The gay gaming community is in uproar this morning after word broke that an Xbox Live user was banned for identifying herself as a lesbian.
Ex-Xbox Live member, Teresa (that's EX member - hold onto your friend requests) says she was harassed by other players and later suspended from the service for noting her sexual preference in her Xbox Live profile.
Apparently, when Teresa appealed to Microsoft, the company told her that other gamers found her sexual orientation "offensive."
"I just recently saw a thing on your site about someones gamer tag being banned because it had the word gay in the tag," she told The Consumerist. "I had a similar incident, only my account was suspended because I had said in my profile that I was a lesbian.
"I was harassed by several players, 'chased' to different maps/games to get away from their harassment. They followed me into the games and told all the other players to turn me in because they didn't want to see that crap or their kids to see that crap.
"My account was suspended and Xbox Live did nothing to solve this, but instead said others found it offensive," she added. "Today I received a message from another gamer calling me a fag. I am a lesbian, so they aren't too smart if they cant get their anti-gay slurs right.
"Microsoft does nothing to stop this or prevent it, but instead sides with the homophobes. No one will help me get the word out about Microsoft's anti-gay policy. Not even the HRC who says Microsoft has a positive image with them. Not to me it doesn't!"
Microsoft UK told CVG: "We're looking into this issue and don't have a comment to make right now."
It's not the first time Microsoft's angered the gay community, of course. Xbox Live users theGAYERgamer and Richard Gaywood - that's his real name by the way - were also suspended from the service.
Utter nonsense. If Microsoft recieved complaints specifically about the fact that this woman stated she was a lesbian in her profile, surely they should have told those that complained to get lost and grow up. Obviously, those that did complain most likely used some other excuse - much like the small-minded cowards they so obviously are.
The worst thing was this use of 'not wanting their kids to see that' - another brilliant example of parents speaking for their kids....much like these stupid complaints made about the CBeebies presenter this week.
Stupid - I hope they reinstate her account with a massive apology.
Put the word "straight" or "bisexual" into your own profile and see how long it takes to get banned. If you don't then there's a prejudice issue. If you do then we can all rest easy.
That said, it seems a little pointless putting that much info in a profile that the majority of visitors aren't going to care about. It's more info for people who are interested in you, not advertising to a blank market. Could it have been a move to get a lot of hormonally-imbalanced guys to sign up as friends or go easy on them in-game?
they shuold reinstate her tag with a shiiit load of live points to buy what ever she wants, i'd sue M$ though if i was her its disgusting. i thought the racism in america had gotten lower and lower to the point that it was mostly only the texans lol
come on you cant tell me M$ is against homosexuals witha CEO like bill gates? lol
This is sort of unrelated - but at work (at a cinema) my manager told me that she didn't want us to advertise "Lesbian Vampire Killers" because it has the word Lesbian in the title. Apparently she didn't want kids asking their parents what a lesbian is. Most kids probably already know what a lesbian is - it's just a case of wrapping them in cotton wool and throwing a hissy fit because they might not provide these stupid, homophobic parents with grandkids. I'm straight, I have a girlfriend and I plan to have kids one day, and if any of them wish to be gay then I have no problem with it. Love knows no boundaries, and it's about time these stupid parents stop complaining about s**t that doesn't have anything to do with them.
People often get harrassed on Xbox live over stupid stuff... A friend of mine has the word "Satan" in his Gamertag (it's a film reference, not a pretentious statement for his devil worshipping leanings) and he was constantly harrangued over it by (you guessed it) the Americans we sometimes got paired with. Nearly always on Halo 3 as well.
Ironically I remember once this all went on in a lobby with someone whose name was dangerously close to the words "Suicide Bomber".
That's disgraceful. And all because it was easier for MS to ban her than all the dullards who chased her around games and lobbies.
Thankfully, I've not heard any homophobic abuse on live apart from the usual unfounded 'gay' and 'fag' insults.
I'd actually like to see random moderators observing random games (unseen of course) and taking evidence and banning users who infringe the rules of xbox live. I'm really shocking MS did this, I'm curious as to what their response will be.
There's NO WAY Microsoft would have banned her just because of her sexual orientation.
American companies in particular are scared to death of saying "boo to a goose" in case they offend someone and get their ar$es sued, so I'm guessing that there's a whole lot more to this story other than the fact that she was banned for declaring her sexuality in a profile!
why does she feel the need to tell everyone in the world anyway?
Why shouldn't she?
Very true - and yet anyone who raises a flag saying 'I'm different!' on XboxLive is asking for it. It's playground politics, not genuine homophobic slurs. Ethnic minorities will get racist slurs, British people get anti-British slurs, fat people get fat jokes etc.
MS bans people based on the number of complaints about their behaviour on XboxLive, not based on their own moral yardstick (they have none - if you pay the money then you're OK by Bill).
This situation is most certainly wrong, but it's more a shocking statement about US kids behaviour on Live than a comment on MS. I've no doubt this 'banning' will be overturned once an actual human being looks into the situation. So far this is simply an automated system registering a certain number of bigotted/juvenile complaints and a call centre monkey not quite understanding the problem (not unusual).
I can understand why people may have reported her (not that I would have bothered doing so myself). Flaunting your abnormal sexuality on a profile for a gaming service is unnecessary to say the least.
People complain about being defined by their sexuality and then they don't shut up about it.. What do they expect?
My wife has someone on her friendlist who is bisexual, and her motto and profile are just filled with what are essentially boasts about her sexuality. She hasnt been banned yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if she is eventually.
If you enjoy being gay, lesbian, bisexual then good for you. But do you really need to tell the whole world about it?
Microsoft are trying to be impartial here. They can't tell other people what they should and shouldn't find offensive.
People often get harrassed on Xbox live over stupid stuff... A friend of mine has the word "Satan" in his Gamertag (it's a film reference, not a pretentious statement for his devil worshipping leanings) and he was constantly harrangued over it by (you guessed it) the Americans we sometimes got paired with. Nearly always on Halo 3 as well.
Ironically I remember once this all went on in a lobby with someone whose name was dangerously close to the words "Suicide Bomber".
I think you've made a great point there.
This probably isn't anything to do with the person being a lesbian - it's probably more that it's something that other people saw as a weakness, or something that can be used for bullying.
Chances are she beat some ignorant little toad at some game - he saw her profile and decided to hassle her over it....then rounded up the other yokels to join in.
It's a shame really, but we all know how some people turn into complete morons once they're safely hidden behind a monitor, keyboard and the safety blanket of the internet.
I can understand why people may have reported her (not that I would have bothered doing so myself). Flaunting your abnormal sexuality on a profile for a gaming service is unnecessary to say the least.
People complain about being defined by their sexuality and then they don't shut up about it.. What do they expect?
My wife has someone on her friendlist who is bisexual, and her motto and profile are just filled with what are essentially boasts about her sexuality. She hasnt been banned yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if she is eventually.
If you enjoy being gay, lesbian, bisexual then good for you. But do you really need to tell the whole world about it?
Microsoft are trying to be impartial here. They can't tell other people what they should and shouldn't find offense.
It may seem harsh but i think she deserved to be banned.
It's pure stupidity to stick your sexual preference before your name. You'll always get the anti gay brigade slagging off people on xbl who advertise it like that. She should have known better, advertising your sexual preference on a gaming console is just dumb.
It just seems like attention seeking to me, no-one really cares what her sexual preference is. So why advertise it in her nick?
I can understand why people may have reported her (not that I would have bothered doing so myself). Flaunting your abnormal sexuality on a profile for a gaming service is unnecessary to say the least.
People complain about being defined by their sexuality and then they don't shut up about it.. What do they expect?
My wife has someone on her friendlist who is bisexual, and her motto and profile are just filled with what are essentially boasts about her sexuality. She hasnt been banned yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if she is eventually.
If you enjoy being gay, lesbian, bisexual then good for you. But do you really need to tell the whole world about it?
Microsoft are trying to be impartial here. They can't tell other people what they should and shouldn't find offense.
HERE, HERE SIRE, these people are abnormal.
ab-nor-mal /æb-n-rm-l/ –adjective 1. not normal, average, typical, or usual; deviating from a standard:
If you enjoy being gay, lesbian, bisexual then good for you. But do you really need to tell the whole world about it?
Perhaps so like-minded people can send them friend requests and play games with them? It did mention in the article about a gay gamer community so I don't see why they should hide away. If they want to say people have a different sexual orientation to most and want to mention it, then that's their perogitive. The problem isn't with them, it's with the knuckle-dragging idiots who think hounding them is somehow going to make them straight.
I'd actually like to see random moderators observing random games (unseen of course) and taking evidence and banning users who infringe the rules of xbox live.
Although i agree your sexual preference is yours to announce as you please...
I think we all know what a hot bed of bigotry Live is...
Which is why the new "party" mode is awesome, by way of literally "switching" the rest of the world off.
But if you walk into a faceless crowd of socially maladjusted cretins and bullied teenagers with a sign saying "I'm different to you!" you've got to expect bad things to happen.
I'd be interested to know what games she was playing where children were at "risk" of seeing her profile.... Pounds to peanuts says it was games children shouldn't be playing in the first place like COD, GTA 4, Halo or Gears of War... the least of which is a fifteen. If your "child" doesn't know what a lesbian is at fifteen then you've failed in your job for preparing that child for the real world. So take 'em off Xbox for a bit and show them that not everything in this world is going to agree with you, or necessarily be your choice... but it's there. Deal with it.
I can understand why people may have reported her (not that I would have bothered doing so myself). Flaunting your abnormal sexuality on a profile for a gaming service is unnecessary to say the least.
People complain about being defined by their sexuality and then they don't shut up about it.. What do they expect?
My wife has someone on her friendlist who is bisexual, and her motto and profile are just filled with what are essentially boasts about her sexuality. She hasnt been banned yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if she is eventually.
If you enjoy being gay, lesbian, bisexual then good for you. But do you really need to tell the whole world about it?
Microsoft are trying to be impartial here. They can't tell other people what they should and shouldn't find offense.
HERE, HERE SIRE, these people are abnormal.
ab-nor-mal /æb-n-rm-l/ –adjective 1. not normal, average, typical, or usual; deviating from a standard:
You disagree with that statement?
What the hell is wrong with you? Why should someone who is gay be considered abnormal? Because I fancy ginger haired people does that make me abnormal? Does your lack of cognitive reasoning and common sense make you abnormal?
Trying to force people to conform to one ideal and one of living was famously tried once in the late 30s and early 40s. That didn't turn out too successfully though did it...
Xbox Live is well known for being full of idiots who would flag just because you're not a redneck. Hell, I got flagged on there a few times by a group of American's because I was British and they were being racist to me! Work that out!
Anyone willing saying they are gay on XBL is asking for it and will get crap like this done to them. Sad but true really.
If you enjoy being gay, lesbian, bisexual then good for you. But do you really need to tell the whole world about it?
Perhaps so like-minded people can send them friend requests and play games with them? It did mention in the article about a gay gamer community so I don't see why they should hide away. If they want to say people have a different sexual orientation to most and want to mention it, then that's their perogitive.
I'm sorry but that's absurd. If they wanted to only play with other gay gamers then they would arrange this online or through forums. They wouldn't hope that some random person on Xbox Live checks their profile and says "Hey, we share a sexuality but may have nothing else in common. Lets play together!".
By the definition of abnormal, yeah, gay people are abnormal. But using your common sense they're just not. The definition is just too open. Is the worlds fastest man called abnormal? Because his speed deviates from the standard. Was Einstein abnormal because his intelligence deviated from the majority of people?
It's just a ridiculous definition and shouldn't be used in these situations.
I'd actually like to see random moderators observing random games (unseen of course) and taking evidence and banning users who infringe the rules of xbox live.
They actually do this already.
Then based on the injustice suffered by this girl gamer, it's not enough and that effort needs to be stepped up.
haha i know it was ironic for me to say that but it is true, racism and prejudice are some of the only things americans know, even the adults and I totally agree with what JimiTheSaint stated on the games their so called kids were playing! haha their bunch od redneck idiots
MS amaze me sometimes, my old motto was 'no retreat no surrender' but thats not allowed now apperently plus the name or word shine is no longer allowed in a gamertag but I was on cod yesterday and there was some racist American numpty with the gamertag 'jewbuster'! How the f**k is that not racist and allowed as a gamertag yet anything to do with being homosexual isn't allowed?
By the definition of abnormal, yeah, gay people are abnormal. But using your common sense they're just not. The definition is just too open. Is the worlds fastest man called abnormal? Because his speed deviates from the standard. Was Einstein abnormal because his intelligence deviated from the majority of people?
It's just a ridiculous definition and shouldn't be used in these situations.
I disagree. I think it would be perfectly acceptable and understandable if someone used the word in those contexts. "Einstein's abnormally high intelligence." "Usain Bolt is an abnormally fast human being"
If you enjoy being gay, lesbian, bisexual then good for you. But do you really need to tell the whole world about it?
Perhaps so like-minded people can send them friend requests and play games with them? It did mention in the article about a gay gamer community so I don't see why they should hide away. If they want to say people have a different sexual orientation to most and want to mention it, then that's their perogitive.
I'm sorry but that's absurd. If they wanted to only play with other gay gamers then they would arrange this online or through forums. They wouldn't hope that some random person on Xbox Live checks their profile and says "Hey, we share a sexuality but may have nothing else in common. Lets play together!".
Then what is the point in a profile if you can't tell everyone a bit about yourself? My profile has helped me meet other gamers from Northern Ireland. If that's absurd then your view of xbox live is skewed. Likewise if anyone has a problem with me just because I'm from Northern Ireland or the UK, then the problem rests with them, not me.
I can understand why people may have reported her (not that I would have bothered doing so myself). Flaunting your abnormal sexuality on a profile for a gaming service is unnecessary to say the least.
I know you've already explained what you meant by 'abnormal' - but, it's a bad choice of words in this context...sounds like something a YEC or Redneck would use to describe homosexuality.
People complain about being defined by their sexuality and then they don't shut up about it.. What do they expect?
Straight people do this too - I know lots of straight men that tend to brag about their prowess (usually, they are talking a load of rubbish - I might add)...besides, it's hardly flaunting it if it's on her profile.
My wife has someone on her friendlist who is bisexual, and her motto and profile are just filled with what are essentially boasts about her sexuality. She hasnt been banned yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if she is eventually.
Yeah, but that's just one person - they're probably just a bit of an idiot, like the people I mentioned in the paragraph above. I have a few gay friends and none of them are remotely like that (admittedly, that's just my experience).
If you enjoy being gay, lesbian, bisexual then good for you. But do you really need to tell the whole world about it?
It was probably just there to attract like-minded people, in the same way that people list their favourite bands in Facebook...either way, it's still their profile and their prerogative what they put on there.
Microsoft are trying to be impartial here. They can't tell other people what they should and shouldn't find offensive.
This is true - but, they also have to admit when they're wrong.
I'd actually like to see random moderators observing random games (unseen of course) and taking evidence and banning users who infringe the rules of xbox live.
They actually do this already.
Then based on the injustice suffered by this girl gamer, it's not enough and that effort needs to be stepped up.
It's amusing that you call this an 'injustice'. We only have this woman's word for it that her ban was anything related to her sexual preference. For all we know she could have been verbally abusing other Xbox Live gamers, and is now 'playing the gay card'.
I think any judgement should be reserved for when more facts about the situation emerge.
If you enjoy being gay, lesbian, bisexual then good for you. But do you really need to tell the whole world about it?
Perhaps so like-minded people can send them friend requests and play games with them? It did mention in the article about a gay gamer community so I don't see why they should hide away. If they want to say people have a different sexual orientation to most and want to mention it, then that's their perogitive.
I'm sorry but that's absurd. If they wanted to only play with other gay gamers then they would arrange this online or through forums. They wouldn't hope that some random person on Xbox Live checks their profile and says "Hey, we share a sexuality but may have nothing else in common. Lets play together!".
Then what is the point in a profile if you can't tell everyone a bit about yourself? My profile has helped me meet other gamers from Northern Ireland. If that's absurd then your view of xbox live is skewed. Likewise if anyone has a problem with me just because I'm from Northern Ireland or the UK, then the problem rests with them, not me.
Personally, I feel that telling someone your geographical location is not the same as telling someone your sexual preferences.
Compare the two phrases and see which one sounds strange.
"Hi, my name's Crow555 and I'm from Northern Ireland. Nice to meet you!"
"Hi, my name's Crow555 and I'm gay. Nice to meet you!"
By the definition of abnormal, yeah, gay people are abnormal. But using your common sense they're just not. The definition is just too open. Is the worlds fastest man called abnormal? Because his speed deviates from the standard. Was Einstein abnormal because his intelligence deviated from the majority of people?
It's just a ridiculous definition and shouldn't be used in these situations.
I disagree. I think it would be perfectly acceptable and understandable if someone used the word in those contexts. "Einstein's abnormally high intelligence." "Usain Bolt is an abnormally fast human being"
Well I have to disagree, because "abnormal" is seen as a negative word. I don't give a s**t about the literal definition of a word, but how the word is actually used in society, because that is the definition that is important. "Abnormal" should refer to something negative.
A better word would be aberrant or anomalous.
This is actually an ongoing this in psychological debates too, use of the word abnormal in situations similar to this. Abnormal just has too many negative connotations in this society and it ujst makes you look a homophobe for using the word (even though you may not be).
It's amusing that you call this an 'injustice'. We only have this woman's word for it that her ban was anything related to her sexual preference. For all we know she could have been verbally abusing other Xbox Live gamers, and is now 'playing the gay card'.
I think any judgement should be reserved for when more facts about the situation emerge.
I could use the same basis for all that you've said on this thread today also. We've heard her side of the story (I'm no niave enough to take all of it as gospel) but not that of MS. If MS do supply a statement telling us that she actively looked for the abuse, I renign and say she was in the wrong. However, I find that highly unlikely and still say this was the wrong move played by MS. I'd also like to see which rule she broke by stating her sexuality on her profile.
It's amusing that you call this an 'injustice'. We only have this woman's word for it that her ban was anything related to her sexual preference. For all we know she could have been verbally abusing other Xbox Live gamers, and is now 'playing the gay card'.
This is something we all definitely need to keep in mind.
A person has ever right to state what they want about themselves its called freedom of speech! if you wana state that your homosexual then tidy, if you wana state that your straight then tidy! If it causes a problem for you that your playing a game with someone who is a lesbian/gay then get out of the room. If your gonna make an uproar about it and follow this gamer around the web just to belittle them then you have seriouos problems of maturity borderline mental illness and what scares me is apparently these abusers were adults!
By the definition of abnormal, yeah, gay people are abnormal. But using your common sense they're just not. The definition is just too open. Is the worlds fastest man called abnormal? Because his speed deviates from the standard. Was Einstein abnormal because his intelligence deviated from the majority of people?
It's just a ridiculous definition and shouldn't be used in these situations.
I disagree. I think it would be perfectly acceptable and understandable if someone used the word in those contexts. "Einstein's abnormally high intelligence." "Usain Bolt is an abnormally fast human being"
Well I have to disagree, because "abnormal" is seen as a negative word. I don't give a s**t about the literal definition of a word, but how the word is actually used in society, because that is the definition that is important. "Abnormal" should refer to something negative.
A better word would be aberrant or anomalous.
This is actually an ongoing this in psychological debates too, use of the word abnormal in situations similar to this. Abnormal just has too many negative connotations in this society and it ujst makes you look a homophobe for using the word (even though you may not be).
But it only has negative connotations to you and like minded people, for me it just expresses his point of view on the matter and I in no way have a problem with it as I understand it in his context.
Some of comments here should've started but "I'm not a Homophobe but..."
People should not be treated differently for how they put themselves out in the world. Any problem that arises is not a problem with a person being stupid or clueless and to say so is to ignore the problem that is happening
Microsoft should not only reinstate the account but put a red mark against any account that contributed to the banning taking place. They should not just apologise and compensate but make an example of the real problem
I concur with Almanac and Funnyboy. While I whole heartedly support any person's right to established civil and human rights regardless of sexual orientation, background and ethnicity, I do sometimes wonder why it seems some individuals appear to feel the need to "rub it in"? Perhaps I don't fully understand being a heterosexual myself and thus not subject to the exact same pressures and mechanisms. Now, before someone says, "Oh! You're telling homosexuals to keep quite and get along!", no, that's not what I'm saying. What I am doing is raising the question of why some homosexuals appear to use their sexuality as one of the key pillars in their identity, both internally and externally? Afterall, we all seem to root at least part of our identity in our sexuality yet personally I don't overly care whether a person is homosexual or not. It's how they behave and come across as an individual that is of far greater interest to me. Their sexuality strikes me as being irrelevant (unless of course one were attracted to someone only to discover they didn't "swing that way",). Instead it is how they choose to react and behave that I focus far more on.
I have to agree with some of the comments above that we only know half the story.
I imagine what has happened is that she got stick for admitting being a lesbian, and responded aggressively. Done enough times with enough people, the complaints will flood in and she'll get banned.
Who knows, she may have just been irritating and rude on live, just to get banned in order to get the attention that is now being given to her.
I'm sure the truth will come out when M$ respond, and then we'll see who was too quick to judge from both sides of the argument.
I know you've already explained what you meant by 'abnormal' - but, it's a bad choice of words in this context...sounds like something a YEC or Redneck would use to describe homosexuality.
Homosexuality IS abnormal. That isnt being offensive. Its a fact. Sorry if you have an issue with that phrasing, but any intelligent person (gay or not) has to concede that hetero is the norm.
Straight people do this too - I know lots of straight men that tend to brag about their prowess (usually, they are talking a load of rubbish - I might add)...besides, it's hardly flaunting it if it's on her profile.
And those guys are idiots too. If I put "straight and proud of it" in my profile and then moaned if people found that offensive then I'd be just as bad as her.
It was probably just there to attract like-minded people, in the same way that people list their favourite bands in Facebook...either way, it's still their profile and their prerogative what they put on there.
Of course. Everyone can put what they like in their profile, but if it's potentially offensive (see above example) then you shouldn't complain if asked to remove it.
I'm sick and tierd of homophobia in video games it has to stop now.
Perhaps this woman put it in her profile in the hope people wouldn't make casual homophobic remarks at her. That some how they would hold their offensive langauge.
For whatever the reason she put it in her profile it is justified. Yes gay and lesbians should be shouting about it, until people get f**king used to it.
This is the history of Gay activism and it has been very successful to date. The idea of "camp" comes from banning of gay sexuality (circa 1920s, 1930s). Gay men and woman would "camp it up" (Ie over the top sexuality) as a f**k you to people who said they couldn't (Camp comes from the French word to flaunt).
The only people who are homophobic these days are children (who really shouldn't be playing many of these video games) or repressed homosexuals - so either come out or shut up.
Seriously though I'll be waitng for Microsoft's comments, because if it is true they did this, there will be a cheap xbox with around 30 games on Ebay, so keep a look out.
I can understand why people may have reported her (not that I would have bothered doing so myself). Flaunting your abnormal sexuality on a profile for a gaming service is unnecessary to say the least.
People complain about being defined by their sexuality and then they don't shut up about it.. What do they expect?
My wife has someone on her friendlist who is bisexual, and her motto and profile are just filled with what are essentially boasts about her sexuality. She hasnt been banned yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if she is eventually.
If you enjoy being gay, lesbian, bisexual then good for you. But do you really need to tell the whole world about it?
Microsoft are trying to be impartial here. They can't tell other people what they should and shouldn't find offense.
HERE, HERE SIRE, these people are abnormal.
ab-nor-mal /æb-n-rm-l/ –adjective 1. not normal, average, typical, or usual; deviating from a standard:
You disagree with that statement?
read the post, i'm agreeing with you you idiot. are you gay?
I know you've already explained what you meant by 'abnormal' - but, it's a bad choice of words in this context...sounds like something a YEC or Redneck would use to describe homosexuality.
Homosexuality IS abnormal. That isnt being offensive. Its a fact. Sorry if you have an issue with that phrasing, but any intelligent person (gay or not) has to concede that hetero is the norm.
Straight people do this too - I know lots of straight men that tend to brag about their prowess (usually, they are talking a load of rubbish - I might add)...besides, it's hardly flaunting it if it's on her profile.
And those guys are idiots too. If I put "straight and proud of it" in my profile and then moaned if people found that offensive then I'd be just as bad as her.
It was probably just there to attract like-minded people, in the same way that people list their favourite bands in Facebook...either way, it's still their profile and their prerogative what they put on there.
Of course. Everyone can put what they like in their profile, but if it's potentially offensive (see above example) then you shouldn't complain if asked to remove it.
how is puttin lesbian in your profile potentially offesive?
I think any judgement should be reserved for when more facts about the situation emerge.
I could use the same basis for all that you've said on this thread today also.
You couldn't actually. Because if you read my posts you'll see that I use words such as 'if' and 'may'. I have not directly referred to this 'incident' as fact.
I'm sick and tierd of homophobia in video games it has to stop now.
Perhaps this woman put it in her profile in the hope people wouldn't make casual homophobic remarks at her. That some how they would hold their offensive langauge.
For whatever the reason she put it in her profile it is justified. Yes gay and lesbians should be shouting about it, until people get f**king used to it.
This is the history of Gay activism and it has been very successful to date. The idea of "camp" comes from banning of gay sexuality (circa 1920s, 1930s). Gay men and woman would "camp it up" (Ie over the top sexuality) as a f**k you to people who said they couldn't (Camp comes from the French word to flaunt).
The only people who are homophobic these days are children (who really shouldn't be playing many of these video games) or repressed homosexuals - so either come out or shut up.
Seriously though I'll be waitng for Microsoft's comments, because if it is true they did this, there will be a cheap xbox with around 30 games on Ebay, so keep a look out.
I love how gay people say homophobes are just repressed gay people lol, what nonsense, so in the same sort of understanding does this mean a white racist is a repressed black man? Face it homophobes are just ignorrant f**king morons (ok maybe a small percentage are repressed).
I know you've already explained what you meant by 'abnormal' - but, it's a bad choice of words in this context...sounds like something a YEC or Redneck would use to describe homosexuality.
Homosexuality IS abnormal. That isnt being offensive. Its a fact. Sorry if you have an issue with that phrasing, but any intelligent person (gay or not) has to concede that hetero is the norm.
Straight people do this too - I know lots of straight men that tend to brag about their prowess (usually, they are talking a load of rubbish - I might add)...besides, it's hardly flaunting it if it's on her profile.
And those guys are idiots too. If I put "straight and proud of it" in my profile and then moaned if people found that offensive then I'd be just as bad as her.
It was probably just there to attract like-minded people, in the same way that people list their favourite bands in Facebook...either way, it's still their profile and their prerogative what they put on there.
Of course. Everyone can put what they like in their profile, but if it's potentially offensive (see above example) then you shouldn't complain if asked to remove it.
I completely agree with your first two points. The third one is a bit more iffy for me.
The issue of homophobia in gaming is real and growing. I can't count the amount of times I've been homophobically abused during multiplayer sessions on Xbox Live and PSN.
The problem is even more obvious in PS3 Home. Since the Beta was opened up, the service has gone from being a friendly welcoming service, to a constant stream of verbal abuse - both homophobic and sexist. What makes it worse is that Sony allow the word 'gay' to be used in conversation in PS3 Home, but don't allow it to be used when setting up Clubhouse - which makes setting up a gay gamers clubhouse (a space that would allow gay gamers to feel comfortable and talk openly) a bit difficult.
As a gamer of over 20 years, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that a great (and extremely vocal) majority of gamers are homophobes and bigots.
I know you've already explained what you meant by 'abnormal' - but, it's a bad choice of words in this context...sounds like something a YEC or Redneck would use to describe homosexuality.
Homosexuality IS abnormal. That isnt being offensive. Its a fact. Sorry if you have an issue with that phrasing, but any intelligent person (gay or not) has to concede that hetero is the norm.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
A showcase in Oslo in 2006 showed animals such as bonobo chimps, dolphins, wolves, killer whales etc engaged in same gender sexual contact highlighting that homsexuality isn't a human-only trait to many who weren't/aren't aware of it. If the natural kingdom has homosexual creatures, then the word 'abnormal' when used to describe something equally as natural as hetrosexuality is incorrect.
A person has ever right to state what they want about themselves its called freedom of speech!...
That's exactly the problem though. For most people somebody stating their sexuality is not an issue (although I agree with the comments on here stating that it's hardly necessary) but freedom of speech DOES cross boundaries of decency on a regular basis.
If you state "I am 38 and live in UK" - Generally non-offensive
If you state "I am a 38 year old (insert religion) from (insert home address) and I wish death to all (insert religion), (insert race) and (insert sex) whilst I spend my evenings (insert sex act) to (insert species)" - Generally offensive to some people
Pretty much anything else is probably perceived by the PC brigade as "potentially inflammatory"...
Perhaps this is a "nip it in the bud before it all gets out of hand" issue?
oooh an deadgood your point on abnoraml is incorrect! if straight is the norm then homosexuality is abnormal is like sayin, white people are the norm and black people are abnormal or vice-versa, because your going on the justification of what was known first so it is infact racism/prejudice/stereotype.
Deadgood you are...(atually I won't even bother finishing that sentance).
Clearly you use abnormal in a negative sense.
But who cares, because I'm proud to be abnormal in all the many and varied ways I differ from a socially constructed definition of normality. Whether that be sexually, philospihically, physically, creatively etc.
As long as I'm different from you in every way (Mr normal) than I'm a happy bunny.
If I casually put the word **** in my profile then people would take offence at that and deem it as racist slur. But if someone is a real hardcore religious person who believes homosexuality is the devil's work, then having lesbian in your profile will cause offence to them as they will see it as blasphemous slur, and so it will be just as offensive to them as **** would be to someone from Asia.
You can't just say to the religious person that they are not allowed to be offended by it, just like you cannot tell homosexuals that they are not allowed to be homosexuals.
You are not allowed to use words that may cause offence in your profile, and because 'lesbian' can cause offence to some people's religious views it should not be allowed.
It's stupid, but that's the unfortunate world we live in, where freedom of speech and freedom to be offended by anything collide into a big f*k up.
I'm sick and tierd of homophobia in video games it has to stop now.
Perhaps this woman put it in her profile in the hope people wouldn't make casual homophobic remarks at her. That some how they would hold their offensive langauge.
For whatever the reason she put it in her profile it is justified. Yes gay and lesbians should be shouting about it, until people get f**king used to it.
This is the history of Gay activism and it has been very successful to date. The idea of "camp" comes from banning of gay sexuality (circa 1920s, 1930s). Gay men and woman would "camp it up" (Ie over the top sexuality) as a f**k you to people who said they couldn't (Camp comes from the French word to flaunt).
The only people who are homophobic these days are children (who really shouldn't be playing many of these video games) or repressed homosexuals - so either come out or shut up.
Seriously though I'll be waitng for Microsoft's comments, because if it is true they did this, there will be a cheap xbox with around 30 games on Ebay, so keep a look out.
I love how gay people say homophobes are just repressed gay people lol, what nonsense, so in the same sort of understanding does this mean a white racist is a repressed black man? Face it homophobes are just ignorrant f**king morons (ok maybe a small percentage are repressed).
Well of course its not true, but homophobes f**king hate it - so it's fair game.
A person has ever right to state what they want about themselves its called freedom of speech!...
That's exactly the problem though. For most people somebody stating their sexuality is not an issue (although I agree with the comments on here stating that it's hardly necessary) but freedom of speech DOES cross boundaries of decency on a regular basis.
If you state "I am 38 and live in UK" - Generally non-offensive
If you state "I am a 38 year old (insert religion) from (insert home address) and I wish death to all (insert religion), (insert race) and (insert sex) whilst I spend my evenings (insert sex act) to (insert species)" - Generally offensive to some people
Pretty much anything else is probably perceived by the PC brigade as "potentially inflammatory"...
Perhaps this is a "nip it in the bud before it all gets out of hand" issue?
so what your saying is stating you like to kill people is the same as saying your gay/lesbian in terms of offensive sensitivity
xbox live banning is pretty random. one of my friends was banned for 2 weeks for using the term black to describe someone in his bio, wasn't used in an offensive way. but one of my other friends has "tims are gay!" as his motto which has both sectarian (if your scottish it'll make sense) and homophobic comments, and he's had that for about 6 months and hasn't had anything done about it.
I know you've already explained what you meant by 'abnormal' - but, it's a bad choice of words in this context...sounds like something a YEC or Redneck would use to describe homosexuality.
Homosexuality IS abnormal. That isnt being offensive. Its a fact. Sorry if you have an issue with that phrasing, but any intelligent person (gay or not) has to concede that hetero is the norm.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
A showcase in Oslo in 2006 showed animals such as bonobo chimps, dolphins, wolves, killer whales etc engaged in same gender sexual contact highlighting that homsexuality isn't a human-only trait to many who weren't/aren't aware of it. If the natural kingdom has homosexual creatures, then the word 'abnormal' when used to describe something equally as natural as hetrosexuality is incorrect.
I said abnormal, not unnatural...
Regardless, I prefer to see human beings as being in a whole different league from other animals. Some animals also eat their own young and feces, that doesn't mean a person doing it is normal...
A person has ever right to state what they want about themselves its called freedom of speech!...
That's exactly the problem though. For most people somebody stating their sexuality is not an issue (although I agree with the comments on here stating that it's hardly necessary) but freedom of speech DOES cross boundaries of decency on a regular basis.
If you state "I am 38 and live in UK" - Generally non-offensive
If you state "I am a 38 year old (insert religion) from (insert home address) and I wish death to all (insert religion), (insert race) and (insert sex) whilst I spend my evenings (insert sex act) to (insert species)" - Generally offensive to some people
Pretty much anything else is probably perceived by the PC brigade as "potentially inflammatory"...
Perhaps this is a "nip it in the bud before it all gets out of hand" issue?
so what your saying is stating you like to kill people is the same as saying your gay/lesbian in terms of offensive sensitivity
Not in the slightest. If you read my post I said that there is the safe comment and the extreme comment. Everything in between is a matter of opinion. I am not offended by somebody saying "I'm black/white and proud", but SOME people would find it offensive.
Sadly we live in a PC society where someone will always be offended by something. And the American's 1st ammendment of freedom of speech is as outdated as the right to bear arms.
My comment was based on your blanket statement that freedom of speech is a right, which sadly, is not the case anymore due to racism, bigotry, incitement to riot, hate crimes etc etc. When a muslim stands outside a mosque and tells other muslims to go and kill the capitalist christians, should the passing copper just say "Aw, bless 'im... It's freedom of speech"?
Regardless, I prefer to see human beings as being in a whole different league from other animals. Some animals also eat their own young and feces, that doesn't mean a person doing it is normal...
Ok then, bad example (although going by the natural/unnatural example) human would fall heavily into the unnatural category.
To put this in context then, can you explain to me why hetrosexual people are 'normal' and homosexual people are 'abnormal'? I still have a problem with that term and don't see how it can be quantified that hetrosexuality is 'the norm'.
CrispyLog is right, would you all restict a catholic from saying "Homosexuality is a sin and God will be furious like he was with sodom and Gamorrah!"?
If you would then you just resticted freedom of speech and that's what he feels like how homosexuals feel homosexual feelings.
As a gamer of over 20 years, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that a great (and extremely vocal) majority of gamers are homophobes and bigots.
unfortunately you'd be more accurate in saying that the majority of the population are homophobes, bigots and racists whether they like to admit it or not.
oooh an deadgood your point on abnoraml is incorrect! if straight is the norm then homosexuality is abnormal is like sayin, white people are the norm and black people are abnormal or vice-versa, because your going on the justification of what was known first so it is infact racism/prejudice/stereotype.
This is meaningless to me. I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.
As long as I'm different from you in every way (Mr normal) than I'm a happy bunny.
I dont remember ever referring to myself as normal. I am abnormal in a number of ways, but I dont seem to have the same strange issue with that one word as you do..
Clearly you use abnormal in a negative sense.
That word was a better fit in the sentence that I was using than any of it's synonyms. You can interpret it how you like..
I find it fascinating how some people supposedly defend freedom of speech, but then when someone has an opinion that they dislike then they tell you to shut up..
So let me get this straight (no-pun or reference intended)... Microsoft's Live account banning policy is based on Mob rule?
Since when have Mob's been able to reach rational conclusions? Usually it's a couple of people shouting the odds and everyone else following along like sheep...
So to use another analogy; M$ have found that someone is being bullied on Live so they've banned the victim rather than the bullies?
Who cares what she put in her profile? What relevance does that have other than to highlight shortsighted bigotted attitudes?
I have something for you:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the earth your right to say it. - Voltaire
A person has ever right to state what they want about themselves its called freedom of speech!...
That's exactly the problem though. For most people somebody stating their sexuality is not an issue (although I agree with the comments on here stating that it's hardly necessary) but freedom of speech DOES cross boundaries of decency on a regular basis.
If you state "I am 38 and live in UK" - Generally non-offensive
If you state "I am a 38 year old (insert religion) from (insert home address) and I wish death to all (insert religion), (insert race) and (insert sex) whilst I spend my evenings (insert sex act) to (insert species)" - Generally offensive to some people
Pretty much anything else is probably perceived by the PC brigade as "potentially inflammatory"...
Perhaps this is a "nip it in the bud before it all gets out of hand" issue?
so what your saying is stating you like to kill people is the same as saying your gay/lesbian in terms of offensive sensitivity
Not in the slightest. If you read my post I said that there is the safe comment and the extreme comment. Everything in between is a matter of opinion. I am not offended by somebody saying "I'm black/white and proud", but SOME people would find it offensive.
Sadly we live in a PC society where someone will always be offended by something. And the American's 1st ammendment of freedom of speech is as outdated as the right to bear arms.
My comment was based on your blanket statement that freedom of speech is a right, which sadly, is not the case anymore due to racism, bigotry, incitement to riot, hate crimes etc etc. When a muslim stands outside a mosque and tells other muslims to go and kill the capitalist christians, should the passing copper just say "Aw, bless 'im... It's freedom of speech"?
but yet you still deemed as putting you like to kill people/death to people or straight/gay in the same league of offensive sensitivity through example, yes i totally disgaree with putting i like to kill people in a profile as morally wrong because its stating you like to commit crimes or wish crimes to be commited against humanity, but is being a lesbian/gay a crime against humanity? No it is not, its like some religious people feel see homosexuality as devils work? but why, yet people dont beleive in religion or aspects of it and even find its concepts offensive
I find it fascinating how some people supposedly defend freedom of speech, but then when someone has an opinion that they dislike then they tell you to shut up..
That is actually the best worded argument on the whole thread. Nicely put!
Before going any further, I just want to say that peoples sexual orientation bears no relation to anything. You are who you are, you like what you like, it's all good.
However, although banning an account is a little extreme, all Microsoft have done is remove something that people could (and apparently did) find offensive.
For example: Here in the UK we can no longer use the nursery rhyme 'baa baa black sheep' in the curriculum, because it could be construed as racist. This is insanity.
It's political correctness gone mad, but this is the world today, everything offends somebody, who inevitably ends up suing whoever it was the propagated the offence. Question is, would you take the risk of incurring the wrath of those who deem something on your service to be offensive, and endure the ensuing fallout? Probably not.
To put this in context then, can you explain to me why hetrosexual people are 'normal' and homosexual people are 'abnormal'? I still have a problem with that term and don't see how it can be quantified that hetrosexuality is 'the norm'.
Certainly! Norm or normal also means average, usual, typical etc.
Heterosexuality is more common than homosexuality. Therefore it is normal. The antonym (word that means the opposite) of normal is abnormal.
Its isnt judgement. Its common knowledge. Unless you believe that over 50% of the population are homosexual..
Like I've always said, XBox Live is full of stupid f***ing d**ks who are the most truly pathetic people on the planet. And yes, especially the Yanks, who - and really if I offend anyone, I'm not sorry - are the most retarded, egotistical degenarates on this planet.
And M$hite just go to show how lame I have always believed them too be and are pure American filth in the way they are racist and sexist.
The Yanks have put the world in financial meltdown so nuking that waste of space can't be such a bad idea. And I agree with WHERESTHEMONKEY's ban of all US d**ks from Live
no doubt she was shoving her sexuality down everyones neck like alot of gays do to people, but still rediculous thou banning her, now ms will be teh homophobes, god that card is getting old now
To put this in context then, can you explain to me why hetrosexual people are 'normal' and homosexual people are 'abnormal'? I still have a problem with that term and don't see how it can be quantified that hetrosexuality is 'the norm'.
Certainly! Norm or normal also means average, usual, typical etc.
Heterosexuality is more common than homosexuality. Therefore it is normal. The antonym (word that means the opposite) of normal is abnormal.
Its isnt judgement. Its common knowledge. Unless you believe that over 50% of the population are homosexual..
completely flawed and you said you didnt understand my comment of norm and abnormal yet you just stated the exact thing you claim you didn understand!?!!! Hetrosexual and homosexual are not norm and abnormal they are mierly Different
frankly who gives a sh!t whether the gamer was a lesbian or straight?
however she must have known there would be a reaction to putting her sexual preferance in her profile. in which case she should be bright enough to know some c0ck was bound to give her grief over it. i wouldn't say she brought it on herself but she shouldn't have been surprised by it. and as many have said already why did she feel the need to express it in her profile? isn't she comfortable enough knowing her own sexual preferance, why the need to advertise the fact?
if i put married with one child i'd hardly expect anyone to be interested in that and it wouldn't be relevant to playing a bit of GOW2!
MS shouldn't have banned her though, that's just pandering to the idiots on live.
oh and don't stick up for the lesbian in one breath and then call the american's 'rednecks' or similar in the next because you then sound like the idiots who harrassed the girl. is this what they call the circle of life?
how is puttin lesbian in your profile potentially offesive?
The same way as putting "Straight and proud of it" or "White and proud of it" in your profile would be potentially offensive.
but its not offensive, if you see at as offence then your immature
No you're not immature if you find that offensive, it could be offensive to you because of your religious beliefs. I'm an atheist who thinks evolution is fact; but I would not plaster that over my profile because it may cause offence to creationists.
but yet you still deemed as putting you like to kill people/death to people or straight/gay in the same league of offensive sensitivity through example, yes i totally disgaree with putting i like to kill people in a profile as morally wrong because its stating you like to commit crimes or wish crimes to be commited against humanity, but is being a lesbian/gay a crime against humanity? No it is not, its like some religious people feel see homosexuality as devils work? but why, yet people dont beleive in religion or aspects of it and even find its concepts offensive
Ok, hopefully the final time... I DID NOT deem stating your sexuality as in the same league as messages of hate (there could be a Pulp Fiction speech here about footrubs!), I stated that everything IN BETWEEN the completely mundane and the completely extreme is open to interpretation and to being found offensive by SOMEONE. My original post said that MS may have been trying to "nip it in the bud". I wasn't even defending them, I was trying to explain that the corporate mentality MAY be that statements about sexuality, religion and race COULD be deemed as potentially inflammatory, may incite bullying from the inherantly stupid and therefore may be best removed from profiles.
Do I agree? Not really. Do I wish we lived in a world where we could say what we think? Yes. But we don't, so we have to suck it up and live with it.
They may have even requested she remove the statement and given an explanation similar to the above, WE don't know...
This Deadgood UK tosser is so obviously a closet case!!!! listen to the s**t that he's coming out with. Bullied at school or something where we?
Heterosexuality isnt the only norm it's just more common.
And since when is sexuality a preference? Why do you assume other people choose theirs, seeing as you seem to know so much about it.
Is your heterosexuality a choice?
Maybe gay people wanna game together because they want to play against other people who arent narrow minded biogots giving them a hard time?
Reading between the lines are we? If you'd like to quote posts where I said these things then be my guest.
The point I was making is that 'the norm' essentially just refers to whatever is more common. The word abnormal was being used in a factual rather than a judgemental sense.
I don't seem to be the one with the problem here. I have stated my viewpoints in a logical and clear way, refraining from any insults or taunts.
Why can people not have intelligent adult discussions nowadays? Do you have to turn everything into some kind of battle?
To put this in context then, can you explain to me why hetrosexual people are 'normal' and homosexual people are 'abnormal'? I still have a problem with that term and don't see how it can be quantified that hetrosexuality is 'the norm'.
Certainly! Norm or normal also means average, usual, typical etc.
Heterosexuality is more common than homosexuality. Therefore it is normal. The antonym (word that means the opposite) of normal is abnormal.
Its isnt judgement. Its common knowledge. Unless you believe that over 50% of the population are homosexual..
I disagree strongly. Can you not see that abnormal can be interpreted as incorrect or malfunctioning?
May I suggest another term? Common/uncommon.
It doesn't suggest fault or flaw and is more suitible than normal/abnormal. The word abnormal suggests (to me at least) an undesired attribute or condition of which offensive could be taken.
oooh an deadgood your point on abnoraml is incorrect! if straight is the norm then homosexuality is abnormal is like sayin, white people are the norm and black people are abnormal or vice-versa, because your going on the justification of what was known first so it is infact racism/prejudice/stereotype.
This is meaningless to me. I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.
As long as I'm different from you in every way (Mr normal) than I'm a happy bunny.
I dont remember ever referring to myself as normal. I am abnormal in a number of ways, but I dont seem to have the same strange issue with that one word as you do..
Clearly you use abnormal in a negative sense.
That word was a better fit in the sentence that I was using than any of it's synonyms. You can interpret it how you like..
I find it fascinating how some people supposedly defend freedom of speech, but then when someone has an opinion that they dislike then they tell you to shut up..
no probs deadgood with the earlier misunderstanding and once again i agree with eveything you say. i have to say, gay or lesbian is not the natural way of nature. if it was the human race would have died out years ago then all you gays and lesbians would have nothing to complain about. - grabs coat and makes for the door
how is puttin lesbian in your profile potentially offesive?
The same way as putting "Straight and proud of it" or "White and proud of it" in your profile would be potentially offensive.
but its not offensive, if you see at as offence then your immature
No you're not immature if you find that offensive, it could be offensive to you because of your religious beliefs. I'm an atheist who thinks evolution is fact; but I would not plaster that over my profile because it may cause offence to creationists.
ye and that brings up the point of why do religious people find it offensive? Because it says its offensive and a sin in a book? wheres the logic in that?
I find it fascinating how some people supposedly defend freedom of speech, but then when someone has an opinion that they dislike then they tell you to shut up..
To be honest none of this has anything to with freedom of speech. Its acutally missing the point completely.
This is about bigotry and Microsoft pandering to bigotry.
If someone want to say something racist, well fine. But don't expect me to meekly stand by and let you whip up hate and potentially endanger me. I will fight back. That is the reality of freedom of speech.
There is no objectivity, there is no liberal Voltarian state of freedom. If facist wants to whip up hatred towards me, I'm not going to stand there and defend his right to do it, I'm going to try to put him down before he puts me down. When Malcolm X rose the slogan "By any means necssary" - he was correct when he said that our violence is not racist, but a reaction against racism.
Of course these are very extreme examples, in most cases reactionary bigotry can be fought with words alone. But when the BNP start marching again, attack on blacks, gays, trade unionist start to rise - the fight for freedom of speech becomes a fight for a freedom to exist.
The world is divided, there are progressive and reactionary tendancies, sometimes they can inter-mingle and become cloudy, but sometimes you have to choose sides. That is why if a religious person is offended by gay people, they can f**k off - unless of course they are screwing each other on the church alter, in which case that might be going a little over the top.
Because while for example I would defend religious people facing persecution (eg I have campaigned against the persecution of Muslims in Britain), I would also fight any religious group that attacked homosexuals - it may sound contradictory but that is the real world we live in. You need to choose which side you are on and who really is oppressing who.
I think the issue of why many gay people see their sexuality as one of their defining, noteworthy qualities is largely separate from the debate about why people are offended by non-heterosexuality.
I can understand the cultural and historical concerns that lead to the former. The latter though is just bigotry, plain and simple.
Saying "she deserved it" for "flaunting her sexuality" is rather akin to saying rape victims are the ones at fault if they "dress provocatively". It misses the point, and excuses the highly questionable behaviour of some utterly vile people.
I'm an atheist who thinks evolution is fact; but I would not plaster that over my profile because it may cause offence to creationists.
I share your world views, but believe me, offending creationists will never be a concern of mine.
I stated that everything IN BETWEEN the completely mundane and the completely extreme is open to interpretation and to being found offensive by SOMEONE. My original post said that MS may have been trying to "nip it in the bud". I wasn't even defending them, I was trying to explain that the corporate mentality MAY be that statements about sexuality, religion and race COULD be deemed as potentially inflammatory, may incite bullying from the inherantly stupid and therefore may be best removed from profiles.
I can understand and agree with this. I dont know why other people can't. Microsoft as a company must attempt to be objective.
Why can people have freedom of speech, but not the freedom to voice when they are offended by something?
Anyway, the freedom of speech argument is irrelevant when referring to Xbox Live, as it is a privately managed service with a Code of Conduct and Terms of Use that must be agreed to before participating.
This Deadgood UK tosser is so obviously a closet case!!!! listen to the s**t that he's coming out with. Bullied at school or something where we?
Heterosexuality isnt the only norm it's just more common.
And since when is sexuality a preference? Why do you assume other people choose theirs, seeing as you seem to know so much about it.
Is your heterosexuality a choice?
Maybe gay people wanna game together because they want to play against other people who arent narrow minded biogots giving them a hard time?
Reading between the lines are we? If you'd like to quote posts where I said these things then be my guest.
The point I was making is that 'the norm' essentially just refers to whatever is more common. The word abnormal was being used in a factual rather than a judgemental sense.
I don't seem to be the one with the problem here. I have stated my viewpoints in a logical and clear way, refraining from any insults or taunts.
Why can people not have intelligent adult discussions nowadays? Do you have to turn everything into some kind of battle?
Id be interested to hear your response to my question why do you think people choose their sexuality? and do you choose yours?
Id be interested to hear your response to my question why do you think people choose their sexuality? and do you choose yours?
I never stated that sexual orientation is a choice, and I don't feel that my opinions on this matter would be relevant or productive to this discussion.
how is puttin lesbian in your profile potentially offesive?
The same way as putting "Straight and proud of it" or "White and proud of it" in your profile would be potentially offensive.
but its not offensive, if you see at as offence then your immature
No you're not immature if you find that offensive, it could be offensive to you because of your religious beliefs. I'm an atheist who thinks evolution is fact; but I would not plaster that over my profile because it may cause offence to creationists.
ye and that brings up the point of why do religious people find it offensive? Because it says its offensive and a sin in a book? wheres the logic in that?
It doesn't matter, we must respect their religious beliefs regardless of logic. Is it logical to be straight or homosexual, well who cares? It doesn't matter if it's logical, respect who people are and their beliefs. If you are homosexual then be proud of it, but don't go shouting about it if it causes offence. If your religious belief is that homosexuality is wrong then that is your belief, but don't go shouting about it if it will cause offence.
MS bans people based on the number of complaints about their behaviour on XboxLive, not based on their own moral yardstick (they have none - if you pay the money then you're OK by Bill).
This situation is most certainly wrong, but it's more a shocking statement about US kids behaviour on Live than a comment on MS. I've no doubt this 'banning' will be overturned once an actual human being looks into the situation. So far this is simply an automated system registering a certain number of bigotted/juvenile complaints and a call centre monkey not quite understanding the problem (not unusual).
I agree totally with this statement, all the people who gave her hassle probably filed complaints about her for other reasons (depending on what options you have to do so) and she was automatically banned. Until MS look into it properly and issue a response you can't really judge them imo. We need more than her account before you can do that.
no probs deadgood with the earlier misunderstanding and once again i agree with eveything you say. i have to say, gay or lesbian is not the natural way of nature. if it was the human race would have died out years ago then all you gays and lesbians would have nothing to complain about. - grabs coat and makes for the door
how is puttin lesbian in your profile potentially offesive?
The same way as putting "Straight and proud of it" or "White and proud of it" in your profile would be potentially offensive.
but its not offensive, if you see at as offence then your immature
No you're not immature if you find that offensive, it could be offensive to you because of your religious beliefs. I'm an atheist who thinks evolution is fact; but I would not plaster that over my profile because it may cause offence to creationists.
ye and that brings up the point of why do religious people find it offensive? Because it says its offensive and a sin in a book? wheres the logic in that?
It doesn't matter, we must respect their religious beliefs regardless of logic. Is it logical to be straight or homosexual, well who cares? It doesn't matter if it's logical, respect who people are and their beliefs. If you are homosexual then be proud of it, but don't go shouting about it if it causes offence. If your religious belief is that homosexuality is wrong then that is your belief, but don't go shouting about it if it will cause offence.
Simple as that.
and therefore we must respect peoples desicion in their sexuality just like peoples desicions on religion
It doesn't matter, we must respect their religious beliefs regardless of logic. Is it logical to be straight or homosexual, well who cares? It doesn't matter if it's logical, respect who people are and their beliefs. If you are homosexual then be proud of it, but don't go shouting about it if it causes offence. If your religious belief is that homosexuality is wrong then that is your belief, but don't go shouting about it if it will cause offence.
how is puttin lesbian in your profile potentially offesive?
The same way as putting "Straight and proud of it" or "White and proud of it" in your profile would be potentially offensive.
but its not offensive, if you see at as offence then your immature
No you're not immature if you find that offensive, it could be offensive to you because of your religious beliefs. I'm an atheist who thinks evolution is fact; but I would not plaster that over my profile because it may cause offence to creationists.
ye and that brings up the point of why do religious people find it offensive? Because it says its offensive and a sin in a book? wheres the logic in that?
It doesn't matter, we must respect their religious beliefs regardless of logic. Is it logical to be straight or homosexual, well who cares? It doesn't matter if it's logical, respect who people are and their beliefs. If you are homosexual then be proud of it, but don't go shouting about it if it causes offence. If your religious belief is that homosexuality is wrong then that is your belief, but don't go shouting about it if it will cause offence.
Why can people not have intelligent adult discussions nowadays? Do you have to turn everything into some kind of battle?
Because they don't understand that a discussion based on semantics (and the literal interpretation thereof) isn't necessarily an act of bigotry.
Well a crucial point is language is not neutral. This has been well established. It is to do with connatations and is a very complex area.
Descriptions of the Other have always been controversial. For example in England the term Oriental to describe Asian people is considered Racist (because of its historical context), while it France the term is considered Neutral.
One of the words most minorities (whether for example the disabled, homosexual) have faught against is the idea of a deviation from normality. For various reasons it was perceived as a negative conatation (hence the term deviant, which I think you would agree is considered negative).
I think this is really vital to any discussion of language - you cannot take words in a vacuum. They have a history, and meaning changes depending on who is talking to who.
we must respect their religious beliefs regardless of logic.
No, I'm sorry, but I can't subscribe to that. There are some rather disgusting views held out there which are excused because they happen to be "religious" in nature. I cannot respect those beliefs. In fact, I don't respect any religious beliefs, but that's a whole other issue.
I respect people's right to hold those beliefs, but that's different.
Remember, some people thought they were justified in killing 3,000 people with hijacked aeroplanes because of a certain (warped and uncommon) set of spiritual convictions. Do you respect them? Of course you don't.
we must respect their religious beliefs regardless of logic.
No, I'm sorry, but I can't subscribe to that. There are some rather disgusting views held out there which are excused because they happen to be "religious" in nature. I cannot respect those beliefs. In fact, I don't respect any religious beliefs, but that's a whole other issue.
I respect people's right to hold those beliefs, but that's different.
Remember, some people thought they were justified in killing 3,000 people with hijacked aeroplanes because of a certain (warped and uncommon) set of spiritual convictions. Do you respect them? Of course you don't.
How about: We have to respect peoples religious beliefs regardless of logic, as long as they do not negatively impact the lives of others? Happy with that?
Why can people not have intelligent adult discussions nowadays? Do you have to turn everything into some kind of battle?
Because they don't understand that a discussion based on semantics (and the literal interpretation thereof) isn't necessarily an act of bigotry.
Well a crucial point is language is not neutral. This has been well established. It is to do with connatations and is a very complex area.
Descriptions of the Other have always been controversial. For example in England the term Oriental to describe Asian people is considered Racist (because of its historical context), while it France the term is considered Neutral.
One of the words most minorities (whether for example the disabled, homosexual) have faught against is the idea of a deviation from normality. For various reasons it was perceived as a negative conatation (hence the term deviant, which I think you would agree is considered negative).
I think this is really vital to any discussion of language - you cannot take words in a vacuum. They have a history, and meaning changes depending on who is talking to who.
It's a valid point but, as with this entire thread, it's about interpretation.
You used the word "disabled" in this post. Do I find that offensive? Nope. But apparently, we aren't supposed to used it anymore ("such-and-such challenged" is the PC term). As an earlier poster said, we can't sing "Baa Baa Black Sheep" as it's "racist" and even the word "blackboard" should apparently be "chalkboard" today!
The country's (and generally the world) is becoming a joke based on people's sensibilities and I can't see it changing. So if a poster uses a term in it's literal, dictionary defined meaning and is shot down for it, I think he should have the right to defend himself.
And all of this is over the word "Gay" which originally meant happy... Oh the irony...
Add me to Xbox Live people, my gametag is xxCaptain_Jew97xx. I think being gay is immoral as part of my religion, everyone should be jewist and everyone who thinks flaunting gayness on xbox live is acceptable and ok, grow up.
Gay people can't have children, or get married, its totally immoral and should be banned.
And don't persecute jews on Xbox Live (most of you do), we've had a hard time lol
and therefore we must respect peoples desicion in their sexuality just like peoples desicions on religion
And yet you don't respect some people's right to be offended by homosexuality etc.
my arguement is simply....why are they offended? yes im straight i have a fiancee, i have gay friends who live the same life as everyone else yet they'd rather their same gender as other halfs, whats soo offence about that cause I dont find it to be?! Beacause it says it wrong in a book? ok thats is a religious belief, but wy does the person or persons who wrote the bible feel its offensive and a sin, we'll never know will we, so because the bibles reader follows this code of ethics they also feel the same that homosexuality is offensive, follow the leader concept! and yet because these people follow the bible they have every right to be offended by it, yet its not logical because they dont fully understand why its offensive, it just says so in a book that we today don't even know if its events actually happened and yes i have friends who are religius but they dont believe half the bible says these just believe in living a good life, being kind to others because it promotes peace, yet where sayin homosexaulity is a sin, does not!
I agree it is unfortunate that she gets banned for stating her sexual preferences, furthermore Microsoft needs to take a serious look at the way it's subscribers act on-line. The current banning system is deeply flawed, it's all very well relying on parents to stop big gob little Timmy to not play Gears of War let alone spend hours p****ng everyone else off by hurling abuse in the lobbies, the fact is most parents are demented and on the one hand think it is ok for their kids to blow peoples heads off in COD4 but will claim holy hell when some stranger puts something on her profile.
My mate had the gamer tag 'Osamabinmark' for a while then got banned, I can see why in a way but it's a bit OTT in my opinion, yet I have seen several times a gamertag that I can't write on here for months and he is still there!!
In this case though this lady perhaps should think twice, I mean I am a raving psycho who hates everything and everyone but I don't feel the need to put it on my profile. Don't lay the bait if you don't want the fish to bite!, although I am now temepted to change gamertag to 'CaptainCarpetMuncher'
we must respect their religious beliefs regardless of logic.
No, I'm sorry, but I can't subscribe to that. There are some rather disgusting views held out there which are excused because they happen to be "religious" in nature. I cannot respect those beliefs. In fact, I don't respect any religious beliefs, but that's a whole other issue.
I respect people's right to hold those beliefs, but that's different.
Remember, some people thought they were justified in killing 3,000 people with hijacked aeroplanes because of a certain (warped and uncommon) set of spiritual convictions. Do you respect them? Of course you don't.
How about: We have to respect peoples religious beliefs regardless of logic, as long as they do not negatively impact the lives of others? Happy with that?
Why do we "have" to respect anyone's religious beliefs?
No. Like I said, I respect anyone's right to believe whatever they want. But that's not the same as respecting the belief.
We need to live in an age where all sexualities are accepted gay people don't have the need to 'come out' or announce their preference. Xbox Live isn't a dating service anyway.
I sort of understand where they're coming from by announcing to the world that they're gay/ethnic/different. You're rubbing against the grain and generally rebelling against an ignorant society. Unfortunately if you do so you have to accept that the majority of this ignorant race are going to bite back and make your life difficult.
No you shouldn't hide away but I would just like to live in an age where it doesn't matter what side of the stamp you lick, because it really doesn't.
My girlfriend's brother is gay and has HIV and the amount of s**te that he's had to deal with is a complete nightmare. He actually got told by his dentist that he wasn't to go there anymore!! Needless to say we phoned and waved the discrimination act under their nose. You've never seen a professional crumple so easily.
Add me to Xbox Live people, my gametag is xxCaptain_Jew97xx. I think being gay is immoral as part of my religion, everyone should be jewist and everyone who thinks flaunting gayness on xbox live is acceptable and ok, grow up.
Gay people can't have children, or get married, its totally immoral and should be banned.
And don't persecute jews on Xbox Live (most of you do), we've had a hard time lol
I do hope you're being facetious.
notice these gays and lesbians go quiet when you talk about natures way of life. they have no argument unless they want the human race to perish
Same to you. The only "argument" anyone needs for being gay is "I'm attracted to the same sex". It's not about providing some kind of alternative to heterosexuality, and recruiting as such, or any other bizarre notion you'd like to peddle about the nature of gayness.
We need to live in an age where all sexualities are accepted gay people don't have the need to 'come out' or announce their preference. Xbox Live isn't a dating service anyway.
I sort of understand where they're coming from by announcing to the world that they're gay/ethnic/different. You're rubbing against the grain and generally rebelling against an ignorant society. Unfortunately if you do so you have to accept that the majority of this ignorant race are going to bite back and make your life difficult.
No you shouldn't hide away but I would just like to live in an age where it doesn't matter what side of the stamp you lick, because it really doesn't.
My girlfriend's brother is gay and has HIV and the amount of s**te that he's had to deal with is a complete nightmare. He actually got told by his dentist that he wasn't to go there anymore!! Needless to say we phoned and waved the discrimination act under their nose. You've never seen a professional crumple so easily.
cept that wont happen cos people choose what they like and dont regardless of what other people think, alot of people dont care what other people do
but same cant be said for others who go out thier way to make others a living hell
we must respect their religious beliefs regardless of logic.
No, I'm sorry, but I can't subscribe to that. There are some rather disgusting views held out there which are excused because they happen to be "religious" in nature. I cannot respect those beliefs. In fact, I don't respect any religious beliefs, but that's a whole other issue.
I respect people's right to hold those beliefs, but that's different.
Remember, some people thought they were justified in killing 3,000 people with hijacked aeroplanes because of a certain (warped and uncommon) set of spiritual convictions. Do you respect them? Of course you don't.
How about: We have to respect peoples religious beliefs regardless of logic, as long as they do not negatively impact the lives of others? Happy with that?
Why do we "have" to respect anyone's religious beliefs?
No. Like I said, I respect anyone's right to believe whatever they want. But that's not the same as respecting the belief.
True, I respect people's right to believe what they want but it doesn't mean I will respect them or religion.
Religion failed big time, our generation knows that but the fall side is that morals have kind of warped because of it. We know it's not true so we rebel against sound morals.
yes i respect peoples belief systems to point that its their's and not mine. yet you moan that some homosexuals flaunt what they are yet you forget about religious people taking it one step futher by knocking on my/your door tryng to ram jesus down my/your throat and dont take no im sorry i dont have time or sorry i dont believe in god or dont want to for an answer.
Why can people not have intelligent adult discussions nowadays? Do you have to turn everything into some kind of battle?
Because they don't understand that a discussion based on semantics (and the literal interpretation thereof) isn't necessarily an act of bigotry.
Well a crucial point is language is not neutral. This has been well established. It is to do with connatations and is a very complex area.
Descriptions of the Other have always been controversial. For example in England the term Oriental to describe Asian people is considered Racist (because of its historical context), while it France the term is considered Neutral.
One of the words most minorities (whether for example the disabled, homosexual) have faught against is the idea of a deviation from normality. For various reasons it was perceived as a negative conatation (hence the term deviant, which I think you would agree is considered negative).
I think this is really vital to any discussion of language - you cannot take words in a vacuum. They have a history, and meaning changes depending on who is talking to who.
It's a valid point but, as with this entire thread, it's about interpretation.
You used the word "disabled" in this post. Do I find that offensive? Nope. But apparently, we aren't supposed to used it anymore ("such-and-such challenged" is the PC term). As an earlier poster said, we can't sing "Baa Baa Black Sheep" as it's "racist" and even the word "blackboard" should apparently be "chalkboard" today!
The country's (and generally the world) is becoming a joke based on people's sensibilities and I can't see it changing. So if a poster uses a term in it's literal, dictionary defined meaning and is shot down for it, I think he should have the right to defend himself.
And all of this is over the word "Gay" which originally meant happy... Oh the irony...
I think it was Gay people that got fed up with that term becuase it was fixed a definition of them - ie that they are supposed to be happy all the time. (most of my Gay friends hate it, because sometime you just want to be a bastard).
The problem with so called "PC gone mad" argument is most of it is rubbish anyhow. It is either exaggerated, whipped up by the reactionary press etc. There are so many lies, it beggers belief. For example a recent one was that Birmingham City Council wanted to ban Christmas etc.
You should always be suspicious of these exaggerations because they are essentially thowing sand in your face. They want you to be going around screaming "Its all gone mad - you can't say anything anymore".
I recall, some woman on Newsnight (she was from Maidestone, so I guess you'd expect it!) saying (and this is pretty much verbatem) "its all gone mad, these days you can't even abuse people any more. And if you do, you're the one that gets in trouble!"
The reality is, if you use language which might be considered offensive by some, they will forgive you if your intentions are not to offend.
The best example, my partner was visiting a Welsh working man's club in an old mining town. During the miners strike the Gay Bi and Lesbian society had a whip round to send toys to the children of striking miners. In return the miners voted to send their brass band to front the Gay Pride march in London.
My partner went up to this old guy who was sitting below a picture of miners dressed in Pink. She asked what was that and he said "Oh that's the ****s that came to visit us, they were bloody brilliant".
Clearly the language was obtuse, but the context in which he was saying it was one of genuine respect, and that is what matters.
Why can people not have intelligent adult discussions nowadays? Do you have to turn everything into some kind of battle?
Because they don't understand that a discussion based on semantics (and the literal interpretation thereof) isn't necessarily an act of bigotry.
Well a crucial point is language is not neutral. This has been well established. It is to do with connatations and is a very complex area.
Descriptions of the Other have always been controversial. For example in England the term Oriental to describe Asian people is considered Racist (because of its historical context), while it France the term is considered Neutral.
One of the words most minorities (whether for example the disabled, homosexual) have faught against is the idea of a deviation from normality. For various reasons it was perceived as a negative conatation (hence the term deviant, which I think you would agree is considered negative).
I think this is really vital to any discussion of language - you cannot take words in a vacuum. They have a history, and meaning changes depending on who is talking to who.
It's a valid point but, as with this entire thread, it's about interpretation.
You used the word "disabled" in this post. Do I find that offensive? Nope. But apparently, we aren't supposed to used it anymore ("such-and-such challenged" is the PC term). As an earlier poster said, we can't sing "Baa Baa Black Sheep" as it's "racist" and even the word "blackboard" should apparently be "chalkboard" today!
The country's (and generally the world) is becoming a joke based on people's sensibilities and I can't see it changing. So if a poster uses a term in it's literal, dictionary defined meaning and is shot down for it, I think he should have the right to defend himself.
And all of this is over the word "Gay" which originally meant happy... Oh the irony...
I think it was Gay people that got fed up with that term becuase it because a definition of them - ie that they are supposed to be happy all the time. (most of my Gay friends hate, because sometime you just want to be a bastard).
The problem with so called "PC gone mad" is most of it is rubbish anyhow. It either exaggerated, whipped up by the reactionary press etc. There are so many lies, it beggers belief. For example a recent one was that Birmingham City Council wanted to ban Christmas etc.
You should always be suspicious of these exaggerations because they are essentially thowing sand in your face. They want you to be going around screaming "Its all gone mad - you can't say anyhting anymore".
I recall, some woman on Newsnight (she was from Maidestone, so I guess you'd expect it!) saying (and this is pretty much verbatem) "its all gone, these days you can't even abuse people any more. And if you do, your the one that gets in trouble!"
The reality is, if you use language which might be considered offensive by some, they will forgive you if your intentions are not to offend.
The best example, my partner was visiting a Welsh working man's club in an old mining town. During the miners strike the Gay Bi and Lesbian society had a whip round to send toys to the children of striking miners. In return the miners voted to send their brass band to front the Gay Pride march in London.
My partner went up to this old guy who was sitting below a picture of miners dressed in Pink. She asked what was that and he said "Oh that's the ****s that came to visit us, they were bloody brilliant".
Clearly the language was obtuse, but the context in which he was saying it was one of genuine respect, and that is what matters.
and therefore we must respect peoples desicion in their sexuality just like peoples desicions on religion
And yet you don't respect some people's right to be offended by homosexuality etc.
my arguement is simply....why are they offended? yes im straight i have a fiancee, i have gay friends who live the same life as everyone else yet they'd rather their same gender as other halfs, whats soo offence about that cause I dont find it to be?! Beacause it says it wrong in a book? ok thats is a religious belief, but wy does the person or persons who wrote the bible feel its offensive and a sin, we'll never know will we, so because the bibles reader follows this code of ethics they also feel the same that homosexuality is offensive, follow the leader concept! and yet because these people follow the bible they have every right to be offended by it, yet its not logical because they dont fully understand why its offensive, it just says so in a book that we today don't even know if its events actually happened and yes i have friends who are religius but they dont believe half the bible says these just believe in living a good life, being kind to others because it promotes peace, yet where sayin homosexaulity is a sin, does not!
I can't explain exactly why people would find it offensive, as I personally do not. But I believe there are some people who see homosexuality as something akin to peadophilia, which is something I'm sure we'd all rather not see/hear about.
I don't quite understand the rest of your garbled anti-religious post, but the reasoning for homosexuality being in a sin is made quite clear in the Bible. Sex outside of marriage is adultery which is a sin. Marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of so-called Christians seem to ignore the rest of the Bible where Jesus talks about loving your fellow man (not in that way! ) and treating others as you would wish to be treated.
It just seems like attention seeking to me, no-one really cares what her sexual preference is. So why advertise it in her nick?
Perhaps she wants to find other gay friends to play on xbox live with. Did that ever occur to you or are you just as narrow minded as the ones that gave her grief?
and therefore we must respect peoples desicion in their sexuality just like peoples desicions on religion
And yet you don't respect some people's right to be offended by homosexuality etc.
my arguement is simply....why are they offended? yes im straight i have a fiancee, i have gay friends who live the same life as everyone else yet they'd rather their same gender as other halfs, whats soo offence about that cause I dont find it to be?! Beacause it says it wrong in a book? ok thats is a religious belief, but wy does the person or persons who wrote the bible feel its offensive and a sin, we'll never know will we, so because the bibles reader follows this code of ethics they also feel the same that homosexuality is offensive, follow the leader concept! and yet because these people follow the bible they have every right to be offended by it, yet its not logical because they dont fully understand why its offensive, it just says so in a book that we today don't even know if its events actually happened and yes i have friends who are religius but they dont believe half the bible says these just believe in living a good life, being kind to others because it promotes peace, yet where sayin homosexaulity is a sin, does not!
I can't explain exactly why people would find it offensive, as I personally do not. But I believe there are some people who see homosexuality as something akin to peadophilia, which is something I'm sure we'd all rather not see/hear about.
I don't quite understand the rest of your garbled anti-religious post, but the reasoning for homosexuality being in a sin is made quite clear in the Bible. Sex outside of marriage is adultery which is a sin. Marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of so-called Christians seem to ignore the rest of the Bible where Jesus talks about loving your fellow man (not in that way! ) and treating others as you would wish to be treated.
ye but deadgood what im also asking is, why do the persons who wrote the bible find these things offensive and why should people believe this because they say so!! dont get me wrong some things in the bible i find valid and sensible and others i do not because i found the bible to be full of tripe that simply contredicted itself. So basiclly deadgood if you cant explain it and I cant explain it and the bibles author sure as hell cant explain why its offensive then they why should we believe it! And that is what the bible is, it pushes you to believe in what it the author feels should be right and what should be wrong without reason or why!
Maybe i'm missing the point here but can somebody tell me what relevance a person's sexual orientation has on XBox Live? Maybe if it was XXXBox Live but otherwise I can't see any reason for posting it other than seeking attention.
I don't mind lesbians as long as they let me watch.
alot of them hate men lol, get more of a chance being able to watch with bi girls
Keep talkin'...
lol no thanks, that kinda thing grosses me out, but i was just saying
In all seriousness, I have a couple of friends who happen to be lesbians. They are a pair of rum buggers because they are always teasing blokes. Me included. Good girls though - and they certainly know how to have a good time!
Do these ppl realise how much of a Lesbian fan i am! i own all there DVD's!
These are the type of people i WOULD want on my network!
I know I shouldn't but I found this REALLY funny!
Was your first thought on reading the article: "Is she fit?"
No not really i just imagine she is fit, so my first thought was 'is she holding her hair while she is going down on her'
Damn my pessimistic nature... I pictured something more akin to Jo Brand (shudder) - Time to rethink (and get my "More lesbians on xbox live" banner out)
I don't mind lesbians as long as they let me watch.
alot of them hate men lol, get more of a chance being able to watch with bi girls
Keep talkin'...
Ahem. Hasn't someone's missus just given birth to their baby daughter here?? I'm shocked at you mark!!
re the rest of the discussion. I found the term 'abnormal' to be negative. Yes the dictionary definition may mean something that's not normal, but to me and my friends, 99% would find that negative. Semantics shmemantics.
Still, I don't even get why people putting the sexuality of any persuasion is offensive to anyone. Some people are so insecure - if it's their right to be offended by someone's statement of sexuality, then it's someone right to offend them by telling them their sexuality.
Of course, as other people have said, we don't know the whole story, did she play the 'gay' card because she got banned for being a t**t? Although I can understand MS banning anything that may be considered slightly offensive to anyone, to nip it in the bud, as someone said, so they don't have to make individual calls on what may be offensive.
I'd rather ban the t**ts on Live that either a)set up multiplayer lobbies and then sod off, leaving people waiting for a game that won't happen anytime soon, and b) the muppets who just go on to L4D to kill their team mates.
If you complain/negatively review someone on live, can they see who the complaint/review is from?
re the rest of the discussion. I found the term 'abnormal' to be negative. Yes the dictionary definition may mean something that's not normal, but to me and my friends, 99% would find that negative. Semantics shmemantics.
This is why I later clarified that I meant it factually rather than judgementally.
Some people are so insecure - if it's their right to be offended by someone's statement of sexuality, then it's someone right to offend them by telling them their sexuality.
That statement is meaningless garbage. Why should people have the right to offend others?
If you complain/negatively review someone on live, can they see who the complaint/review is from?
ye but deadgood what im also asking is, why do the persons who wrote the bible find these things offensive and why should people believe this because they say so!! dont get me wrong some things in the bible i find valid and sensible and others i do not because i found the bible to be full of tripe that simply contredicted itself. So basiclly deadgood if you cant explain it and I cant explain it and the bibles author sure as hell cant explain why its offensive then they why should we believe it! And that is what the bible is, it pushes you to believe in what it the author feels should be right and what should be wrong without reason or why!
Do we really need to turn this into a religious debate?
Is it so hard to fathom that some people could consider marriage a sacred union?
ye but deadgood what im also asking is, why do the persons who wrote the bible find these things offensive and why should people believe this because they say so!! dont get me wrong some things in the bible i find valid and sensible and others i do not because i found the bible to be full of tripe that simply contredicted itself. So basiclly deadgood if you cant explain it and I cant explain it and the bibles author sure as hell cant explain why its offensive then they why should we believe it! And that is what the bible is, it pushes you to believe in what it the author feels should be right and what should be wrong without reason or why!
Do we really need to turn this into a religious debate?
Is it so hard to fathom that some people could consider marriage a sacred union?
well someone else started the religious debate not me! and my statement was not about marriage seperatley though i did state little pieces of the bible are sensible yet i have no problem with people believing marriage is sacred but yet again its a term ans statement from the bible that has no reason or why! i prefer marriage to be love, attraction and respect not sacred
wholeheartedly agree with you there. on what day did god create, and then kill, the dinosuars?
The only bible worth believing is the Manic Street Preacher's bible!
dunno, the Neon Bible by Arcade Fire's pretty believable
BEST ALBUM EVER, TRUE FACT
nope that always goes to Sgt Peppers. either that or OK Computer by Radiohead
To be fair - the Manics' 'Holy Bible' album is always fairly high up on those lists of 'greatest album ever' too. It's a brilliant album - one of the darkest and most honest records ever....last I heard, you could pick up the 10th Anniversary edition at HMV for a mere £4.99 (2 CD + 1 DVD) - a bargain!
Check it out if you're curious, you won't be disappointed.
PS - I've never really understood all the 'love' for OK Computer...it's a great album, but best ever?? - I'm not convinced, there's a few filler tracks on there...
Sod the bible! I wanna talk about bi's! What's wrong with you people?
Oh, and I agree that Ok Computer is an awesome album and I enjoyed 'In Rainbows' quite a lot too.
Strangely, I have a fetish for Kate Bush at the minute. The 'Hounds of Love' album is brilliant/mad/awesome.
Isn't it odd how you seem to develop guilty pleasures for no apparant reason?...I seem to be listening to a lot of Motley Crue recently (probably because I'm reading 'The Dirt' biography - which is brilliant, by the way).
So people are basically saying that you must respect peoples rights to believe in what religion they want. We must also respect people by what sexuality they are aswell.
But we must also respect the fact that someones sexuality may be offensive to other people.
I have no problem with whatever people are sexually, but I do understand that some people find it totally abhorrent. Im fine with that too.
I couldnt care less to be honest, but i do judge someone that makes a big deal about their sexuality on their profile page on XBOX LIVE. If it was anything else, then fine, but everyone thats been near Live knows that doing something like that is just a one way ticket to abuse.
Its wrong that it is, and it shouldnt be like that, but you arent gonna change it so just make life easier for yourself and dont mention it, thats what I say.
Its sad to say it, but putting something like that on your profile page on Live is pretty much asking for trouble.
You agree that we may also discontinue your access to the Service if you do any of the following while connected to the Service:
Create a Gamertag , avatar or use text in other profile fields that may offend other members. This includes comments that look, sound like, stand for, hint at, abbreviate, or insinuate or relate to any of the following: profane words/phrases, topics or content of a sexual nature, hate speech (including but not limited to racial, ethnic, or religious slurs), illegal drugs/controlled substances, or illegal activities;
Taken from the xbox live TOS. They were well within their right to ban her even if it seems a bit harsh. Her own fault anyway, fair enough, she's a lesbian, but putting it in her profile is just asking for trouble in a vain attempt at getting some attention. Well looks like she got the attention, but it wasn't quite what she wanted.
wholeheartedly agree with you there. on what day did god create, and then kill, the dinosuars?
The only bible worth believing is the Manic Street Preacher's bible!
dunno, the Neon Bible by Arcade Fire's pretty believable
BEST ALBUM EVER, TRUE FACT
nope that always goes to Sgt Peppers. either that or OK Computer by Radiohead
To be fair - the Manics' 'Holy Bible' album is always fairly high up on those lists of 'greatest album ever' too. It's a brilliant album - one of the darkest and most honest records ever....last I heard, you could pick up the 10th Anniversary edition at HMV for a mere £4.99 (2 CD + 1 DVD) - a bargain!
Check it out if you're curious, you won't be disappointed.
PS - I've never really understood all the 'love' for OK Computer...it's a great album, but best ever?? - I'm not convinced, there's a few filler tracks on there...
I don't think Ok Computer has any filler tbh, theres one thing that makes even the less musically interesting music rise above the status of filler and thats the pure heart on sleeve emotion. Take Exit Music for example, it could so easily have been done badly, slow music is always a risk and RH ALWAYS triumph.
I think the least exciting part of Ok Computer are the last 2 tracks Lucky and The Tourist, but I see them as a clever wind down rather than a filler.
Want some filler... give The Queen is Dead a spin, bar the classics everyone loves a good 4/10 of those songs arn't up to the legendary status people throw on that album.
Now Strangeways and Meat is Murder they are the amazing Smith's albums.
wholeheartedly agree with you there. on what day did god create, and then kill, the dinosuars?
The only bible worth believing is the Manic Street Preacher's bible!
dunno, the Neon Bible by Arcade Fire's pretty believable
BEST ALBUM EVER, TRUE FACT
nope that always goes to Sgt Peppers. either that or OK Computer by Radiohead
To be fair - the Manics' 'Holy Bible' album is always fairly high up on those lists of 'greatest album ever' too. It's a brilliant album - one of the darkest and most honest records ever....last I heard, you could pick up the 10th Anniversary edition at HMV for a mere £4.99 (2 CD + 1 DVD) - a bargain!
Check it out if you're curious, you won't be disappointed.
PS - I've never really understood all the 'love' for OK Computer...it's a great album, but best ever?? - I'm not convinced, there's a few filler tracks on there...
I don't think Ok Computer has any filler tbh, theres one thing that makes even the less musically interesting music rise above the status of filler and thats the pure heart on sleeve emotion. Take Exit Music for example, it could so easily have been done badly, slow music is always a risk and RH ALWAYS triumph.
I think the least exciting part of Ok Computer are the last 2 tracks Lucky and The Tourist, but I see them as a clever wind down rather than a filler.
Want some filler... give The Queen is Dead a spin, bar the classics everyone loves a good 4/10 of those songs arn't up to the legendary status people throw on that album.
Now Strangeways and Meat is Murder they are the amazing Smith's albums.
Couldn't agree more about the Smiths albums - 'Strangeways..' is a masterpiece. In fact, I know very few Smiths fans that will tell you that 'The Queen is Dead' is their greatest album.
It's really not that I dislike 'OK Computer' at all - for me, it's a damn good album...but, there's plenty that I'd rate higher in my personal top 10 ever.
well someone else started the religious debate not me! and my statement was not about marriage seperatley though i did state little pieces of the bible are sensible yet i have no problem with people believing marriage is sacred but yet again its a term ans statement from the bible that has no reason or why! i prefer marriage to be love, attraction and respect not sacred
You're clearly an athiest, so why would you consider anything sacred..?
You say the Bible gives no reasoning for anything, but clearly you haven't read it. Why are you passing judgement about something you are ignorant about? This is the cause of many problems in the world.
Radiohead - Brilliant, underrated.
Manic's Holy Bible - Overrated
Sgt. Pepper - Superb
But everyone knows that the Sugababes are the best band ever.
Sod the bible! I wanna talk about bi's! What's wrong with you people?
Oh, and I agree that Ok Computer is an awesome album and I enjoyed 'In Rainbows' quite a lot too.
Strangely, I have a fetish for Kate Bush at the minute. The 'Hounds of Love' album is brilliant/mad/awesome.
Isn't it odd how you seem to develop guilty pleasures for no apparant reason?...I seem to be listening to a lot of Motley Crue recently (probably because I'm reading 'The Dirt' biography - which is brilliant, by the way).
I had the motley Crue phase when I was in my 20's, along with Kiss. Good times.
I've mellowed out musically since I hit my 30's, though I still pump out the Maiden now & then! Oh, and I recently got into Mars Volta, especially the 'Deloused in the crematorium' album. Sheesh, it blew me away, but it 'aint for everyone.
re the rest of the discussion. I found the term 'abnormal' to be negative. Yes the dictionary definition may mean something that's not normal, but to me and my friends, 99% would find that negative. Semantics shmemantics.
This is why I later clarified that I meant it factually rather than judgementally.
Some people are so insecure - if it's their right to be offended by someone's statement of sexuality, then it's someone right to offend them by telling them their sexuality.
That statement is meaningless garbage. Why should people have the right to offend others?
If you complain/negatively review someone on live, can they see who the complaint/review is from?
No. They cannot.
I didn't read through all of the six pages, so apologies if I missed you stating you meant it factually.
I didn't mention offending people for the fun of it, on any subject. I only referred to sexuality. It is such a stupid idea (to me) that one person can be offended by another who STATES their sexuality (apart from if it is graphic or too crude I suppose), then they deserve to feel offended. And I'm glad they're offended. They don't have to like it, have it in their daily lives but just be tolerant of other people who are just living their lives.
I guess it all just comes down to someone's upbringing, tolerance, beliefs etc. If we were all the same and all reacted the same it would be boring as hell. Forums wouldn't exist anyway. Well there'd be one post and all the subsequent ones would say 'I agree'!!
And re the reviews. Sweet. I'm gonna bust me some chops.
edit - something fanboy said made me think. I agree that people have the right to be offended, but it is the reactions to being offended (i.e getting her kicked off Live, or in other people's cases, just getting their heads kicked it) that I have the problem with.
Stg Pepper has a little stuff in it id argue is very dated. I don't think Good Morning Good Morning is a good song now but back then I guess it was, but compared to Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane that was supposed to be on Stg Pepper it doesnt hold up.
A Day in the Life is amazing, it's their best chord progresion, their best lyric, their strongest vocals... everything.
But I prefer Abbey Road, mainly for the controlled experimentation and because the last 16 minutes define why I love music!
Meat is Murder is one of my favorate rock albums ever, I just love the sound. I need the complations Hatful of hollow, world wont listen and Louder than bombs. Im annoyed the later two are the same album with a few changes but their cheap enough. I still need to the debut too (the smiths) is it any good?
Strangelove is their masterpeice no doubt so far tho, the crown jewel is Last Night I dreamt somebody loved me.
PS @ Dead - And bar the Manics THB what Manics have you heard? A Design to life no doubt, but you give me the impression you dont know what your talking about.
well someone else started the religious debate not me! and my statement was not about marriage seperatley though i did state little pieces of the bible are sensible yet i have no problem with people believing marriage is sacred but yet again its a term ans statement from the bible that has no reason or why! i prefer marriage to be love, attraction and respect not sacred
You're clearly an athiest, so why would you consider anything sacred..?
You say the Bible gives no reasoning for anything, but clearly you haven't read it. Why are you passing judgement about something you are ignorant about? This is the cause of many problems in the world.
Radiohead - Brilliant, underrated.
Manic's Holy Bible - Overrated
Sgt. Pepper - Superb
But everyone knows that the Sugababes are the best band ever.
yes i have read the bible and it didn't make any impression on me what so ever to go jumping into gods arms so yes it makes me athiest! but i don't hate the thought of his not yet proved existance, i don't hate god if/she did exist! but for me I just dont believe how I/you/alot could believe in somthing they have no real evidence of, basically if god shoke my hand or simply appeared in front of me to say hello in 5 minutes then i will believe in him/her espically if he/her tells me himself/herself that homosexuality is a sin.
oh and if im passing judgement then its the same as the bible passing judgement on homosexuality, but im not passing judgement mearly an opinion so that doesnt make ignorant deadgood, you should really think before typing
awwh and who cant deny the sugerbabes brilliance lol
Sod the bible! I wanna talk about bi's! What's wrong with you people?
Oh, and I agree that Ok Computer is an awesome album and I enjoyed 'In Rainbows' quite a lot too.
Strangely, I have a fetish for Kate Bush at the minute. The 'Hounds of Love' album is brilliant/mad/awesome.
Isn't it odd how you seem to develop guilty pleasures for no apparant reason?...I seem to be listening to a lot of Motley Crue recently (probably because I'm reading 'The Dirt' biography - which is brilliant, by the way).
I had the motley Crue phase when I was in my 20's, along with Kiss. Good times.
I've mellowed out musically since I hit my 30's, though I still pump out the Maiden now & then! Oh, and I recently got into Mars Volta, especially the 'Deloused in the crematorium' album. Sheesh, it blew me away, but it 'aint for everyone.
Mars Volta are pretty cool - I've only really heard them around friends and about, but I really like it. I should probably grab some CD's of theirs.
I'm in my 30's too, but I don't think my tastes have mellowed at all....varied a bit, maybe - but, I seem to still love a lot of heavy stuff - I was listening to Kyuss just last night.
My girlfriend, on the other hand, is the total opposite. Just last weekend I caught her putting a 'Carpenters: Love Songs' CD........to add to that, I've also been roped in to a Lionel Richie gig over the next couple of months.
wholeheartedly agree with you there. on what day did god create, and then kill, the dinosuars?
I love bringing that one up to religious nuts 'cos they really have no answer. I was discussing (arguing?) religion with a muslim girl I used to work with and why the dinosaurs don't (unsurprisingly) feature in the koran, when I put this too her and told her dinosaurs are a fact of life, why are they not mentioned here? Her answer was "becasue they're not important"! My answer was "so although the dinosaurs ruled this planet for around 20 million years compared to mans 30000 or so years they're not important are they? Unsurprisingly she had no argument and started to get a bit annoyed and even suggested I was being racist!
Stg Pepper has a little stuff in it id argue is very dated. I don't think Good Morning Good Morning is a good song now but back then I guess it was, but compared to Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane that was supposed to be on Stg Pepper it doesnt hold up.
A Day in the Life is amazing, it's their best chord progresion, their best lyric, their strongest vocals... everything.
But I prefer Abbey Road, mainly for the controlled experimentation and because the last 16 minutes define why I love music!
Meat is Murder is one of my favorate rock albums ever, I just love the sound. I need the complations Hatful of hollow, world wont listen and Louder than bombs. Im annoyed the later two are the same album with a few changes but their cheap enough. I still need to the debut too (the smiths) is it any good?
Strangelove is their masterpeice no doubt so far tho, the crown jewel is Last Night I dreamt somebody loved me.
PS @ Dead - And bar the Manics THB what Manics have you heard? A Design to life no doubt, but you give me the impression you dont know what your talking about.
'Louder Than Bombs' was a compilation released for the US market. It actually managed to chart in the UK purely on the import figures (pretty impressive, considering). They're all pretty easy to get hold of at a decent price - if you have the chance to get to a FOPP, they tend to have them all for about £3-£5.
Sod the bible! I wanna talk about bi's! What's wrong with you people?
Oh, and I agree that Ok Computer is an awesome album and I enjoyed 'In Rainbows' quite a lot too.
Strangely, I have a fetish for Kate Bush at the minute. The 'Hounds of Love' album is brilliant/mad/awesome.
Isn't it odd how you seem to develop guilty pleasures for no apparant reason?...I seem to be listening to a lot of Motley Crue recently (probably because I'm reading 'The Dirt' biography - which is brilliant, by the way).
I had the motley Crue phase when I was in my 20's, along with Kiss. Good times.
I've mellowed out musically since I hit my 30's, though I still pump out the Maiden now & then! Oh, and I recently got into Mars Volta, especially the 'Deloused in the crematorium' album. Sheesh, it blew me away, but it 'aint for everyone.
Mars Volta are amazing. I always put them on when I'm in that difficult jazz/prog/speed metal/latin mood.
Best album for me changes all the time, but one that's been a constant for years and will never appear in top 50's is Wowee Zowee by Pavement. Or American Water by Silver Jews. Low End Theory/Midnight Marauders by Tribe Called Quest too.
Ok Computer, Sgt Peppers are amazing. Especially OK Computer for me, being 18 when it was released. It was the first British album in years to actually pull me away from grunge/American alt rock, which by 97 was getting pretty tired.
Oh and I like 4st 7lb and Faster on Holy Bible. I hated the people in the band (Wire especially) as much as I liked the music!
Sod the bible! I wanna talk about bi's! What's wrong with you people?
Oh, and I agree that Ok Computer is an awesome album and I enjoyed 'In Rainbows' quite a lot too.
Strangely, I have a fetish for Kate Bush at the minute. The 'Hounds of Love' album is brilliant/mad/awesome.
Isn't it odd how you seem to develop guilty pleasures for no apparant reason?...I seem to be listening to a lot of Motley Crue recently (probably because I'm reading 'The Dirt' biography - which is brilliant, by the way).
I had the motley Crue phase when I was in my 20's, along with Kiss. Good times.
I've mellowed out musically since I hit my 30's, though I still pump out the Maiden now & then! Oh, and I recently got into Mars Volta, especially the 'Deloused in the crematorium' album. Sheesh, it blew me away, but it 'aint for everyone.
Mars Volta are pretty cool - I've only really heard them around friends and about, but I really like it. I should probably grab some CD's of theirs.
I'm in my 30's too, but I don't think my tastes have mellowed at all....varied a bit, maybe - but, I seem to still love a lot of heavy stuff - I was listening to Kyuss just last night.
My girlfriend, on the other hand, is the total opposite. Just last weekend I caught her putting a 'Carpenters: Love Songs' CD........to add to that, I've also been roped in to a Lionel Richie gig over the next couple of months.
Mars volta are wiked live dude, you'll love it, their better live than waht they are in the studio
Is it so hard to fathom that some people could consider marriage a sacred union?
No, but you really should check your history books when it comes to marriage. In fact men got married to men before the church adopted marriage as a sacred union...... strangely this is ignored in modern debates on marriage.
Sod the bible! I wanna talk about bi's! What's wrong with you people?
Oh, and I agree that Ok Computer is an awesome album and I enjoyed 'In Rainbows' quite a lot too.
Strangely, I have a fetish for Kate Bush at the minute. The 'Hounds of Love' album is brilliant/mad/awesome.
Isn't it odd how you seem to develop guilty pleasures for no apparant reason?...I seem to be listening to a lot of Motley Crue recently (probably because I'm reading 'The Dirt' biography - which is brilliant, by the way).
I had the motley Crue phase when I was in my 20's, along with Kiss. Good times.
I've mellowed out musically since I hit my 30's, though I still pump out the Maiden now & then! Oh, and I recently got into Mars Volta, especially the 'Deloused in the crematorium' album. Sheesh, it blew me away, but it 'aint for everyone.
Mars Volta are amazing. I always put them on when I'm in that difficult jazz/prog/speed metal/latin mood.
Best album for me changes all the time, but one that's been a constant for years and will never appear in top 50's is Wowee Zowee by Pavement. Or American Water by Silver Jews. Low End Theory/Midnight Marauders by Tribe Called Quest too.
Ok Computer, Sgt Peppers are amazing. Especially OK Computer for me, being 18 when it was released. It was the first British album in years to actually pull me away from grunge/American alt rock, which by 97 was getting pretty tired.
Oh and I like 4st 7lb and Faster on Holy Bible. I hated the people in the band (Wire especially) as much as I liked the music!
I have absolutely no idea what my favourite album of all time would be - it's just too hard a question. Stone Roses first album?, Houses of the Holy by Zeppelin?, Axis: Bold as Love by Hendrix?, Low by David Bowie?(or Station to Station...or Scary Monsters....or Young Americans, come to think of it).
At the same time, I'm really not above listening to some serious trash! - as you have all probably guessed by my current Motley Crue fascination.
I loves me stoner rock! Masters of Reality I loved and only recently found an original vinyl on ebay. And Slint too. Saw them do Spiderland at Koko as part of ATP's Don't Look Back. Not my favourite band in the world, but best gig I've been to by quite some way. Even the crap sound in Koko couldn't ruin it.
And the Desert Sessions albums from Josh Homme etc are great. I prefer them to the QOTSA.
As I get older I just add to the music I like, I never move on to something else and leave the other stuff behind. Apart from Reef maybe.
Sod the bible! I wanna talk about bi's! What's wrong with you people?
Oh, and I agree that Ok Computer is an awesome album and I enjoyed 'In Rainbows' quite a lot too.
Strangely, I have a fetish for Kate Bush at the minute. The 'Hounds of Love' album is brilliant/mad/awesome.
Isn't it odd how you seem to develop guilty pleasures for no apparant reason?...I seem to be listening to a lot of Motley Crue recently (probably because I'm reading 'The Dirt' biography - which is brilliant, by the way).
I had the motley Crue phase when I was in my 20's, along with Kiss. Good times.
I've mellowed out musically since I hit my 30's, though I still pump out the Maiden now & then! Oh, and I recently got into Mars Volta, especially the 'Deloused in the crematorium' album. Sheesh, it blew me away, but it 'aint for everyone.
Mars Volta are amazing. I always put them on when I'm in that difficult jazz/prog/speed metal/latin mood.
Best album for me changes all the time, but one that's been a constant for years and will never appear in top 50's is Wowee Zowee by Pavement. Or American Water by Silver Jews. Low End Theory/Midnight Marauders by Tribe Called Quest too.
Ok Computer, Sgt Peppers are amazing. Especially OK Computer for me, being 18 when it was released. It was the first British album in years to actually pull me away from grunge/American alt rock, which by 97 was getting pretty tired.
Oh and I like 4st 7lb and Faster on Holy Bible. I hated the people in the band (Wire especially) as much as I liked the music!
And there's me thinking I was on my own with The Mars Volta thing! Good to know there are some others on here with an open mind musically. In fact, I'm going to try that Pavement album as I haven't even heard it yet. Cheers for the recommendations.
I often wonder how many hidden gems that I have missed. It's the best feeling in the world when you just give an album a try, possibly from something you read in a mag, and it turns out to be one of your favourites for years!
I didn't mention offending people for the fun of it, on any subject. I only referred to sexuality. It is such a stupid idea (to me) that one person can be offended by another who STATES their sexuality (apart from if it is graphic or too crude I suppose), then they deserve to feel offended. And I'm glad they're offended. They don't have to like it, have it in their daily lives but just be tolerant of other people who are just living their lives.
Whilst I wouldn't be offended if someone told me they were gay, I can certainly empathise with people who would be.
If someone simply stated to me that they were a Neo-Nazi, a member of the KKK, or a paedophile then I would be offended because of the negative connotations and feelings that those things would provoke.
edit - something fanboy said made me think. I agree that people have the right to be offended, but it is the reactions to being offended (i.e getting her kicked off Live, or in other people's cases, just getting their heads kicked it) that I have the problem with.
If you read the quote from the Xbox Live Terms of Service above then you'll see that Microsoft were well within their rights to ban her after receiving complaints. Its a private service with its own rules, if you dont like them then dont play on LIVE.
Obviously violence against someone because of their sexuality is a competely different matter and is undoubtedly wrong.
but for me I just dont believe how I/you/alot could believe in somthing they have no real evidence of
It's a little thing called faith. Everyone has it, religious or not. You have faith that when you wake up in the morning the world will be the same as when you went to bed. You have faith in the order of society. You don't need to see proof right in front of your eyes to believe things.
If you believe in science then you have faith that what you have been told is true, unless you only believe in things that you have empirically proven yourself by experimentation. And Science is far from infallible, although it's really handy!
Hebrews Chapter 11 Verse 1: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
oh and if im passing judgement then its the same as the bible passing judgement on homosexuality, but im not passing judgement mearly an opinion so that doesnt make ignorant deadgood, you should really think before typing
But if you believe in the Bible then you believe that God's judgement is perfect. Therefore, He can pass judgement, but no-one else can. Plus I'm not singleing out homosexuality btw, unlike a lot of Christians I believe it to be no worse than any other occasion of adultery.
I didn't mention offending people for the fun of it, on any subject. I only referred to sexuality. It is such a stupid idea (to me) that one person can be offended by another who STATES their sexuality (apart from if it is graphic or too crude I suppose), then they deserve to feel offended. And I'm glad they're offended. They don't have to like it, have it in their daily lives but just be tolerant of other people who are just living their lives.
Whilst I wouldn't be offended if someone told me they were gay, I can certainly empathise with people who would be.
If someone simply stated to me that they were a Neo-Nazi, a member of the KKK, or a paedophile then I would be offended because of the negative connotations and feelings that those things would provoke.
edit - something fanboy said made me think. I agree that people have the right to be offended, but it is the reactions to being offended (i.e getting her kicked off Live, or in other people's cases, just getting their heads kicked it) that I have the problem with.
If you read the quote from the Xbox Live Terms of Service above then you'll see that Microsoft were well within their rights to ban her after receiving complaints. Its a private service with its own rules, if you dont like them then dont play on LIVE.
Obviously violence against someone because of their sexuality is a competely different matter and is undoubtedly wrong.
but for me I just dont believe how I/you/alot could believe in somthing they have no real evidence of
It's a little thing called faith. Everyone has it, religious or not. You have faith that when you wake up in the morning the world will be the same as when you went to bed. You have faith in the order of society. You don't need to see proof right in front of your eyes to believe things.
If you believe in science then you have faith that what you have been told is true, unless you only believe in things that you have empirically proven yourself by experimentation. And Science is far from infallible, although it's really handy!
Hebrews Chapter 11 Verse 1: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
oh and if im passing judgement then its the same as the bible passing judgement on homosexuality, but im not passing judgement mearly an opinion so that doesnt make ignorant deadgood, you should really think before typing
But if you believe in the Bible then you believe that God's judgement is perfect. Therefore, He can pass judgement, but no-one else can. Plus I'm not singleing out homosexuality btw, unlike a lot of Christians I believe it to be no worse than any other occasion of adultery.
so why are you giving me judgement then? calling me ignorant because im athiest?
I loves me stoner rock! Masters of Reality I loved and only recently found an original vinyl on ebay. And Slint too. Saw them do Spiderland at Koko as part of ATP's Don't Look Back. Not my favourite band in the world, but best gig I've been to by quite some way. Even the crap sound in Koko couldn't ruin it.
And the Desert Sessions albums from Josh Homme etc are great. I prefer them to the QOTSA.
As I get older I just add to the music I like, I never move on to something else and leave the other stuff behind. Apart from Reef maybe.
I love Kyuss....and QOTSA....and Desert Sessions. I remember hearing about the Masters of Reality for the first time when they had Ginger Baker on drums, I thought that was really cool - such a great drummer.
I have to wonder though - will there ever be another Desert Sessions LP/EP?...in fact, will they ever get around to releasing the earlier ones on CD? - I think it's doubtful, you can't even get QOTSAs' debut album (I think it's been deleted), so you end up having to pay stupid amounts for it on eBay. Luckily, I have my copy - seems a shame for all those new fans that jumped on with 'Era Vulgaris' though.
I think the least exciting part of Ok Computer are the last 2 tracks Lucky and The Tourist, but I see them as a clever wind down rather than a filler.
ok i'll give you The Tourist but Lucky, for me, is one of the stand out tracks. worth the price of the album alone for the guitar solo. but, like Blood Sugar Sex Magic, its really an album you have to listen to from start to finish as, with all the Radiohead albums, everything blends into each other. mind you i think a lot of people went off them, myself included, after the highly disappointing Kid A. there was only a few decent tracks on that album Optimistic being one as for coldplay, they are this generations Oasis for me. 2 great first albums then just a drone after that.
Plus I'm not singleing out homosexuality btw, unlike a lot of Christians I believe it to be no worse than any other occasion of adultery.
Homosexuality is adultery? Care to explain?
And I saw the T&C's. To me stating your sexuality isn't sexual content per se, it's not explicit. But I guess that's just me. It wouldn't be the first time T&C's have been wooly so they cover pretty much every eventuality!
I think the least exciting part of Ok Computer are the last 2 tracks Lucky and The Tourist, but I see them as a clever wind down rather than a filler.
ok i'll give you The Tourist but Lucky, for me, is one of the stand out tracks. worth the price of the album alone for the guitar solo. but, like Blood Sugar Sex Magic, its really an album you have to listen to from start to finish as, with all the Radiohead albums, everything blends into each other. mind you i think a lot of people went off them, myself included, after the highly disappointing Kid A. there was only a few decent tracks on that album Optimistic being one as for coldplay, they are this generations Oasis for me. 2 great first albums then just a drone after that.
Oh yeah, BSSM is probably the album that's been my favourite album of all time for the most amount of time. If that makes sense?!? When I think Frusciante was 21 when he wrote that, it blows me away!
Strangely, I have a fetish for Kate Bush at the minute. The 'Hounds of Love' album is brilliant/mad/awesome.
Mental Bush has always been brilliant and the Hounds of Love is on my phone for listening to in the car along with Cloudbursting and Running up that Hill. she really is off her rocker though. especially with the line "take my shoes off and throw them in the lake". hows she gonna get home?
I loves me stoner rock! Masters of Reality I loved and only recently found an original vinyl on ebay. And Slint too. Saw them do Spiderland at Koko as part of ATP's Don't Look Back. Not my favourite band in the world, but best gig I've been to by quite some way. Even the crap sound in Koko couldn't ruin it.
And the Desert Sessions albums from Josh Homme etc are great. I prefer them to the QOTSA.
As I get older I just add to the music I like, I never move on to something else and leave the other stuff behind. Apart from Reef maybe.
I love Kyuss....and QOTSA....and Desert Sessions. I remember hearing about the Masters of Reality for the first time when they had Ginger Baker on drums, I thought that was really cool - such a great drummer.
I have to wonder though - will there ever be another Desert Sessions LP/EP?...in fact, will they ever get around to releasing the earlier ones on CD? - I think it's doubtful, you can't even get QOTSAs' debut album (I think it's been deleted), so you end up having to pay stupid amounts for it on eBay. Luckily, I have my copy - seems a shame for all those new fans that jumped on with 'Era Vulgaris' though.
I just picked up the reissues on vinyl of Desert Sessions 1 to 6 on vinyl. 7 & 8 was apparently on a different label so nothing released yet and 9 & 10 I bought when it came out. Will they do a new one? I hope so.
wholeheartedly agree with you there. on what day did god create, and then kill, the dinosuars?
I love bringing that one up to religious nuts 'cos they really have no answer. I was discussing (arguing?) religion with a muslim girl I used to work with and why the dinosaurs don't (unsurprisingly) feature in the koran, when I put this too her and told her dinosaurs are a fact of life, why are they not mentioned here? Her answer was "becasue they're not important"! My answer was "so although the dinosaurs ruled this planet for around 20 million years compared to mans 30000 or so years they're not important are they? Unsurprisingly she had no argument and started to get a bit annoyed and even suggested I was being racist!
yep thats the one thing i love doing when some religious nut comes up to me in the street. just start debating the exsistance of dinosaurs and where they fit in with the book of Genesis (crazy the amount of people that still believe that one). they just have no answer for it and usually try slink away from you. good times
I loves me stoner rock! Masters of Reality I loved and only recently found an original vinyl on ebay. And Slint too. Saw them do Spiderland at Koko as part of ATP's Don't Look Back. Not my favourite band in the world, but best gig I've been to by quite some way. Even the crap sound in Koko couldn't ruin it.
And the Desert Sessions albums from Josh Homme etc are great. I prefer them to the QOTSA.
As I get older I just add to the music I like, I never move on to something else and leave the other stuff behind. Apart from Reef maybe.
I love Kyuss....and QOTSA....and Desert Sessions. I remember hearing about the Masters of Reality for the first time when they had Ginger Baker on drums, I thought that was really cool - such a great drummer.
I have to wonder though - will there ever be another Desert Sessions LP/EP?...in fact, will they ever get around to releasing the earlier ones on CD? - I think it's doubtful, you can't even get QOTSAs' debut album (I think it's been deleted), so you end up having to pay stupid amounts for it on eBay. Luckily, I have my copy - seems a shame for all those new fans that jumped on with 'Era Vulgaris' though.
I just picked up the reissues on vinyl of Desert Sessions 1 to 6 on vinyl. 7 & 8 was apparently on a different label so nothing released yet and 9 & 10 I bought when it came out. Will they do a new one? I hope so.
I have them all on MP3 though, have you got them?
Yeah, but I'm an insufferable completist (although, I don't collect vinyl)....would be great to get them on CD.
I hope there are more coming up - but, I know that QOTSA already have another album ready for release, but their record company won't release it yet - supposedly, they don't think it's quite time for another QOTSA album. So they're just sitting on it at the moment.
so why are you giving me judgement then? calling me ignorant because im athiest?
There was a misunderstanding. I was saying that you were ignorant because I believed that you hadnt read the Bible and yet were still spouting opinions on it, not because you're an athiest. (Although I suppose that means you're ignorant of God's love)
Instead I now know that you didnt read it that closely as the reason why marriage is sacred is pretty clearly stated.
Most modern music in general is overrated to be honest.
You agree that we may also discontinue your access to the Service if you do any of the following while connected to the Service:
Create a Gamertag , avatar or use text in other profile fields that may offend other members. This includes comments that look, sound like, stand for, hint at, abbreviate, or insinuate or relate to any of the following: profane words/phrases, topics or content of a sexual nature, hate speech (including but not limited to racial, ethnic, or religious slurs), illegal drugs/controlled substances, or illegal activities;
Taken from the xbox live TOS. They were well within their right to ban her even if it seems a bit harsh. Her own fault anyway, fair enough, she's a lesbian, but putting it in her profile is just asking for trouble in a vain attempt at getting some attention. Well looks like she got the attention, but it wasn't quite what she wanted.
Perhaps that also includes putting whether you are male of female.
Regardless of that statement, unless she was talking about sexual technique, to ban someone because they stated they were a lesbian is totally disgusting and unjustified.
Oh yeah, BSSM is probably the album that's been my favourite album of all time for the most amount of time. If that makes sense?!? When I think Frusciante was 21 when he wrote that, it blows me away!
its defo in my top 5 and it was probably the first rock album i ever listened to all the way through and it just blew my mind when i was about 14. there's a lot of great stand alone tracks on it but it really has to be listened to from start to finish to actually get the whole feeling.
was a bit p**sed that the Rock Band DLC album hasn't got Give it Away on it though just so they could stick it on RB2
wholeheartedly agree with you there. on what day did god create, and then kill, the dinosuars?
I love bringing that one up to religious nuts 'cos they really have no answer. I was discussing (arguing?) religion with a muslim girl I used to work with and why the dinosaurs don't (unsurprisingly) feature in the koran, when I put this too her and told her dinosaurs are a fact of life, why are they not mentioned here? Her answer was "becasue they're not important"! My answer was "so although the dinosaurs ruled this planet for around 20 million years compared to mans 30000 or so years they're not important are they? Unsurprisingly she had no argument and started to get a bit annoyed and even suggested I was being racist!
yep thats the one thing i love doing when some religious nut comes up to me in the street. just start debating the exsistance of dinosaurs and where they fit in with the book of Genesis (crazy the amount of people that still believe that one). they just have no answer for it and usually try slink away from you. good times
haha done forget when they come around knocking on your door trying ram into our mouth lol
so why are you giving me judgement then? calling me ignorant because im athiest?
There was a misunderstanding. I was saying that you were ignorant because I believed that you hadnt read the Bible and yet were still spouting opinions on it, not because you're an athiest. (Although I suppose that means you're ignorant of God's love)
Instead I now know that you didnt read it that closely as the reason why marriage is sacred is pretty clearly stated.
Most modern music in general is overrated to be honest.
lol so basically what your saying is im ignorant becasue i choose not to believe in god?! so again your casting judgement on my choice which you said "only god cant cast judgement" when you have no right to debate my believe system when your own ("god" may or maynot exist him/herself!
Maybe gay people wanna game together because they want to play against other people who arent narrow minded biogots giving them a hard time?
So gay people by definition are not narrow minded biogots (unlike straight people)?
That is not what he is saying. Gay people can be biggots (indeed homosexuality and homo-eroticsm was a strong theme within the Nazis before they got to power - it was later purged).
However, the reason many people stick within communities is because it often acts as a defense from constant abuse. Which if you are contantly being abused is fair enough. Of course this can leader to greater social problems, but that is a different story.
I loves me stoner rock! Masters of Reality I loved and only recently found an original vinyl on ebay. And Slint too. Saw them do Spiderland at Koko as part of ATP's Don't Look Back. Not my favourite band in the world, but best gig I've been to by quite some way. Even the crap sound in Koko couldn't ruin it.
And the Desert Sessions albums from Josh Homme etc are great. I prefer them to the QOTSA.
As I get older I just add to the music I like, I never move on to something else and leave the other stuff behind. Apart from Reef maybe.
I love Kyuss....and QOTSA....and Desert Sessions. I remember hearing about the Masters of Reality for the first time when they had Ginger Baker on drums, I thought that was really cool - such a great drummer.
I have to wonder though - will there ever be another Desert Sessions LP/EP?...in fact, will they ever get around to releasing the earlier ones on CD? - I think it's doubtful, you can't even get QOTSAs' debut album (I think it's been deleted), so you end up having to pay stupid amounts for it on eBay. Luckily, I have my copy - seems a shame for all those new fans that jumped on with 'Era Vulgaris' though.
I just picked up the reissues on vinyl of Desert Sessions 1 to 6 on vinyl. 7 & 8 was apparently on a different label so nothing released yet and 9 & 10 I bought when it came out. Will they do a new one? I hope so.
I have them all on MP3 though, have you got them?
Yeah, but I'm an insufferable completist (although, I don't collect vinyl)....would be great to get them on CD.
I hope there are more coming up - but, I know that QOTSA already have another album ready for release, but their record company won't release it yet - supposedly, they don't think it's quite time for another QOTSA album. So they're just sitting on it at the moment.
Annoying for a huge fan like me...we need more!
It annoys me when record companies do that. I guess major labels look at facts and figures. Indies (Drag City being my absolute favourite) just want to put out good music. Bonnie 'Prince' Billy releases an album a year, minimum and they're better than most others, just not as cool. Although I think two years is a good gap between albums.
I'm like that with Jeff Buckley. A completist I mean. His mother flogging his stuff to death has ruined it a bit now, but I've got alot of his stuff in triplicate (multiple formats and buying cheap when I've seen them second hand) and some of it is worth quite a few quid now, although I'd never sell it. I did give a copy of his first ep to a friend thinking it was a reissue and worth a tenner. It was an original and worth about £100!
Talking about music is much more fun than repeatedly banging heads with people you're just not going to agree with.
yep thats the one thing i love doing when some religious nut comes up to me in the street. just start debating the exsistance of dinosaurs and where they fit in with the book of Genesis (crazy the amount of people that still believe that one). they just have no answer for it and usually try slink away from you. good times
It irritates me that no-one seems to realise that the Bible was translated from Hebrew. The word in Hebrew that was translated into English as the word 'day' (as in God created the word in six days) actually meant simply 'period of time'.
So a better translation would have been that God created the world in six eras.
Dinosaurs really arent important to humankind as we never co-existed with them. As is the case with over 99% of life on Earth. Why should we care about things that are dead and gone when we have so many beautiful creatures still here with us?
Faith is a funny thing really, athiests always use facts or lack of put a whole in the believers arguement. But faith is belief in something without fact.
Whos to say god didn't create inconsistancies in his world as illusions to really test the faithful.
yep thats the one thing i love doing when some religious nut comes up to me in the street. just start debating the exsistance of dinosaurs and where they fit in with the book of Genesis (crazy the amount of people that still believe that one). they just have no answer for it and usually try slink away from you. good times
It irritates me that no-one seems to realise that the Bible was translated from Hebrew. The word in Hebrew that was translated into English as the word 'day' (as in God created the word in six days) actually meant simply 'period of time'.
So a better translation would have been that God created the world in six eras.
Dinosaurs really arent important to humankind as we never co-existed with them. As is the case with over 99% of life on Earth. Why should we care about things that are dead and gone when we have so many beautiful creatures still here with us?
What's the chances that the people that found this woman's sexuality offensive were...
1. Religious
2. From middle America
3. Parents who's own sexuality might be questioned if their children 'learn' of such realities and turn out this way themselves!
It's extremely possible that the lesbian-offended have acquired these backward views from the church. This poisonous attitude is as logical and intelligent as the belief about 'witches' centuries ago.
In reality religion is brainwashed from a young age, develops from a fear of death or develops because people find the continual discoveries and explanations of science too hard to grasp. How much longer will the human race allow such a dangerous belief system to poison our societies.
Isn't it ironic that a game based on violence, or for that matter, a game that influences people towards violence is condemned, yet religion has been the source for violence throughout history. I know which one society needs to ban, and which one society needs to grow up about.
As for sexuality... why does anyone care who loves who? I may not understand why a man finds attractive, or loves, his girlfriend or wife, but that shouldn't be a case for codemning such feelings.
Although I'm no fan of the lawsuit society we live in, I would assume the woman in question would have a very strong case for taking Microsoft to court over this... all the money in the world couldn't justify a ban based on sexuality. The homophobic people at Microsoft would perhaps be better suited to working within the 'religious industry' where their views are encouraged and thrive.
lol so basically what your saying is im ignorant becasue i choose not to believe in god?! so again your casting judgement on my choice which you said "only god cant cast judgement" when you have no right to debate my believe system when your own ("god" may or maynot exist him/herself!
you just got ended!
Check and Mate
Sigh... Again a less-than-full grasp of the English language grinds a discussion to a halt.
Ignorance is the lack of awareness of a particular subject. You lack awareness of God's love because you do not believe it exists. Therefore you are ignorant of God's love.
I did not say you were ignorant in general. Again, this word is being used in a factual sense, not a judgemental one..
And again it's God who has told us that athiests will go to hell. Not my judgement. His.
The 'religion is responsible for wars and violence' argument is ridiculous. If these people were truly religious and not just using religion as a justification then they wouldn't want to kill each other.
Religion has been responsible for innumerable acts of kindness, love and sacrifice too. It gives billions of people around the world a purpose in life and a reason to go on striving in a world that is getting more horrible by the second.
Whether you believe it's true or not, you must surely see what a positive force religion can be?
As for sexuality... why does anyone care who loves who? I may not understand why a man finds attractive, or loves, his girlfriend or wife, but that shouldn't be a case for codemning such feelings.
Love is not the issue. The issue is sex, which is something quite different.
Although I'm no fan of the lawsuit society we live in, I would assume the woman in question would have a very strong case for taking Microsoft to court over this... all the money in the world couldn't justify a ban based on sexuality. The homophobic people at Microsoft would perhaps be better suited to working within the 'religious industry' where their views are encouraged and thrive.
Rubbish. She wasnt banned because of her sexuality.. She was banned because she broke the Terms of Service that she agreed to when entering the Xbox Live contract and because multiple complaints were filed against her. Do you honestly think that someone working for Microsoft thought "Huh, a fag! We'll be having none of that on our service!"?
I know you've already explained what you meant by 'abnormal' - but, it's a bad choice of words in this context...sounds like something a YEC or Redneck would use to describe homosexuality.
Homosexuality IS abnormal. That isnt being offensive. Its a fact. Sorry if you have an issue with that phrasing, but any intelligent person (gay or not) has to concede that hetero is the norm.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
A showcase in Oslo in 2006 showed animals such as bonobo chimps, dolphins, wolves, killer whales etc engaged in same gender sexual contact highlighting that homsexuality isn't a human-only trait to many who weren't/aren't aware of it. If the natural kingdom has homosexual creatures, then the word 'abnormal' when used to describe something equally as natural as hetrosexuality is incorrect.
I was wondering when someone would bring that argument up. Actually, you claiming Deadwood is "wrong" is potentially incorrect too. You see, the only thing that study actually proves is that homosexuality is not limited to Homo Sapiens and that it is not an uncommon practice. However! When you then look at the overall dominant sexual orientation of a great many species, and certainly with Homo Sapiens (which is really the species that is in question here, as opposed to any number of other species in the animal kingdom), you will find it appears to greatly favour heterosexuality. So there you have it: Deadwood is in fact accurate in using the word "abnormal" in the given context.
The use of the word "abnormal" should not be confused with the idea that some consider homosexuality "bad" or "wrong". Those are different concepts though it seems to me a good number of people lump them together. It's akin to those people who think that being religious and being moral are one and the same thing. It is not and they are wrong in thinking thus. Don't take my word for it; look up the definitions of the words.
ok so a of lack knowledge of gods love, which is something i choose to do yet i've read the bible and like i said before it means nothing to me!when did god say if ye don't beleive in him/her we're going to hell??? who exactly did he say this too, when and where? because it says it in a book written about the lords perfection i should believe it?
aload of rubbish
the more i go into this the more i wonder if the authors of the bible were on shrooms or something
lol so basically what your saying is im ignorant becasue i choose not to believe in god?! so again your casting judgement on my choice which you said "only god cant cast judgement" when you have no right to debate my believe system when your own ("god" may or maynot exist him/herself!
you just got ended!
Check and Mate
Sigh... Again a less-than-full grasp of the English language grinds a discussion to a halt.
Ignorance is the lack of awareness of a particular subject. You lack awareness of God's love because you do not believe it exists. Therefore you are ignorant of God's love.
I did not say you were ignorant in general. Again, this word is being used in a factual sense, not a judgemental one..
And again it's God who has told us that athiests will go to hell. Not my judgement. His.
I follow your reasoning and concur with the idea that being in possession of a proper grasp of words, phrases and terminology used is important in a discourse. However, where it pertains to "God's love" and judgements our personal views and faith on the matter differ. I used to be an atheist growing up as a child, as a teenager and as a young adult. These days I consider myself spiritual and I have a pleasant faith in certain ideas and beliefs yet they are my own; I feel no need nor desire to convert others nor does it matter overly much to me if I am alone in the specific thoughts and feelings I have regarding a potential sentient force in the cosmos. From a logical perspective I find it highly suspect and downright arrogant for anyone to claim that something is "God's will" as it implies that humans, whom according to the very scriptures that are supposed to reveal God's views are imperfect whereas God is perfect, can comprehend such a god's ways. Therein lies the problem: How can an imperfect creature comprehend the will and supposed judgements of a presumed perfect entity? It strikes me as a convenient way for some religious people to deal with other people and situations and effectively shirk responsibility and/or not thinking for themselves. This is of course my personal opinion and I'm confident there are others who will share it and others who will disagree with it.
Faith is a funny thing really, athiests always use facts or lack of put a whole in the believers arguement. But faith is belief in something without fact.
Whos to say god didn't create inconsistancies in his world as illusions to really test the faithful.
You cannot disprove religion with fact.
that is true but at the same time you can't prove religion with anything.
@Deadgood UK whilst your fact of the timeframe of Genesis may be true down to a mistranslation a lot of people take it as gospel that it was 7 days and just seem to want to block out the exsistance of dinosaurs.
Plus I'm not singleing out homosexuality btw, unlike a lot of Christians I believe it to be no worse than any other occasion of adultery.
Homosexuality is adultery? Care to explain?
How about you just read the previous posts in this thread where I already explained that?
Oh, you are using it in the biblical sense. I wouldn't say a gay relationship is adultery when using the common usage. But fair enough.
If people reportedly ban/report people for no real reason, then I think they should be banned. Whether this is a real reason is down to personal preference.
I think Microsoft is wrong. That's all I'm going to say on the subject. Now, back to the music...
Faith is a funny thing really, athiests always use facts or lack of put a whole in the believers arguement. But faith is belief in something without fact.
Whos to say god didn't create inconsistancies in his world as illusions to really test the faithful.
You cannot disprove religion with fact.
that is true but at the same time you can't prove religion with anything.
@Deadgood UK whilst your fact of the timeframe of Genesis may be true down to a mistranslation a lot of people take it as gospel that it was 7 days and just seem to want to block out the exsistance of dinosaurs.
That's the point of faith. Religion needn't be proven.
And I agree with you that those people are hilarious idiots.
ok so a lack knowledge of gods love, which is something i choose to do yet i've read the bible and like i said before it means nothing to me!when did god say if ye don't beleive in him/her we're going to hell??? who exactly did he told this too, when and where?
aload of rubbish
Psalm 14 Verse 1: The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good
ok so a lack knowledge of gods love, which is something i choose to do yet i've read the bible and like i said before it means nothing to me!when did god say if ye don't beleive in him/her we're going to hell??? who exactly did he told this too, when and where?
aload of rubbish
Psalm 14 Verse 1: The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good
An example for you..
yet it means nothing because it didn't come from god itself or god didnt mutter it to the person who wrote it, its yet another right we should believe without reason or why simple becasue the bible tells us too
From a logical perspective I find it highly suspect and downright arrogant for anyone to claim that something is "God's will" as it implies that humans, whom according to the very scriptures that are supposed to reveal God's views are imperfect whereas God is perfect, can comprehend such a god's ways. Therein lies the problem: How can an imperfect creature comprehend the will and supposed judgements of a presumed perfect entity? It strikes me as a convenient way for some religious people to deal with other people and situations and effectively shirk responsibility and/or not thinking for themselves.
I don't quite understand what you're saying.. Obviously the Bible was written by imperfect people, but people who believe in it have faith that these people were guided by God.
I certainly don't claim to know the mind of God. When that judgement day comes I'm not certain who will be left standing by his side, but I feel that I can use the Bible as a pretty accurate guide to that.
Are you saying that people should not try and live their life according to Biblical scripture just because there is a chance that it isnt 100% accurate?
It annoys me when record companies do that. I guess major labels look at facts and figures. Indies (Drag City being my absolute favourite) just want to put out good music. Bonnie 'Prince' Billy releases an album a year, minimum and they're better than most others, just not as cool. Although I think two years is a good gap between albums.
I'm like that with Jeff Buckley. A completist I mean. His mother flogging his stuff to death has ruined it a bit now, but I've got alot of his stuff in triplicate (multiple formats and buying cheap when I've seen them second hand) and some of it is worth quite a few quid now, although I'd never sell it. I did give a copy of his first ep to a friend thinking it was a reissue and worth a tenner. It was an original and worth about £100!
Talking about music is much more fun than repeatedly banging heads with people you're just not going to agree with.
5 o'clock. The day is done!!
Yeah, I really like Jeff Buckley too.
I seem to have managed to obtain 3 copies of 'Grace' over the years (my original, a copy with an extra track that I bought in Holland and the deluxe edition). I remember when I was living up in Glasgow - there was this one live CD that I really wanted (can't remember the name - I have a few of his live albums) that I'd seen in FOPP, but; the CD was expensive and I was a little skint at the time, so I couldn't really justify buying it. Quite a few years went on and I eventually managed to find it again - in Kuala Lumpur, of all places.
Which strangely brings us back to the Smiths - I noticed the new Jeff Buckley compilation has a cover of 'I know it's Over' on it...is this an actual studio version, or the live medley with 'Hallelujah'?
@ Deadgood: You say that millions of people find comfort in religion to cope with a world that is more horrible every day. Possibly the worst thing occurring at the moment in the world is terrorism and the constant war in the middle-east. What was the inspiration behind that? Oh yes... religion. People can believe in morality and lead a good life without having to believe in a load of heresay contained in a book that was edited by the Vatican around 500 years ago (or any other religious text for that matter).
You also mention that the 6-day creation is a mistranslation, but then in another post mention Hell. Hell itself is a mistranslation and a modern concept dating back only around 800 years. The original word used was (excuse my spelling if this is not correct) "Sheoul". The original text made no mention of some place of fire and brimstone (and I also challenge you to find a literal description of Hell in that context within the bible). The original idea was that those with no belief would simply not be rewarded with an afterlife. No punishment, just a normal mortal death.
Also I am rather offended by the fact that you seem to think that being gay/lesbian is mutually exclusive with being in love, and that homosexuality is purely based around lust. I also think that your reluctance to answer whether you think homosexuality is a choice (saying that your answer would not be productive) shows your thoughts on the subject. Did you choose to be straight? I think not.
For the record, I am Gay. For the record, I don't sleep around, I do not "rub it in people's faces", I am very happily in love with my partner, I do not think at all that there is any reasonable excuse to find homosexuality offensive, I consider the word "abnormal" to be EXTREMELY offensive (whether you mean it in that sense or not, similar to how using the word 'gay' to describe something as rubbish is homophobic regardless of intent), and I can think of a very good reason why someone would post their sexuality on their profile. I do not use Xbox LIVE as every time I have ever been on there it is filled with constant racist and homophobic language. I have no wish to play with ignorant morons like that. However, if I was able to find other gay people to play with, meaning that I could guarantee that I would not be exposed to such ignorant and outdated attitudes, I would HAPPILY do so. To say that someone is "looking for trouble" by stating their sexuality is homophobic. It suggests that gay and lesbian people should live their lives in silence and quietly accept the discrimination around us. The reason why Gay Pride exists is to remind people that Gay people exist, that they are not going away, and that the constant and still-widespread discrimination is not acceptable and will not be accepted.
yet it means nothing because it didn't come from god itself or god didnt mutter it to the person who wrote it, its yet another right we should believe without reason or why simple becasue the bible tells us too
Sigh.. But you're looking at it from an athiests point of view, so of course you can just pick and choose parts of the Bible that you like.
The Psalms (most of them anyway) were written by King David who was inspired by God.
That isnt the only Bible passage against Atheism, but unfortunately I dont have time to find another right now. It would be fruitless anyway as you believe nothing unless it's right in front of your face.
Faith is a funny thing really, athiests always use facts or lack of put a whole in the believers arguement. But faith is belief in something without fact.
Whos to say god didn't create inconsistancies in his world as illusions to really test the faithful.
You cannot disprove religion with fact.
that is true but at the same time you can't prove religion with anything.
@Deadgood UK whilst your fact of the timeframe of Genesis may be true down to a mistranslation a lot of people take it as gospel that it was 7 days and just seem to want to block out the exsistance of dinosaurs.
That's the point of faith. Religion needn't be proven.
And I agree with you that those people are hilarious idiots.
And the clear strength of science is that it *can* be proven. I like the scenario I read many years ago in an article that stated that faith and science were each one hand and that perhaps in order to best hold on to the world it required the use of both of them simultaneously. I have great faith in science, technology and humanity's ingenuity. Faith can be inspirational and give a person strength and yet science can as well but each do it on different fronts. I would hardly advocate a person stick solely to their faith when riddled with bullet holes because their God will save them when an expert medical team is ready nearby. You can pray while still actively paddling for the shore.
From a logical perspective I find it highly suspect and downright arrogant for anyone to claim that something is "God's will" as it implies that humans, whom according to the very scriptures that are supposed to reveal God's views are imperfect whereas God is perfect, can comprehend such a god's ways. Therein lies the problem: How can an imperfect creature comprehend the will and supposed judgements of a presumed perfect entity? It strikes me as a convenient way for some religious people to deal with other people and situations and effectively shirk responsibility and/or not thinking for themselves.
I don't quite understand what you're saying.. Obviously the Bible was written by imperfect people, but people who believe in it have faith that these people were guided by God.
I certainly don't claim to know the mind of God. When that judgement day comes I'm not certain who will be left standing by his side, but I feel that I can use the Bible as a pretty accurate guide to that.
Are you saying that people should not try and live their life according to Biblical scripture just because there is a chance that it isnt 100% accurate?
1) That's the part I have absolutely no faith in. Why on earth should I accept hook, line and sinker something that was initially passed down by word of mouth - and thus highly susceptible to variations over the course of time - before being written down (and incidentally there are at least 120 versions of the Bible, never mind the Dead Sea Scrolls which have been declared heretical by the Papacy)? Granted, some of the ideas in the Christian faith, and many other faiths for that matter, can be quite beautiful and sensible. Then there are a great many parts that are not only outdated and impractical, but also in some instances downright dangerous, bigoted, intolerant, violent and hateful. Let's be frank here: What some like to think of as "being guided by God" could just as easily have been a bunch of goat herders grasping for any sort of explanation, or they could have been trying to create a system of mass manipulation and control (this certainly came about many centuries later - intended or not), or perhaps it was some shepherd who was stoned out of his mind? All of these scenarios are just a plausible, if not more, so than the quaint idea that "he/they were inspired by God". While that too is possible I think the concept of Ockham's Razor fits quite nicely here, which is to say the simplest solution that offers the least amount of assumptions is often the preferable one.
2) No; I'm saying that the Bible has zero innate value in my eyes and it means nothing to me whether a person stands by it or doesn't. It's just a book and like the Law, at the end of the day I personally find it far more important to try and carry out the intended spirit of what may have been written than going "by the book". It seems a great many religious people, of many faiths, forget this. A classic example being the self-proclaimed "good Christians" that love their fellow man yet harass homosexuals and openly condemn them to Hell (which I don't believe anyone goes to, if it even exists,). Then there are my personal favourites in terms of presenting the ultimate contradiction: The abortion clinic Christian bombers. Kill others in order to save life. There is a certain warped sense of logic there that I could accept under certain circumstances in an all out survival or war scenario, but not where it pertains to abortion.
@ Deadgood: You say that millions of people find comfort in religion to cope with a world that is more horrible every day. Possibly the worst thing occurring at the moment in the world is terrorism and the constant war in the middle-east. What was the inspiration behind that? Oh yes... religion. People can believe in morality and lead a good life without having to believe in a load of heresay contained in a book that was edited by the Vatican around 500 years ago (or any other religious text for that matter).
And should the actions of a few condemn the many? Most Muslims agree that these people are twisting the words of the Qu'ran to suit their own prejudices.
The Vatican didnt edit the King James Bible. And for the record I believe Roman Catholicism to be a highly corrupt, hypocritical and corrupt institution.
@ You also mention that the 6-day creation is a mistranslation, but then in another post mention Hell. Hell itself is a mistranslation and a modern concept dating back only around 800 years. The original word used was (excuse my spelling if this is not correct) "Sheoul". The original text made no mention of some place of fire and brimstone (and I also challenge you to find a literal description of Hell in that context within the bible). The original idea was that those with no belief would simply not be rewarded with an afterlife. No punishment, just a normal mortal death.
You're ignoring the Book of Revelations. I was using Hell as a shorthand for the lake of fire that it refers to.
You're not quite right about Sheol either. There are actually three words that are both translated into the English word Hell. These are Sheol, Hades and Gehenna. Gehenna is the one the refers to the more traditional firey Hell. If you read Jesus' parable of Lazarus and Dives then you'll see that Jesus himself refers to Hell as a place of fire and torment.
Luke Chapter 16 Verse 23-24 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
Other relevant references to Hell:
As a place where soul are body are destroyed -
Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
As a place of unquenchable fire -
Mark 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched
I think that proves the point..
Also I am rather offended by the fact that you seem to think that being gay/lesbian is mutually exclusive with being in love, and that homosexuality is purely based around lust.
I never said that. I said that love and sex are mutually exclusive. You can love someone deeply without sexual feelings.
I love some people who are gay. I have no problem with people living their lives that way. I just believe that according to the Bible, it's a sin.
I'm a witness at a Civil Partnership ceremony next month. (That should be interesting!) So I can certainly understand that two people of the same sex can have a true and caring loving relationship. I just also happen to have an equally deep belief that its a sin. But Jesus told me to love everyone so that is what I try and do.
I respect your right to be gay, even though I believe it is wrong. So why can you not respect my right to hold personal religious beliefs, even though you believe they are wrong?
There is NO excuse for homophobia. Full stop.
Why can I not hold a personal belief that homosexuality is wrong? As long as I don't treat anyone any differently because of this belief then why should it be an issue?
Faith can be inspirational and give a person strength and yet science can as well but each do it on different fronts.
So why can someone not have a 'faith' in both? Science is a wonderful, fascinating thing, but it can't provide answers and meaning to those deeper human needs and questions.
Speaking of Hell, Gehenna, etc. isn't it fascinating to find that Christianity borrowed heavily from pagan and other older religious movements back in the day? For example, Dec. 24th-25th happens to be the historic birthday of the Roman sun god Helios. There were practical reasons for Christianity adopting various local religious traditions and also building Christian churches on sacred ground of pagan movements as it made it easier to draw the local masses and slowly convert them. Now that's politics and strategy.
And what deeper needs and questions would those be? This may be my Asperger's shining through but I simply do not understand how someone can so wholeheartedly believe in something with no concrete logical explanation or evidence. I exist, therefore I am. I know I am a collection of atoms and cells that exist and survive due to complex chemical and biological reactions and that science and logic tell me that I am almost certainly evolved from other species. I know that consciousness is the result of other complex chemical and genetic factors and I know that when I die, and those reactions no longer occur, that consciousness will cease to exist. Why is that so difficult for people to accept?
Faith can be inspirational and give a person strength and yet science can as well but each do it on different fronts.
So why can someone not have a 'faith' in both? Science is a wonderful, fascinating thing, but it can't provide answers and meaning to those deeper human needs and questions.
Which is the position I have and thus why I think of myself as "spiritual/agnostic" if I were to label myself. I wish to preserve the spirit while employing the practical. Rule with the mind, be guided by the heart.
Speaking of Hell, Gehenna, etc. isn't it fascinating to find that Christianity borrowed heavily from pagan and other older religious movements back in the day? For example, Dec. 24th-25th happens to be the historic birthday of the Roman sun god Helios. There were practical reasons for Christianity adopting various local religious traditions and also building Christian churches on sacred ground of pagan movements as it made it easier to draw the local masses and slowly convert them. Now that's politics and strategy.
Exactly. Why do we have Easter Bunnies and Easter Eggs? Is it anything to do with Jesus supposedly being resurrected, or is it more to do with the fact that Easter is traditionally the Spring solstice and a celebration of fertility and New Life for millennia before the invention of Christianity? How about that the majority of religions in the world have obvious parallels? Nearly every religion and mythology has a "satan" parallel - someone who questions the status quo, who plays tricks, who tries to make other people think for themselves. Most of them have a messiah figure, destined to save the world. As a work of fantasy, The Bible should be respected for its cultural and historical influence and regarded next to The Lord of the Rings. As a textbook for how to live life and an explanation for our existence, then it is no more relevant than a roll of Andrex.
And what deeper needs and questions would those be? This may be my Asperger's shining through but I simply do not understand how someone can so wholeheartedly believe in something with no concrete logical explanation or evidence. I exist, therefore I am. I know I am a collection of atoms and cells that exist and survive due to complex chemical and biological reactions and that science and logic tell me that I am almost certainly evolved from other species. I know that consciousness is the result of other complex chemical and genetic factors and I know that when I die, and those reactions no longer occur, that consciousness will cease to exist. Why is that so difficult for people to accept?
I do not dispute any of those things, indeed I accept them except for the very last bit. While I have no proof I am willing to entertain the notion that it may just be possible that something else happens once my physical being ceases to function/live. I could be wrong. I suspect I shall find out eventually one way or another and I am content with that. After all, if I'm wrong and there is no pleasing afterlife or greater cosmic consciousness to journey to, etc. but instead only death and then darkness void of consciousness then I haven't lost much, now have I? Aye. It can give one hope to believe in an afterlife and I personally do believe it is entirely possible. I also freely acknowledge I have no concrete empirical evidence of this that I'm aware of at any rate. Whether one believes in an afterlife or not I would simply advocate that living in fear either because of faith or a lack thereof seems a tragic waste to me.
Speaking of Hell, Gehenna, etc. isn't it fascinating to find that Christianity borrowed heavily from pagan and other older religious movements back in the day? For example, Dec. 24th-25th happens to be the historic birthday of the Roman sun god Helios. There were practical reasons for Christianity adopting various local religious traditions and also building Christian churches on sacred ground of pagan movements as it made it easier to draw the local masses and slowly convert them. Now that's politics and strategy.
Exactly. Why do we have Easter Bunnies and Easter Eggs? Is it anything to do with Jesus supposedly being resurrected, or is it more to do with the fact that Easter is traditionally the Spring solstice and a celebration of fertility and New Life for millennia before the invention of Christianity? How about that the majority of religions in the world have obvious parallels? Nearly every religion and mythology has a "satan" parallel - someone who questions the status quo, who plays tricks, who tries to make other people think for themselves. Most of them have a messiah figure, destined to save the world. As a work of fantasy, The Bible should be respected for its cultural and historical influence and regarded next to The Lord of the Rings. As a textbook for how to live life and an explanation for our existence, then it is no more relevant than a roll of Andrex.
The thing about being out is that it's being out. You can't be out as black because it's pretty much on your flesh, so if this girl what to put her heart on her sleeve I say go for it.
Sure XBox Community is known for it's intolerance, but communities evolve and it's only a matter of time before this one does. Proof being the addition of parties. Proof being that this news story has had over 200 replies in just one forum. Something is going to change.
I have a friend who just for a laugh put "I'm gay" as his motto (well he told me it was for a laugh, but who knows). Anyways he had his account suspended for 4 days and his motto was changed to "terms of service"... Thing is though, how do the Xbox Live moderators know whether he is or isn't gay and was indeed excersizing his right to declare it openly?
personally I don't find someone writing "I'm gay" on their profile offensive at all... it'd be a very different matter if he had written "All gays are the spawn of Satan" or something like that.
If by "sense" you are referring to rational logic then no, actually he doesn't as faith, so far, has not been supported by hard empirical data. As for stating his personal opinions in an intelligent way, fair enough.
If by "sense" you are referring to rational logic then no, actually he doesn't as faith, so far, has not been supported by hard empirical data. As for stating his personal opinions in an intelligent way, fair enough.
I don't quite agree that faith is irrational and illogical by definition.
You must have some faith that what scientists tell you is true.
After all, if I'm wrong and there is no pleasing afterlife or greater cosmic consciousness to journey to, etc. but instead only death and then darkness void of consciousness then I haven't lost much, now have I?
Unless your vague undefined spritual beliefs aren't enough to save you from eternal hellfire..
Exactly. Why do we have Easter Bunnies and Easter Eggs? Is it anything to do with Jesus supposedly being resurrected, or is it more to do with the fact that Easter is traditionally the Spring solstice and a celebration of fertility and New Life for millennia before the invention of Christianity?
Speaking of Hell, Gehenna, etc. isn't it fascinating to find that Christianity borrowed heavily from pagan and other older religious movements back in the day? For example, Dec. 24th-25th happens to be the historic birthday of the Roman sun god Helios. There were practical reasons for Christianity adopting various local religious traditions and also building Christian churches on sacred ground of pagan movements as it made it easier to draw the local masses and slowly convert them. Now that's politics and strategy
You're quite right about these things. Which is why I don't celebrate Christmas or Easter. Sadly, most organised religions and major churches have been corrupted over time and are full of fallacies.
Nearly every religion and mythology has a "satan" parallel - someone who questions the status quo, who plays tricks, who tries to make other people think for themselves. Most of them have a messiah figure, destined to save the world.
Ah, but this works either way. You could say that these similarities are due to something in the human brain that likes to create explanations for things that it doesn't understand, OR it could be because they all have some roots in truth.
As a work of fantasy, The Bible should be respected for its cultural and historical influence and regarded next to The Lord of the Rings. As a textbook for how to live life and an explanation for our existence, then it is no more relevant than a roll of Andrex.
Whether there is a God or not, I truly believe the world would be a better place for humankind if more people shared my morals and beliefs. Despite this, I would never force my beliefs on others, or preach them where they are not wanted. If you're wrong then you risk eternal damnation and regret. If I'm wrong then I've lived a contented moral life, attempting to bring happiness to those around me. If you're right, then life is essentially meaningless, as we are nothing more than an ape who thinks he's clever. Humankind will die out as has every other species and the entire universe will eventually decay due to the unstoppable atrophy of energy. If I'm right then life has meaning. God's love is real. And there is the possibility of eternal glory and joy everlasting. The pro's seem to outweigh the cons every way I look at it. Whether I'm right or not.
If by "sense" you are referring to rational logic then no, actually he doesn't as faith, so far, has not been supported by hard empirical data. As for stating his personal opinions in an intelligent way, fair enough.
I don't quite agree that faith is irrational and illogical by definition.
You must have some faith that what scientists tell you is true.
After all, if I'm wrong and there is no pleasing afterlife or greater cosmic consciousness to journey to, etc. but instead only death and then darkness void of consciousness then I haven't lost much, now have I?
Unless your vague undefined spritual beliefs aren't enough to save you from eternal hellfire..
Ah, but this works either way. You could say that these similarities are due to something in the human brain that likes to create explanations for things that it doesn't understand, OR it could be because they all have some roots in truth.
[]
Whether there is a God or not, I truly believe the world would be a better place for humankind if more people shared my morals and beliefs. Despite this, I would never force my beliefs on others, or preach them where they are not wanted. If you're wrong then you risk eternal damnation and regret. If I'm wrong then I've lived a contented moral life, attempting to bring happiness to those around me.[/bIf you're right, then life is essentially meaningless, as we are nothing more than an ape who thinks he's clever. Humankind will die out as has every other species and the entire universe will eventually decay due to the unstoppable atrophy of energy. If I'm right then life has meaning. God's love is real. And there is the possibility of eternal glory and joy everlasting. The pro's seem to outweigh the cons every way I look at it. Whether I'm right or not.
1) I do indeed have faith in science and the great advantage that science has over religion is that science has consistently produced tangible, quantifiable and verifiable results that can be reproduced over and over again. Not only that, science also actively tries to go back and correct itself when new information and evidence indicates that past positions and theories may be inaccurate; I perceive very few organised religions doing the same thing. Granted, some theories and ideas are ahead of technology at the time and thus may have to be taken with faith until machines/technology are created that incorporate and display the working theory. Electricity was seen as a mysterios and strange concept...right until machines such as generators, lamps, etc. were created that both create and use electricity. Religion at present time appears unable to offer something equally tangible and verifiable and that's an empirical fact. Perhaps someday science will make new break-throughs that could reveal even greater insight into the universe, life, death, the nature of souls and whether or not such things exist.
2) My "vague, undefined" spiritual beliefs may seem such to you precisely because I have declined to go in to detail about them. I feel no need to do so, though conversely I'm not adamantly opposed to doing so either. Perhaps in the future. Perhaps not. If you could present something that even remotely suggests that "Hellfire" exists as an afterlife then I might be more inclined to take such comments seriously.
3) That is an old and tried argument and it can conversely be argued that it is one based upon a doctrine of fear. Personally I find it a sad thought to think that some people will adhere to a belief about a concept/entity that is claimed to be founded on supreme love out of a sense of fear. Incidentally, I do agree with your underlying message of hope and find it to be positive as long as it is secular in nature and both allows and encourages individual thinking and questioning of both the faith and the world around the person. Religious dogma is most off putting to my sensibilities (though dogmatic behaviour need not be limited to official religions).
yep thats the one thing i love doing when some religious nut comes up to me in the street. just start debating the exsistance of dinosaurs and where they fit in with the book of Genesis (crazy the amount of people that still believe that one). they just have no answer for it and usually try slink away from you. good times
It irritates me that no-one seems to realise that the Bible was translated from Hebrew. The word in Hebrew that was translated into English as the word 'day' (as in God created the word in six days) actually meant simply 'period of time'.
So a better translation would have been that God created the world in six eras.
Dinosaurs really arent important to humankind as we never co-existed with them. As is the case with over 99% of life on Earth. Why should we care about things that are dead and gone when we have so many beautiful creatures still here with us?
Translation is a very important thing - and the bible as with most relgious texts is clear proof that it was written by man and is not the word of God (whether it exist or not). For example there are a number of social predujdices and seemingly unatural states of social existence - this includes talking about man made objects and land borders as if they naturally existed.
"am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery"
Another example would be the commandment "You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour."
This is morally obnoxious on many levels (and we would hope certainlly lost in translation) - Firstly surely there should be a more important commandment "Slavery is wrong". No it advocates the keeping of slave, it places women as property and as objects akin to an animal. The Koran version of that commandment seems to be less obnoxious, however, if God does exist, than I'm his enemy.
Also God is saying we should not be jealous, but at the same time we must honour him because he is a jealous God - talk about inferiority complex! "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,"
However, I do not hold the Dawkins veiw of Religion (much more of Marxist) but I would highly recommend Terry Eagleton for excellent Marxist defense of Religious and Christian ideas. (or the meek and militant for equally excellent Marxist attack on religious and Christian ideas).
yep thats the one thing i love doing when some religious nut comes up to me in the street. just start debating the exsistance of dinosaurs and where they fit in with the book of Genesis (crazy the amount of people that still believe that one). they just have no answer for it and usually try slink away from you. good times
It irritates me that no-one seems to realise that the Bible was translated from Hebrew. The word in Hebrew that was translated into English as the word 'day' (as in God created the word in six days) actually meant simply 'period of time'.
So a better translation would have been that God created the world in six eras.
Dinosaurs really arent important to humankind as we never co-existed with them. As is the case with over 99% of life on Earth. Why should we care about things that are dead and gone when we have so many beautiful creatures still here with us?
Translation is a very important thing - and the bible as with most relgious texts is clear proof that it was written by man and is not the word of God (whether it exist or not). For example there are a number of social predujdices and seemingly unatural states of social existence - this includes talking about man made objects and land borders as if they naturally existed.
"am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery"
Another example would be the commandment "You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour."
This is morally obnoxious on many levels (and we would hope certainlly lost in translation) - Firstly surely there should be a more important commandment "Slavery is wrong". No it advocates the keeping of slave, it places women as property and as objects akin to an animal. The Koran version of that commandment seems to be less obnoxious, however, if God does exist, than I'm his enemy.
Also God is saying we should not be jealous, but at the same time we must honour him because he is a jealous God - talk about inferiority complex! "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,"
However, I do not hold the Dawkins veiw of Religion (much more of Marxist) but I would highly recommend Terry Eagleton for excellent Marxist defense of Religious and Christian ideas. (or the meek and militant for equally excellent Marxist attack on religious and Christian ideas).
Opps what I meant to say was:
Dinosaurs really arent important to humankind as we never co-existed with them. As is the case with over 99% of life on Earth. Why should we care about things that are dead and gone when we have so many beautiful creatures still here with us?
So you really agree with this? The discovery in the 19th century and the development of understanding of Geological time, and the existence of creatures from different historical periods is probably the single most important human discovery - it was through this understanding and knowledge that theory of evolution for example was able to develop (through Darwin natural selection) a realistic mechanic. From this we develop an understanding of genes etc.
There are so many things today, positive and progressive developments that would not have been possible without the knowledge and discovery of this massive historical past.
@ Deadgood: You say that millions of people find comfort in religion to cope with a world that is more horrible every day. Possibly the worst thing occurring at the moment in the world is terrorism and the constant war in the middle-east. What was the inspiration behind that? Oh yes... religion. People can believe in morality and lead a good life without having to believe in a load of heresay contained in a book that was edited by the Vatican around 500 years ago (or any other religious text for that matter).
You also mention that the 6-day creation is a mistranslation, but then in another post mention Hell. Hell itself is a mistranslation and a modern concept dating back only around 800 years. The original word used was (excuse my spelling if this is not correct) "Sheoul". The original text made no mention of some place of fire and brimstone (and I also challenge you to find a literal description of Hell in that context within the bible). The original idea was that those with no belief would simply not be rewarded with an afterlife. No punishment, just a normal mortal death.
Also I am rather offended by the fact that you seem to think that being gay/lesbian is mutually exclusive with being in love, and that homosexuality is purely based around lust. I also think that your reluctance to answer whether you think homosexuality is a choice (saying that your answer would not be productive) shows your thoughts on the subject. Did you choose to be straight? I think not.
For the record, I am Gay. For the record, I don't sleep around, I do not "rub it in people's faces", I am very happily in love with my partner, I do not think at all that there is any reasonable excuse to find homosexuality offensive, I consider the word "abnormal" to be EXTREMELY offensive (whether you mean it in that sense or not, similar to how using the word 'gay' to describe something as rubbish is homophobic regardless of intent), and I can think of a very good reason why someone would post their sexuality on their profile. I do not use Xbox LIVE as every time I have ever been on there it is filled with constant racist and homophobic language. I have no wish to play with ignorant morons like that. However, if I was able to find other gay people to play with, meaning that I could guarantee that I would not be exposed to such ignorant and outdated attitudes, I would HAPPILY do so. To say that someone is "looking for trouble" by stating their sexuality is homophobic. It suggests that gay and lesbian people should live their lives in silence and quietly accept the discrimination around us. The reason why Gay Pride exists is to remind people that Gay people exist, that they are not going away, and that the constant and still-widespread discrimination is not acceptable and will not be accepted.
There is NO excuse for homophobia. Full stop.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but religion is not the reason that terrorism or war exists - it is just a vehicle with which people vent their frustrations. Reaction to Imperialism is the reason people are committing acts of terror and war - religion is just means with which they express it.
In the same way, the English Civial War was about a growing middle class wanting more power, and to curtail the strength of landed aristocracy - it was however, fought using Religious ideologies as an expression of its aims. The French Revolution did pretty much the same thing it just used a different vehcile to express it (ie the ideas of the Enlightenment).
It annoys me when record companies do that. I guess major labels look at facts and figures. Indies (Drag City being my absolute favourite) just want to put out good music. Bonnie 'Prince' Billy releases an album a year, minimum and they're better than most others, just not as cool. Although I think two years is a good gap between albums.
I'm like that with Jeff Buckley. A completist I mean. His mother flogging his stuff to death has ruined it a bit now, but I've got alot of his stuff in triplicate (multiple formats and buying cheap when I've seen them second hand) and some of it is worth quite a few quid now, although I'd never sell it. I did give a copy of his first ep to a friend thinking it was a reissue and worth a tenner. It was an original and worth about £100!
Talking about music is much more fun than repeatedly banging heads with people you're just not going to agree with.
5 o'clock. The day is done!!
Yeah, I really like Jeff Buckley too.
I seem to have managed to obtain 3 copies of 'Grace' over the years (my original, a copy with an extra track that I bought in Holland and the deluxe edition). I remember when I was living up in Glasgow - there was this one live CD that I really wanted (can't remember the name - I have a few of his live albums) that I'd seen in FOPP, but; the CD was expensive and I was a little skint at the time, so I couldn't really justify buying it. Quite a few years went on and I eventually managed to find it again - in Kuala Lumpur, of all places.
Which strangely brings us back to the Smiths - I noticed the new Jeff Buckley compilation has a cover of 'I know it's Over' on it...is this an actual studio version, or the live medley with 'Hallelujah'?
'I Know It's Over' is a radio session apparently. I see that have just re-released the 'Best of...', it's the only release I haven't got and I can't justify buying it to have songs I already own. In a different CD case.
Charlie Brooker was talking about Hallelujah and the X Factor single etc etc, as he put it, it is now "ruined forever as a song destined to be played a thick people's funerals". That made me p**s myself. Although I wasn't all precious about it being covered, it was commerical as hell before Cowell got his mits on it, and is always used cheaply for sad scenes in crap like Hollyoaks and the OC!
'I Know It's Over' is a radio session apparently. I see that have just re-released the 'Best of...', it's the only release I haven't got and I can't justify buying it to have songs I already own. In a different CD case.
Charlie Brooker was talking about Hallelujah and the X Factor single etc etc, as he put it, it is now "ruined forever as a song destined to be played a thick people's funerals". That made me p**s myself. Although I wasn't all precious about it being covered, it was commerical as hell before Cowell got his mits on it, and is always used cheaply for sad scenes in crap like Hollyoaks and the OC!
I know what you mean - I saw the compilation and thought it was just a load of stuff I already have....it's not even that great a compilation, really. I may have to look to download that version of 'I Know it's Over', though.
I don't think there's any point in getting precious about any song - nothing is sacred anymore, if they think there's a quick buck to be made by covering a legendary (therefore a sure-fire hit) song, they'll do it. At the end of the day - that X-Factor cover was abysmal, they completely destroyed any bit of sentiment it had by getting some puppet with a 'Destinys Child' type voice to sing it - but it may have got a fair few people listening to Jeff Buckley...which can't be a bad thing.
I do indeed have faith in science and the great advantage that science has over religion is that science has consistently produced tangible, quantifiable and verifiable results that can be reproduced over and over again. Not only that, science also actively tries to go back and correct itself when new information and evidence indicates that past positions and theories may be inaccurate; I perceive very few organised religions doing the same thing.
You seem to feel that having faith in science and faith in religion are mutually exclusive. Science and religion are not competing ideologies, they don't share the same purposes or goals. Embracing a religious faith does not necessarily mean the exclusion of rationality, logic and belief in the benefits of science..
If you could present something that even remotely suggests that "Hellfire" exists as an afterlife then I might be more inclined to take such comments seriously.
All I can present as evidence is the Bible. Its up to you whether you believe that or not.
Incidentally, I do agree with your underlying message of hope and find it to be positive as long as it is secular in nature and both allows and encourages individual thinking and questioning of both the faith and the world around the person. Religious dogma is most off putting to my sensibilities (though dogmatic behaviour need not be limited to official religions).
Yeah. I prefer to think of my faith as a positive hopeful one with an underlying message of love. Although a little fear of God is certainly not unhealthy. I too dislike religious dogma, which is why I dislike pretty much all organised religions. The tend to become places of ritual. When a religious organisation bears more resemblance to a business than a faith, it's not a good sign. People should always question their own beliefs and not just accept them blindly.
I do indeed have faith in science and the great advantage that science has over religion is that science has consistently produced tangible, quantifiable and verifiable results that can be reproduced over and over again. Not only that, science also actively tries to go back and correct itself when new information and evidence indicates that past positions and theories may be inaccurate; I perceive very few organised religions doing the same thing.
You seem to feel that having faith in science and faith in religion are mutually exclusive. Science and religion are not competing ideologies, they don't share the same purposes or goals. Embracing a religious faith does not necessarily mean the exclusion of rationality, logic and belief in the benefits of science..
If you could present something that even remotely suggests that "Hellfire" exists as an afterlife then I might be more inclined to take such comments seriously.
All I can present as evidence is the Bible. Its up to you whether you believe that or not.
Incidentally, I do agree with your underlying message of hope and find it to be positive as long as it is secular in nature and both allows and encourages individual thinking and questioning of both the faith and the world around the person. Religious dogma is most off putting to my sensibilities (though dogmatic behaviour need not be limited to official religions).
Yeah. I prefer to think of my faith as a positive hopeful one with an underlying message of love. Although a little fear of God is certainly not unhealthy. I too dislike religious dogma, which is why I dislike pretty much all organised religions. The tend to become places of ritual. When a religious organisation bears more resemblance to a business than a faith, it's not a good sign. People should always question their own beliefs and not just accept them blindly.
1) It may seem that way yet I do not seem them as mutually exclusive. It does however seem to me that many people substitute empty platitudes and double-standard declarations of "faith" in place of concrete results and achievements. You state that you don't find science and religion to be competeting entities and that one can be religious and rational. While I agree that there does appear to be rational religious individuals many religious people, and religious movements, actively seem to condem and/or ignore scientific progression (ex. stem cell research; another example would be the Mormons who do not allow blood transfusions even at the risk of preventable death,). While perhaps in some cases against the spirit of a religious movement organised religion all too often imposes itself on the world around it and demands unquestioning obedience. That is not a system I will accept and I will forcefully resist it if need be. Science can seem to impose itself on the world as well - sometimes for perceived good and sometimes for perceived evil - yet science as a conceptual institution rarely has an agenda other than to expand knowledge and development. I can not say the same for a great many religious movements.
2) The claim that the Bible is in and of itself proof of the existence of God, Heaven and Hell is a fallacy. It in no way presents any serious evidence to support its case and this is where the notion of religion being irrational comes in to play.
You state that you don't find science and religion to be competeting entities and that one can be religious and rational. While I agree that there does appear to be rational religious individuals many religious people, and religious movements, actively seem to condem and/or ignore scientific progression (ex. stem cell research; another example would be the Mormons who do not allow blood transfusions even at the risk of preventable death,). While perhaps in some cases against the spirit of a religious movement organised religion all too often imposes itself on the world around it and demands unquestioning obedience. That is not a system I will accept and I will forcefully resist it if need be. Science can seem to impose itself on the world as well - sometimes for perceived good and sometimes for perceived evil - yet science as a conceptual institution rarely has an agenda other than to expand knowledge and development. I can not say the same for a great many religious movements.
Again, unfortunately the majority of hypocritical so-called religious people give those of us who are trying to live a proper moral life a bad name. I don't agree with any forced preaching or conversion. If someone wants to have a religious debate with me then I'm happy to do it, otherwise my views go unmentioned. In regards to condemnation of certain scientific practices, I don't think that believing in rights for pre-birth humans is a relgious issue, just a moral one.
The claim that the Bible is in and of itself proof of the existence of God, Heaven and Hell is a fallacy. It in no way presents any serious evidence to support its case and this is where the notion of religion being irrational comes in to play.
Thats where faith comes in. As the Bible so wonderfully puts it - "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Of course the Bible itself without faith is no concrete evidence of anything. Although, I believe historians do agree with the Biblical accounts of many events.
I'm not opposed to the notion that Jesus Christ is a historical figure; he may very well have existed and been a man with wise teachings, etc. Do I think he literally performed seemingly magic-like miracles and rose from the dead? Nope, though part of me does enjoy the thought of their being a more magical and mysterious side to our world different yet intertwined with the rational, empirical scientific world. There are also any number of historical discrepancies in the Bible. Indeed, the plagues visited upon Egypt in Biblical scripture can all be explained via plausible scientific scenarios. One of my main issues with the Bible is not as a book with various commentary and lessons in it - not at all - but rather that I have come across self-professed Christians who appear to use the Bible as shield to protect them from thinking for themselves, for tackling difficult and inconvenient ideas and discoveries. Some of those same people seem to use the Bible as their faith as opposed to having their faith and conviction flow from within themselves. I have little respect nor patience for such lip service and tomfoolery.
"they didn't want to see that crap or their kids to see that crap."
Mabye there was something that this person did? Parents should be able to screen what they want from a childs eyes. Before anyone tells me that it is fine to show or tell a child a homosexual idea, i agree but it is no different to parents trying to stop thier children from learning about sex too early or stopping education on various religions.
Why would you even state your sexuality on a gaming service? Obviously attention seeking like most gay people it seems these days, they'll point out their sexuality whenever they can. Guess what? WE DON'T CARE! She should be banned, not because she's a lesbian but she's looking for attention.
In all seriousness its wrong that she got banned, but why does she feel the need to tell everyone in the world anyway?
Why would you even state your sexuality on a gaming service? Obviously attention seeking like most gay people it seems these days, they'll point out their sexuality whenever they can. Guess what? WE DON'T CARE! She should be banned, not because she's a lesbian but she's looking for attention.
Because otherwise she'll probably have been insulted for either being a girl gamer or been harrased to go on cam and take her clothes off or whatnot. So it could be time saver saying "Sorry guys, I'm not interested."
That and it's her bio, so just because she wants to share stuff about herself how does that make her attention seeking? Millions of people 'advertise' they're bi or gay on networking sites such as Myspace yet the world doesn't have a problem with that.
Why would you state your sexuality on your Xbox. It's just weird. I wouldn't go about stating i'm straight on my Bio.
Remember though that the majority of the world is straight so it would only seem strange if you did that unless you were in a gay community. It's just the same as Americans usually ridiculing me just for being English or how certain people ridicule others just for being black. At the end of the day we're all human being so in that respect we're all the same so it's sad that there are still people in the world like that.
And it's also sad that people like you three have a problem with people admitting "I'm different. Accept it."
First and foremost MS should re-instate her or give her a full refund on all purchases of their product, she did nothing wrong, she was harassed by these narrow-minded pinheads! Play the damn game, I never read the profiles anyway, only what games you have, see the trend?. Who you are as a person is secondary to who you are in the games. How does your orientation affect your gameplay?? Now let's address these individuals who say ban the US gamers from live! Why? Because more insults and abuse seem to come from the american side of the interweb? Duh, more americans own 360s you ignorant slob! How's that for an insult? Now I don't even know you---you might be very knowledgeable and very neat. See how that works? I made assumptions without knowing anything about you, now, had you given me this info freely I have ammo to attack you with. If I was an a-hole, which I am not, you would be ripe for the picking. Given this climate of zero tolerance and whatnot, don't ask don't tell would seem to be the order of the day, should she have made this info public notice? In hindsight probably not, she only opened herself up to scorn and ridicule. Should she be true to herself, of course. Re-instate her MS!! Everybody...tell only your friends your personal, private business, we are here to play games.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Funny stuff!
