Lurker > HeroDelTiempo17

From: KingButz | #074


OMFG SEXISM IN GAMES

From: SlymDayspring | #027
However, she is also in the same game as the peep cam you can use to spy on the female companion character and lockers full of pinup models.

From: OmarsComin | #022
Beatrix

ugly

From: Achromatic | #020
The Boss?

Or is she meant to be hot too.

From: MrGreenonion | #006
One thing I'd like explained by those who complain about sexism in media:

Can a woman be depicted as sexual, without the depiction being sexist?

From: GuessMyUserName | #019
This

If your answer for worst Mario Kart game is anything other than Super Circuit, you're just plain wrong. There's absolutely no other answer.

From: MrGreenonion | #015
I'm not sure what we're supposed to take from this. Like, is the message here supposed to be "haha EA, TOR players really DO hate gays despite your pathetic attempts to make it seem otherwise!"? Because that's all I'm getting from this.

From: GuessMyUserName | #005
are people seriously going to complain already before Nintendo does anything remotely bad

From: th3l3fty | #014
one of the most disappointing things about Cave Story+ is that they decided to fill your health after you beat the Undead Core

true ending is not supposed to be easy to get augh

From: Westbrick | #170
Well they're free to preach that, but I don't think that we should disallow certain laws on basis of fire and brimstone.

What about moral decadence? What about the fostering of conditions that could turn people away from God and make them sinful? Are these more acceptable?

From: red sox 777 | #163
I get your comparison but 'murder' is a bit of an extreme example. The difference here is that murder is something that has a potential to affect the life of a Christian - they could be the one being murdered, after all. Gay marriage is different. It's a lifestyle choice that someone else is making, one that doesn't have any direct bearing on the Christian since they don't necessarily have to associate with it. It could be morally reprehensible to them, but so are a bunch of other things in society that they have to deal with (such as the existence of other belief systems).

Nobody ever has the right not to be offended, and everyone has the absolute right to offend others. However, it is not strictly true that gay marriage will definitely have no impact on Christians. Christians, may, for example, fear that God will punish America because of its association with gay marriage- for example, look at Sodom and Gomorrah, where 2 cities were destroyed with fire and brimstone from the skies.

This is true, but many Christians prize marriage as hugely important. You've heard the rhetoric before: building block of the family, the proper way to raise kids, etc.

As to your point, this simply isn't how Christians feel. "Not having to associate" doesn't mean they won't be hurt or offended at having such a sacred institution defiled.

From: Westbrick | #154
So then which position does have the right to tell us how society should be structured? The secularists? Seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy. One side has to win and one has to lose, but there are sides. It's not as though Christians are some fringe group rallying against some common-sense moral intuition.

From: Westbrick | #148
They aren't offended because, even if the motivations are not religious, the results abide by religious doctrine. As a comparison, think of murder: why does the state prevent people from killing one another? Presumably to maximize utility, or protect individual rights, or something similar. The religious person chooses not to kill because it is one of God's commandments. Yet they will still be content with the state's motivation, because the result conforms to the moral order.

From: Westbrick | #141
How many times are we going to dance around this without you seeing to the central point? Religious people believe that marriage has ontological significance; it's holy, it means something. This doesn't mean you have to agree with it, but I'm simply asking that you treat gay marriage as presenting them with a legitimate problem. It's not simply a matter of "They don't have right to X definition.

From: OmarsComin | #044
I assume we're talking about stuff like this

From: MRNlCEWATCH | #066
Panthera posted...
From: MRNlCEWATCH | #064
It's pretty obvious that you are a militant "Reddit" atheist who is trying to front with some "oh I just hate oppression" bulls***
Yep, only a total jerk thinks that people should be judged on an individual basis rather than saying "oh, religious? well most of those guys are good so all of them must be!"

Except you don't judge theists individually...you lump them into the same category of "stupid, hateful idiots" and then play it off like you a some champion of morality. Grow up.