AD&D chainmail bikini) but again, that seems to be what sells, as a fairly large portion of the female talent in the visual and audio entertainment industries have chosen to embrace the sex sells mentality.
  15. I think that it had a lot more to do with expectations of gender roles than caring if women wanted them. A lot of the early games involved sports or shooting things and "women/girls don't like sports or shooting things", which while not true on an individual level still has a degree of accuracy on a statistical level (the cause for the difference in preferences can of course be debated). I do believe that certain games, like PacMan did better and of course Ms. PacMan was "radical" in that it put you into a female character.