[Martin]

What is this topic? Opened with a quote from Archenar which didn't make too much sense. Who is 'Paul B' and why is he obsessed with homosexuals? Why is split-screen 'gay'? Some of the best gaming I've ever done has been split-screen! Of course, having independent monitors/systems brings certain advantages, but then so does sitting right next to your buddy in co-op! I don't have to ask him where he is on the map, I just glance at his half of the screen. I also don't have to put up with voice chat latency, so my crucial bit of intel doesn't reach my comrade after he needed it.

Of course, LAN in the same room mostly brings all the advantages from both. But LAN sessions aren't as easy for most people. And obviously, why would you have two people on the same keyboard? My computer is as old as hell, and it has 8 USB slots. Either get two mice and keyboards, or man-up and deal with playing on a control pad. Two of them.

Seriously, split-screen gaming is awesome! Especially in co-op (or non-FPS games where screen-seeking isn't an issue, like Mario Kart).

[Kathy]

Martin, on 15 August 2012 - 03:07 AM, said:

Why is split-screen 'gay'?

Because, apparently, for a split-screen you need to sit on the lap. Which might be gay or so they say.

[rasmus thorup]

Burnett, on 15 August 2012 - 03:18 AM, said:

Because, apparently, for a split-screen you need to sit on the lap. Which might be gay or so they say.

What's wrong with that, me and my dad did tha... oh.

[wayskobfssae]

*shrug* Nerds have to suffer through bigotry all the time and no organization with a political agenda ever shows up to protect them.

(Star Wars Kid doesn't count as a political organization)

[Kathy]

[rasmus thorup]

haha

[Sangman]

Holy shit.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

...

What exactly am I meant to be expressing outrage at here?

[Ronin]

Achenar, on 15 August 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

...

What exactly am I meant to be expressing outrage at here?

Nothing quite like a bit of good old fashioned outrage.

[wayskobfssae]

Ripemanewone, on 15 August 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:

Nothing quite like a bit of good old fashioned outrage.

Because... if we do nothing, then we have sided with the oppressors? Or so the saying goes.

[Spirrwell]

There's many ways (no pun intended) to view the situation with those of a different sexuality.

The two main ways to break down this argument are "Morals and Ethics" and "Right or Wrong." With both of these you can break them down into a bunch of different subcategories. When I refer to "Right or Wrong" I'm simply referring to the concrete reasons of why or why not an alternate sexuality should be accepted.

As for my understanding, there's only two concrete reasons why being a homosexual COULD be considered as a truly bad thing. It's a huge "if," but if everyone turned gay humans would become extinct. The only way that could take place is if we excluded the possibility surrogate mothers or perhaps even clones. The other reason involves the increasing rate of STDs of those that are of homosexuality and other such sexualities. All of the other reasons that I could possibly think of that could make homosexuality a bad thing would be a consideration of morality.

I myself do not support homosexuality, but I'm not against it. Also, when I use the word "support," I mean I don't care about it, and it's not my problem to sit down and attempt to "make right." It should be handled by those that are involved. Since it's practically a moral decision I have no right to judge whether it should or should not be allowed, because I am not a homosexual. The only logical extrapolation I get from this is to just let them be and let them have their relationships because it doesn't affect me. There's a lot more that could be said, but most of that is simply continuous addition of fuel to an already blazing fire.

[wayskobfssae]

Spirrwell, on 15 August 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

As for my understanding, there's only two concrete reasons why being a homosexual COULD be considered as a truly bad thing. It's a huge "if," but if everyone turned gay humans would become extinct. The only way that could take place is if we excluded the possibility surrogate mothers or perhaps even clones. The other reason involves the increasing rate of STDs of those that are of homosexuality and other such sexualities. All of the other reasons that I could possibly think of that could make homosexuality a bad thing would be a consideration of morality.

There are STD's that are easier to catch through homo vs hetero sex?

As for reproduction... 99% of humanity could turn gay tomorrow and there'd probably still be enough reproduction to guarantee our our continued survival for generations to come. If anything we're more in danger of destroying ourselves with overpopulation. So in that respect, at this point a civilization that is universally OK with homosexuality has a much better chance of still being here a few hundred years from now.

[Jimmy]

I don't actually see how our race going extinct is a bad thing.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

Captain Awesome, on 15 August 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

I don't actually see how our race going extinct is a bad thing.

That statement is so nihilist I can't even wrap my head around it, save to suggest that if you are so disgusted with the human race, why not go ahead and off yourself.

Of course, I know that doesn't address the main point of your post, which is that humans are doing more harm than good to Earth. Well, we're basically at the top of the food chain when it comes to our place in the biosphere, so we can't really do much to produce per se. I suggest we're approaching a peak population amount, and perhaps a century from now we'll start seeing the downswing in population accompanied by a loss of resources, as one would expect in a Lotka-Volterra (aka predator-prey) cycle.

[Spirrwell]

All I was saying was that those are the only two reasons I can see as being concrete reasons as to why it's a bad thing. One of them is insanely unrealistic and likely would never happen with that given scenario. The other reason that involved the expansion of STDs among those of an alternate sexuality is the only realistic reason I could think of. Until there is explicit scientific proof that engaging in homosexual activity is directly detrimental to the health of those involved, there's still no other solid reason as to why it shouldn't be allowed other than a moral\ethical one. There's no scientific proof that I'm aware of that shows a direct correlation to health decline and homosexuality.

[Jimmy]

Nihilism? Ah, that must be exhausting.

[Jblade]

Those 2 reasons are ridiculous and we're at far more risk from either killing ourselves or being killed by external factors (like asteroids, gamma rays, or even alien fucking invasion) than we are to go extinct because we all end up homosexual. And we're also far far more likely to die from either a new super-virus or even one that's cooked up in a weapons laboratory somewhere than we are to all catch STDs and die from that, that's a crazy idea.

There is no logical reason to forbid homosexuality, on any kind of ground at all.

and also I would normally agree with CA but I'm hoping the new Mars rover will find something amazing there, kicking NASA and everyone else up the ass and getting the human race interested in getting off of this rock and spreading out rather than stagnating with shitty reality TV shows and terrible celebrities like we are now (and alternatively, watching a Government massacre it's civilians and do nothing)

[Martin]

Captain Awesome, on 15 August 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

I don't actually see how our race going extinct is a bad thing.

This. We drain our planet dry until there's nothing left. If we're lucky, we'll have figured out deep space travel before that happens. Then we can officially become entities which scour the cosmos for fertile planets, so we can suck up all their resources too and ruin them.

[Spirrwell]

James, on 15 August 2012 - 11:13 PM, said:

Those 2 reasons are ridiculous and we're at far more risk from either killing ourselves or being killed by external factors (like asteroids, gamma rays, or even alien fucking invasion) than we are to go extinct because we all end up homosexual. And we're also far far more likely to die from either a new super-virus or even one that's cooked up in a weapons laboratory somewhere than we are to all catch STDs and die from that, that's a crazy idea.

I feel like a broken record, but I'll explain again. The possibility that we become extinct if the entire planet were to become homosexual if we were to exclude the possibility of surrogate mothers, clones, and whatnot is extremely unrealistic. It would be insane to think of this as a reason because of how unlikely it is, but it still stands as possibility even if it's one in a googolplex. Logic dictates the aforementioned reason is not a logical reason, merely a possibility.

I don't know the ratio of the transfer rate of STDs between those of alternate sexualites, but I would doubt it would be much more or less than those of heterosexuality, hence why it's still a lousy reason for alternate sexualities to be oppressed.

All I was saying was that these are the only albeit flawed reasons why non-acceptance to those of homosexuality could possibly be directly afflicted with those that are not.

To put things simply, either find a good reason as to why homosexuality is a bad thing and not a moral one, or just let them be.

[rasmus thorup]

How did this thread end up with the extinction of human kind being a good thing?

[Spirrwell]

rasmus thorup, on 16 August 2012 - 08:15 AM, said:

How did this thread end up with the extinction of human kind being a good thing?

I'm sure most people would pin "blame" on Captain Awesome for his post, but it seems that people are overreacting and lashing out at each other for the things that people say. These types of conversations tend to breed that environment. Personally I think the thread should be locked or at least renamed because it really lost its connection to the splitscreen mod when the thread was split in two.

[Jimmy]

Just to clarify, I think a person can be good, but people on whole are bad. We don't stop and think. At the end of the day, we're just as dumb as those animals we believe we're above. I also look at our extinction from the viewpoint of mercy, rather than malice.

[rasmus thorup]

It's not like the planet has feelings -.-'

[Jimmy]

[Spirrwell]

He's a bit sour on a few notes, but he's not wrong. The Earth can get along just fine without us and the rest of its inhabitants, but we can't survive without the Earth and its lithosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere. These are the three things on Earth that would need to be preserved if we expect to survive as a whole, other than that we live to die.

[The Commander]

Wow, what have I missed here at Duke4.net

[Jimmy]

Here, hit the bong, Cody.

[Sangman]

Spirrwell, on 15 August 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

As for my understanding, there's only two concrete reasons why being a homosexual COULD be considered as a truly bad thing. It's a huge "if," but if everyone turned gay humans would become extinct.

Yeah I'm sorry but if you're serious this is one of the most retarded things I've ever read. Thank god you clarified a "huge" if or it would indeed be the stupidest thing ever.

Quote

I myself do not support homosexuality, but I'm not against it. Also, when I use the word "support," I mean I don't care about it, and it's not my problem to sit down and attempt to "make right." It should be handled by those that are involved. Since it's practically a moral decision I have no right to judge whether it should or should not be allowed, because I am not a homosexual. The only logical extrapolation I get from this is to just let them be and let them have their relationships because it doesn't affect me. There's a lot more that could be said, but most of that is simply continuous addition of fuel to an already blazing fire.

You say everyone should be able to love as they want so you support gay rights you numbnuts. That's the whole point. That everyone should be allowed to love whoever they want regardless of gender without interference.

Maybe I feel a bit more heated about homophobic subhuman scum than years ago because now I have some gay friends and I caught wind of gay people being killed not too far from my home purely on the account of being gay. To be honest I feel pretty strongly about these issues.

Also rest assured, Paul B is definitely not the only guy to come across as a homophobe around here. Some of you are less direct with stating your opinions, or try to sugarcoat whatever bs you can think of, but there's some closet homophobes in this thread as well.

Quote

I don't actually see how our race going extinct is a bad thing.

Like others have said if you truly believe this start with yourself, otherwise if you're just trolling GTFO this dumb thread.

Quote

Personally I think the thread should be locked

I agree with this. Why Paul B was actually given a platform for his unacceptable hate speech is truly baffling and while I mean no offense I find this very disappointing.

[Jimmy]

Sangman, on 16 August 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

Like others have said if you truly believe this start with yourself, otherwise if you're just trolling GTFO this dumb thread.

Yeah, uh, how exactly does killing myself solve the human problem? In fact, it just adds further suffering and distress upon others. No thanks.

Also, lock the thread? Why? What do you folks have against discourse? The whole point of a forum is discourse.

[Mblackwell]

Not really a platform for hate speech. Just a platform for open dialog and in this case someone said something hateful and the majority jumped down his throat and said, "Look, that's just fucking retarded."

Except more eloquently.

As for a thread name change someone else will have to come up with a title since mine would probably be Rational People vs Anti-Gay People and Their Terrible Opinions.

Frankly, if you want the topic to die your best bet is to just stop posting in it, locking it is not really called for in this instance.