The definition of 'rude' doesn't not include 'closed-minded', so that would make it your opinion.
This is reason #1 I wasn't going to bother - because, invariably, the subject gets twisted and it becomes personal. This is not a discussion about your perceptions of me, the subject is the opinion on Imoen's sexuality (and my attempts at answering why I think the way I do and in answer to the calls for proof as to
why I think the way I do - but I guess I'm the one engaging in selective reading).
When, in any of my posts, did I say I was right and you are wrong? When, in any of my posts, did I say that mine was the only opinion? (When did I say that I care the way I come across, for that matter?) This is not a debate about me (or about villifying me) - I believe in my opinion the same way you believe in yours. And, due to the medium, something invariably gets taken too seriously or the wrong way. These are only words on the screen, and if someone's going to take them the wrong way, there's nothing I can do to avoid it - perception is the law, here; I'll remind you to be literal. I'm quite disappointed that we've reached this point so soon, actually. (Love the use of "yours" and "ours", btw
) For the record: My belief is that my opinion is just as "right" as yours. My god..
anyway..
I'm using the same arguements to refute positions as they are (un/intentionally) used to refute mine - Just that simple, because they're just that basic, and applicable to either side. The only thing I take issue with is what continues to be said: She doesn't say, so since the norm is hetero, she must be hetero (by default) ..unless there is proof.. well, there is no proof (either way). I "jump all over" that logic because it doesn't account for Imoen, or her personality, at all. I find it interesting that it is homosexuality that must be proven. Why? Because in our world it's not the norm? Because in the game world it's non-existant?
In the game world, as it was created, it should exist and be just as normal/regularly occuring as any other sexuality, but I realize that is (almost) beside the point.
Let's get something straight, though, because this IS at the heart of the matter:
How is Imoen going to state, or show otherwise, when no one else in the game does? How is it that not one NPC (not one!) displays these tendancies?
So, it appears that there do exist NPC's who display those tendencies - just not the ones you happen to talk to.
Huh. I missed your point. The courtesan displays these tendancies how, again?
I left the courtesan's line out of my quote For No Other Reason Than it was Irrelevant to the statement I had made, prior:
No one in the game demonstrates homosexuality. That would include the same coutesan who claims that there's someone but, well, s/he's not here right now. Or am I supposed to be content with that? The courtesan does not, herself, display these tendancies; my statement still stands.
So, while the particular NPC you initiate dialogue with does not "display these tendencies," it's fairly obvious that there do exist NPC's who do display those tendencies.
Not good enough, and you (should) know it.
I tried to keep the question/statement/challenge simple and you supply some convoluted example of something that's supposed to show me that I'm wrong. I feel the need to point out that it's a poor example (imo, I should add, lest this be misinterpreted) and all you can do is repeat what you said. So now that we've reached the point where it seems you've got nothing left, because you're now analyzing me, this is all I'm saying on the matter.
@ Occam's razor - I try to address all points else, as Imrahil did, I get accused of missing one. ..unless I'm missing
your point, Guest.
Edited by Cybersquirt, 06 May 2004 - 02:43 AM.
