That is taken completely out of context. He was angry there because his officers being found on the planet risked setting back the inhabitants evolutionary development from a point where they no longer believed in Gods to suddenly fearing them and feeling that sacrificing other living beings would appease them.
Join date is wrong, I've actually been around since STO Beta.
True alters don't have a "main". Account wide unlocks for all unique event rewards!!
Just adding a bit to your post. Don't forget that after they concentration camps were "liberated" those wearing the pink triangle did not get the same treatment from their "saviours" as the Jews did. This does not mean I don't like Jews, I have nothing against them, just telling what happened. Some had to remain in the camps and others were imprisoned.
In the 1945 Nuremberg war crime trials that followed the liberation no mention was ever made of crimes against homosexuals. No SS official was ever tried for specific atrocities against pink triangle prisoners. Many of the known SS Doctors, who had performed operations on homosexuals, were never brought to account for their actions. One of the most notorious SS doctors was Carl Peter Vaernet who performed numerous experiments on pink triangle inmates at the Buchenwald and Neuengamme camps. He was never tried for his crimes and escaped to South America where he died a free man in 1965.
That is taken completely out of context. He was angry there because his officers being found on the planet risked setting back the inhabitants evolutionary development from a point where they no longer believed in Gods to suddenly fearing them and feeling that sacrificing other living beings would appease them.
While I understand it was in the context of 'why he should not play God', you can tell that he was talking about religion in general. Its rather sad.
While I understand it was in the context of 'why he should not play God', you can tell that he was talking about religion in general. Its rather sad.
Personally I don't think it's sad. He didn't want to influence the belief system, one way or the other, of another race. Look at DS9 with the Prophets of Bajor, Starfleet didn't come in and say "They aren't real, deal with it". In fact, they were pissed when Sisko was chosen as the Emissary to the Prophets because Starfleet had no right to interfere in the beliefs of another culture.
Join date is wrong, I've actually been around since STO Beta.
True alters don't have a "main". Account wide unlocks for all unique event rewards!!
Personally I don't think it's sad. He didn't want to influence the belief system, one way or the other, of another race. Look at DS9 with the Prophets of Bajor, Starfleet didn't come in and say "They aren't real, deal with it". In fact, they were pissed when Sisko was chosen as the Emissary to the Prophets because Starfleet had no right to interfere in the beliefs of another culture.
Sisko was angry at first, but he kept an open mind.
Picard in one episode did the same. When asked about death, he offered multiple theories, in a mindset that was open minded, if sceptical.
Let us wear Swimsuits on Foundry maps or bridges please! I would pay zen for that.
While I understand it was in the context of 'why he should not play God', you can tell that he was talking about religion in general. Its rather sad.
Picard, like most humans of the future, views belief in the supernatural as associated with ignorance and lack of progress, like how humans were in the past before the age of enlightenment and the rise of humanism. In that scene, he is angry because the lead anthropologist has predicted that he will come to be worshiped as a god on the planet, reversing all the progress that has been made in that society toward and enlightened, humanist culture.
However, this has absolutely nothing to do with his tolerance for others beliefs. His anger stems solely from the fact that he has interfered in the natural development of the planet and set back a promising society.
Picard shows remarkable tolerance for the rights of his crew to practice their spiritual beliefs (Worf's for instance) even if he considers them backward and ignorant.
Personally I don't think it's sad. He didn't want to influence the belief system, one way or the other, of another race. Look at DS9 with the Prophets of Bajor, Starfleet didn't come in and say "They aren't real, deal with it". In fact, they were pissed when Sisko was chosen as the Emissary to the Prophets because Starfleet had no right to interfere in the beliefs of another culture.
"Deep Space: Nine" was written many years after Gene's passing. Gene does not deserve credit for that series.
The month is June. June is celebrated as the month of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in the Catholic Church. If a fleet leader got Brandon to let him/her write a blog about how we are all brothers and sisters in the loving heart of Jesus, and that the fleet was going to have an in-game celebration of the month of the Sacred Heart for anybody who wished to join the party, and Brandon posted it on the front page;
Would you have an objection?
Yes I would. But not for the religious aspect. I would have an objection based upon the relevance to the theme of Trek.
Again, I restate what I said earlier in the discussion: Is the problem that one fleet got to send out a message about what some view as controversial, or about their fleet sponsored event? Or is it about the content of said event. The distinction is important.
Edit: Adding this. If there was sufficient research, information, and logic behind the prsentation that it was legitimately connected to the IP, then I believe it should be considered by whomever is responsible for such decisions.
"Deep Space: Nine" was written many years after Gene's passing. Gene does not deserve credit for that series.
Seriously, "my fake Messiah"... Where have I ever referenced Gene Roddenberry as my Messiah? I have very strong religious beliefs, they are mine and mine alone, I don't feel the need to share them or justify them to you or anybody else, but I'd appreciate you not putting words into my mouth.
If "Star Trek" was all about tolerance, why are 'human' Starfleet officers not allowed to wear religious artifacts?
Where are the crucifixes and menorahs in officer's rooms?
"Star Trek" is a celebration of cultural differences. Once it touches the notion of human religion, theology is only talked about in extremes.
Because it is a military organization (despite their primary mission of exploration, they ARE military), and there is a mandatory uniform. That uniform doesn't include, or exclude, any particular group's artifacts, while in uniform.
Because you choose to view the LGBT movement as purely political in nature, does not make it so.
Except for the fact that it is in fact a political movement. You do know that advocacy groups, regardless of what it is they are advocating for, are, by definition, political groups. Right? Hence the term 'political advocacy'
While I could suggest to you that you do a little background research before so readily dismissing the LGBT movement as merely a "political advocacy" movement
I suggest you do the same before you claim that it isn't.
it would be useless. Partly because you clearly have your mind made up already, but, mostly because you clearly don't know what it is like to be a member of a persecuted and oppressed minority group.
Stop attacking and belittling people. That is exactly what you are doing. More 'you don't know what you're talking about so shut up' and 'you aren't persecuted' You know what? BS. I'm white, and if you claim thats not an oppressed group at present than you have never applied for a job, never been to a post secondary school and have never been refused either jobs or seats in a school due to 'racial quotas' among other things.
How would you feel if your child, for any reason, was beaten, tied to a fence post in the in Wyoming and left for dead like Matthew Shepherd. Matthew suffered for 18 hours, alone, tied to that fence post and later died of his injuries. Would you talk to Judy and Dennis Shepherd about "political advocacy" if you met them?
Last I saw they had become quite politically active with advocacy groups as a result of that incident
Just adding a bit to your post. Don't forget that after they concentration camps were "liberated" those wearing the pink triangle did not get the same treatment from their "saviours" as the Jews did. This does not mean I don't like Jews, I have nothing against them, just telling what happened. Some had to remain in the camps and others were imprisoned.
and guards were handed over to inmates to be murdered, summarily executed and given show trials and shot. Whats your point? These are also the same inmates who turned on eachother for awhile and killed anyone who they even suspected was collaborating
In the 1945 Nuremberg war crime trials that followed the liberation no mention was ever made of crimes against homosexuals. No SS official was ever tried for specific atrocities against pink triangle prisoners. Many of the known SS Doctors, who had performed operations on homosexuals, were never brought to account for their actions.
I wouldn't start claiming that Nuremberg was any bastion of justice and law if I were you. This is the same court that condoned the use of illegal torture and threats against the accused in order to prosecute them (read up on what was done to Hoess to get his confession, and later admitted to by one of the british interrogators - a confession that was a blatant lie and involved such things as naming a camp that never even existed and almost tripling the number of victims killed in his camp), who allowed faked evidence to be entered as real (see: human soap and lampshades - both of which have since been discredited by all modern historians and by the holocaust museum in israel) and allowed cases of absurd testimony to be accepted as fact (example: testimony was once given that inmates could tell the nationality of victims by the color of smoke produced by burning them, which is beyond absurd) which only gives ammo to todays deniers.
the point? Don't use that farce of a trial in support of anything
The LGBT movement is not a political movement in that aspect that it is a homogeneous group with the same political values
It doesn't have to be a single group to be a political movement. its recognized as a political advocacy group by the US government
So saying Pride should not be in this game is the same as telling Rosa Parks she can not sit on the bus. And what are you really afraid of, a bunch of starships cruising around in sector space?
Now its 'what are you afraid of' attacks. and no, those aren't the same thing
We in the LGBT community have to get used to seeing straight couples holding hands making out and even having sex in public, in magazines, in movies and on TV so knowing that we play this game and that we will have fun together in a non-sexual way
Do you see any straight pride events around? No? Then you're talking about completely different things. Don't even try to claim otherwise
get used to it
in other words 'shut up' or you're a bigot, right?
As soon as you do, you can join the rest of the civilized world.
Calling those who do not agree with you uncivilized is a personal attack
The problem is that most of the people who are objecting in this thread are intolerant and are not worried about the political implications.
Objecting to something that has no place here is not intolerant. That is a personal attack aimed at belittling people and trying to shut them up
As to your claim that the fleet's pride festivities are a political event, you are simply speculating.
There is no speculation about it. Whether intentional or not it is a political event
Sexuality in whatever form is natural.
Consider your words more carefully. Under that blanket statement you would be including anything, including such things as illegal pedophile activities. 'whatever form' covers a very large number of things, some legal and ok, some blatantly illegal and harmful
you claim you are going to write your letter regarding the offense you have taken at PWE allowing a blog about tolerance and Star Trek to appear on their website.
Its not the tolerance part he has a problem with, its the political nature of advocating an an event that has no place here. Its also a tos violation to do such a thing. he has every right to file a complaint about it
Among fans you'd expect better, but it is sad how there is even a debate in this forum post
Another belittling personal attack
It's the forums, they don't represent the majority of the player base
Yes they do. Its called a cross section of the community
and they sure as hell don't represent the Fanbase of Star Trek franchise....around 300 posts so far....not a lot of people....and a lot of from the same accounts...so I would not worry.
Translation: 'don't listen to these idiot bigots' right?
I can now see Presidential candidates out-bidding each other on offering free zen if you vote for them
To be followed 3 months later by a scandal that comes to be known as 'transwarpgate' i'm sure
As for the rest of people here who don't care for LGB folks, you have my leave to just ignore us...but one day you folks are going to find out that spinster aunt was a TRIBBLE, or the artistically inclined cousin is TRIBBLE. The rough, tough automechanic brother really has a husband at home. Good luck when your personal world changes...or just do what some folks do, kick kin out the house for being "unnatural and wrong."
Yet another attack. Nobody said anything about 'not caring for LGBT folks' You are putting words in peoples mouths
The pride movement and advocacy for various changes to the civil and political system of various countries is similar to other advocacy groups demands for change. By granting the advertisement of this political movement when political advocacy is supposed to be prohibited on these forums it is creating a change and opens the door to other groups to demand similar treatment. This will not be granted because they are unwilling or unable to grant various groups the similar platform for advocacy.
It is far better for PWE to draw a bright line and avoid these issues. Instead they crossed this threshold and will now probably be seen as favoring certain groups and viewpoints. I am not saying to ban this event in the slightest, merely to avoid the official endorsement and prominance of an announcement. The event could have still been held and promoted by user generated posts promoting such an event.
This
The blog was about tolerance and Star Trek, not TRIBBLE rights or TRIBBLE pride, a point that you and many other posters seem to have missed. The bit about the fleet's TRIBBLE pride celebration constituted a single paragraph.
It contained an official endorsement of the event, and displayed a political symbol of said event
"PWE [is] promoting and endorsing such an event via a official announcement that is not available to anyone," is without merit.
Except that is exactly what PWE did. They endorsed it. That is not a debatable statement. If you claim otherwise you are explicitly lying
Have you ever bothered to see how many different diversity celebrations are held on a monthly basis in the US alone?
You just proved the posters point, why is it this one and none of the others?
African Americans were enslaved by white plantation owners in the US,
No, they were enslaved by their own, or enemy tribes in africa, frequently during small scale wars carried out for the purposes of obtaining prisoners. They were then sold to slavers, who sold them to plantation workers. Don't tell others to 'go read some history' when you can't even get that right. And do not use the 'blame whitey' line again.
This whole thread has devolved into a bunch of excuse making by people who are uncomfortable about LGBs being in their lives
It has done nothing of the sort. That is a personal attack and putting words in peoples mouths
I am tired of the majority of people whining about why they don't get equal treatment when the system is designed with inherent advantages for the majority (white, male, heterosexual) built in.
Another 'blame whitey' statement. That is racial discrimination and hate speech. There is no such thing as white privilege. There is no advantage to being white. Unless you count being blamed for everyone elses problems and being discriminated against with racial quotas and race related laws covering and protecting everyone EXCEPT you. Heard about that incident recently where a GOVERNMENT organization in canada got nailed for circulating an internal memo explicitly forbidding the hiring of a white person under any circumstances, without direct approval of the CEO? Funny how that got hushed up real quick
Um, EVERYTHING that happens in-game, aside from this one-weekend-a-year event IS a Heterosexual event.
No they aren't. That statement doesn't even make sense
George Takei would be disappointed with a lot of you. Call yourself Trekkies? You disgust me. The true spirit of tolerance and friendship across all humanity is lost in this thread it seems.
Another attack
To everyone going on about children - you need to be at least 13 to play. So everyone here is over 13, and if they're not then they shouldn't be here, even if their parents allow them to.
Actually they're children until they're 14, according to the law.
White history month is counted in decades and centuries. Most of the history books are written from a "white" perspective. Everyone know who Hitler was, but the king Leopold II of Belgium who was responsible for the death of an estimated 2 to 15 million Congolese isn't mentioned in history books. Why do you think? Because white people wrote the history books.
Blaming whitey again? Blaming whites for what Hitler did? Claiming whites 'write history?' You're living in a fantasy land
Straight month doesn't exist as it is a heterosexual world we live in. Heterosexuals aren't a minority that is oppressed, but the ones doing the oppression are usually heterosexuals. I have to point out so no one thinks that I think all heterosexuals are like that. I know that most heterosexuals are great.
More offensive speech. Blaming heterosexuals for your problems now
If you want to be American-American, then you have to be a native.
Actually natives are a result of asians coming from asia via the bering straight and whites coming from across the atlantic and interbreeding. Do a little research
You know the ones the white heterosexuals hunted and murdered oh so many years ago.
Another hateful attack against whites
This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies . ~BranFlakes
Brandon, explain why you edited this post and left in the anti-white hate speech? Those were direct hateful comments aimed directly at white people. You clearly intentionally left them there.
Umm, that first guy you mentioned...wasn't he..umm...white?
Uh...are you saying Hitler wasn't white...? He was from Austria. He wasn't black and could not have been jewish because the jews had been expelled from linz centuries before he was born. you're getting confused with propaganda from the war era
I don't see you being forced to read an article, one chooses to do so.
What? Seriously? Thats your argument? Whether you read it or not has nothing to do with it. Its about the company endorsement of the event, not the event and not the article in and of itself
Yeah, becasue PVP never comes up when someone in political power is trying to ban Videogames to save the children.
Its not the pvp that comes up, its the violence in general
As for a lawsuit for not remaining neutral... there is more a risk of lawsuit from quashing a discussion about an LBGT event simply on those grounds than anything you have listed.
No there isn't. I'm referring to A) giving preferential endorsement to a political cause and breach of contract because this is a no-no in the tos
Companies remaining politically neutral... no, that is not true at all.
It is when the tos agreement holds the users to such a stance. the company can't do it if the users can't or its breach of contract
If a fleet identified themselves as members of the armed forces, and their fleet was holding an event to recognize June 6 (D-day, in case people don't remember...) had the same blog, did the same research (by the way, Doohan was Canadian infantry, and was present on D-day, so there is a small connection to the IP), and it was endorsed, would there be this much resistance to it, or objections in the forums? Would anyone feel the same about that as this event?
Since this scenario describes a non-political based event, no they would not feel the same way. you're comparing two different scenarios
"Deep Space: Nine" was written many years after Gene's passing
No. He gave his approval for it shortly before he died
Because it is a military organization (despite their primary mission of exploration, they ARE military), and there is a mandatory uniform. That uniform doesn't include, or exclude, any particular group's artifacts, while in uniform.
I love this conversation. Cryptic did a good job on promoting this fleet and subject. I think we should always have these types of conversations, so we can learn a little bit more about where society stands. We are definitely not a perfect society, and we still have a lot of work to accomplish.
While I may disagree with some people's perspectives, I do want to thank you for sharing your thoughts. We are not a perfect species. Within a few decades from now, we may just end up being on the same side. Its just a matter of growth and time. Nothing is set in stone.
As long as you are a kind and decent person, I do not care about what you do behind closed bedroom doors. Its none of my business. I do not accept 'the act' of homosexuality as anything normal; however, I do respect and accept the human being, behind the act, as my brother and sister.
What is important to me is the individual.
When I interact with another individual, I look straight into their heart and soul. Heterosexuals and homosexuals can be the source of great kindness and cruelty.
Instead of talking to someone about their sexuality, I would rather have a conversation about how we can protect our children, environment, economy, and country. As long as you have love within your heart, I could really careless about what you do in private.
Wow, Lazarus. That's quite an angry post there. You also mixed up several different people's comments and lumped them all together.
As for my comments that were quoted in that long diatribe, I said that the LGBT rights movement is not "purely" political in nature. Of course, in order for any cause to be successful, it must contain political aspects.
Why? Aren't they both sexual behaviors with one being acclamated today and the other still considered bad but growing in popularity?
One of those "sexual behaviors" - and let's just be clear, here, that sexual orientation goes a lot farther and is a lot more defining than simple bedroom behavior - is practiced consensually with adults of legal age and has never been demonstrated to inflict harm on anyone (at least, not in any way that heterosexual sex doesn't). One of them is nonconsensual by definition, involves an adult and a child who is neither sexually mature nor capable of adult consent, and has heavily documented evidence of harm for the child and additional, though lesser, harm to the adult.
So no, they don't really compare, any more than sex by force (since the filter won't allow me to use the r word) and oral sex are comparable because they both happen to be "sexual behaviors." Shame on you for trying to imply that they do.
Wow, Lazarus. That's quite an angry post there. You also mixed up several different people's comments and lumped them all together.
As for my comments that were quoted in that long diatribe, I said that the LGBT rights movement is not "purely" political in nature. Of course, in order for any cause to be successful, it must contain political aspects.
I liked the part where he stated that the forum rules constituted a contract and that PWE had a legal obligation to follow its own rules.
:eek:
I am heterosexual and I do not have any close TRIBBLE friends or relatives, but yet I never understood the level of bigotry toward gays that still exist in our society. Having grown up in the Bay Area, sometimes I forget how much intolerance towards gays still remains in the heartland of America. It is sad that some of these people call themselves Star Trek fans.
In any case, I have often thought that the subject of Star Trek as a vehicle for social and political progress would make the topic of an interesting book, so not surprisingly, I enjoyed the blog.
Comments
That is taken completely out of context. He was angry there because his officers being found on the planet risked setting back the inhabitants evolutionary development from a point where they no longer believed in Gods to suddenly fearing them and feeling that sacrificing other living beings would appease them.
Again, pointing out your casual dismissal of genocide is not an insult:
Personally I don't think it's sad. He didn't want to influence the belief system, one way or the other, of another race. Look at DS9 with the Prophets of Bajor, Starfleet didn't come in and say "They aren't real, deal with it". In fact, they were pissed when Sisko was chosen as the Emissary to the Prophets because Starfleet had no right to interfere in the beliefs of another culture.
Sisko was angry at first, but he kept an open mind.
Picard in one episode did the same. When asked about death, he offered multiple theories, in a mindset that was open minded, if sceptical.
Picard, like most humans of the future, views belief in the supernatural as associated with ignorance and lack of progress, like how humans were in the past before the age of enlightenment and the rise of humanism. In that scene, he is angry because the lead anthropologist has predicted that he will come to be worshiped as a god on the planet, reversing all the progress that has been made in that society toward and enlightened, humanist culture.
However, this has absolutely nothing to do with his tolerance for others beliefs. His anger stems solely from the fact that he has interfered in the natural development of the planet and set back a promising society.
Picard shows remarkable tolerance for the rights of his crew to practice their spiritual beliefs (Worf's for instance) even if he considers them backward and ignorant.
Yes I would. But not for the religious aspect. I would have an objection based upon the relevance to the theme of Trek.
Again, I restate what I said earlier in the discussion: Is the problem that one fleet got to send out a message about what some view as controversial, or about their fleet sponsored event? Or is it about the content of said event. The distinction is important.
Edit: Adding this. If there was sufficient research, information, and logic behind the prsentation that it was legitimately connected to the IP, then I believe it should be considered by whomever is responsible for such decisions.
More Christians were killed than homosexuals by the TRIBBLE, and yet;
That does not give me a reason to insult you. Please, treat myself and others with the same respect.
Seriously, "my fake Messiah"... Where have I ever referenced Gene Roddenberry as my Messiah? I have very strong religious beliefs, they are mine and mine alone, I don't feel the need to share them or justify them to you or anybody else, but I'd appreciate you not putting words into my mouth.
Your first post in this thread compared Homosexuality to Peadophelia, I'd ask the same respect of you please.
"Serenity" ("Firefly") is our future.
I've not treated anybody disrespectfully, including you. However, I will now be ignoring you, as I have no desire to feed you.
Because it is a military organization (despite their primary mission of exploration, they ARE military), and there is a mandatory uniform. That uniform doesn't include, or exclude, any particular group's artifacts, while in uniform.
Our future lies in the Imperium, all Hail the Omnissiah! Knowledge is power!
On a serious note, no sci-fi has the future nailed down. They are fiction, not prophecy.
Except for the fact that it is in fact a political movement. You do know that advocacy groups, regardless of what it is they are advocating for, are, by definition, political groups. Right? Hence the term 'political advocacy'
I suggest you do the same before you claim that it isn't.
Stop attacking and belittling people. That is exactly what you are doing. More 'you don't know what you're talking about so shut up' and 'you aren't persecuted' You know what? BS. I'm white, and if you claim thats not an oppressed group at present than you have never applied for a job, never been to a post secondary school and have never been refused either jobs or seats in a school due to 'racial quotas' among other things.
Last I saw they had become quite politically active with advocacy groups as a result of that incident
and guards were handed over to inmates to be murdered, summarily executed and given show trials and shot. Whats your point? These are also the same inmates who turned on eachother for awhile and killed anyone who they even suspected was collaborating
I wouldn't start claiming that Nuremberg was any bastion of justice and law if I were you. This is the same court that condoned the use of illegal torture and threats against the accused in order to prosecute them (read up on what was done to Hoess to get his confession, and later admitted to by one of the british interrogators - a confession that was a blatant lie and involved such things as naming a camp that never even existed and almost tripling the number of victims killed in his camp), who allowed faked evidence to be entered as real (see: human soap and lampshades - both of which have since been discredited by all modern historians and by the holocaust museum in israel) and allowed cases of absurd testimony to be accepted as fact (example: testimony was once given that inmates could tell the nationality of victims by the color of smoke produced by burning them, which is beyond absurd) which only gives ammo to todays deniers.
the point? Don't use that farce of a trial in support of anything
It doesn't have to be a single group to be a political movement. its recognized as a political advocacy group by the US government
Now its 'what are you afraid of' attacks. and no, those aren't the same thing
Do you see any straight pride events around? No? Then you're talking about completely different things. Don't even try to claim otherwise
in other words 'shut up' or you're a bigot, right?
Calling those who do not agree with you uncivilized is a personal attack
Objecting to something that has no place here is not intolerant. That is a personal attack aimed at belittling people and trying to shut them up
There is no speculation about it. Whether intentional or not it is a political event
Consider your words more carefully. Under that blanket statement you would be including anything, including such things as illegal pedophile activities. 'whatever form' covers a very large number of things, some legal and ok, some blatantly illegal and harmful
Its not the tolerance part he has a problem with, its the political nature of advocating an an event that has no place here. Its also a tos violation to do such a thing. he has every right to file a complaint about it
Another belittling personal attack
Yes they do. Its called a cross section of the community
Translation: 'don't listen to these idiot bigots' right?
To be followed 3 months later by a scandal that comes to be known as 'transwarpgate' i'm sure
Yet another attack. Nobody said anything about 'not caring for LGBT folks' You are putting words in peoples mouths
This
It contained an official endorsement of the event, and displayed a political symbol of said event
Except that is exactly what PWE did. They endorsed it. That is not a debatable statement. If you claim otherwise you are explicitly lying
You just proved the posters point, why is it this one and none of the others?
No, they were enslaved by their own, or enemy tribes in africa, frequently during small scale wars carried out for the purposes of obtaining prisoners. They were then sold to slavers, who sold them to plantation workers. Don't tell others to 'go read some history' when you can't even get that right. And do not use the 'blame whitey' line again.
It has done nothing of the sort. That is a personal attack and putting words in peoples mouths
Another 'blame whitey' statement. That is racial discrimination and hate speech. There is no such thing as white privilege. There is no advantage to being white. Unless you count being blamed for everyone elses problems and being discriminated against with racial quotas and race related laws covering and protecting everyone EXCEPT you. Heard about that incident recently where a GOVERNMENT organization in canada got nailed for circulating an internal memo explicitly forbidding the hiring of a white person under any circumstances, without direct approval of the CEO? Funny how that got hushed up real quick
No they aren't. That statement doesn't even make sense
Another attack
Actually they're children until they're 14, according to the law.
Blaming whitey again? Blaming whites for what Hitler did? Claiming whites 'write history?' You're living in a fantasy land
More offensive speech. Blaming heterosexuals for your problems now
Actually natives are a result of asians coming from asia via the bering straight and whites coming from across the atlantic and interbreeding. Do a little research
Another hateful attack against whites
Brandon, explain why you edited this post and left in the anti-white hate speech? Those were direct hateful comments aimed directly at white people. You clearly intentionally left them there.
Uh...are you saying Hitler wasn't white...? He was from Austria. He wasn't black and could not have been jewish because the jews had been expelled from linz centuries before he was born. you're getting confused with propaganda from the war era
What? Seriously? Thats your argument? Whether you read it or not has nothing to do with it. Its about the company endorsement of the event, not the event and not the article in and of itself
Its not the pvp that comes up, its the violence in general
No there isn't. I'm referring to A) giving preferential endorsement to a political cause and
It is when the tos agreement holds the users to such a stance. the company can't do it if the users can't or its breach of contract
Since this scenario describes a non-political based event, no they would not feel the same way. you're comparing two different scenarios
No. He gave his approval for it shortly before he died
What mandatory uniform is in STO?:P
And so was Alexander The Great.
Nope, he had an affair with a female, so he was either heterosexual, or bisexual.
Edit: he, not she. Derp.
Maybe it's that time for you to go have your bicycle ride.
Link: How I feel about this subject can be found on an earlier page.
As for my comments that were quoted in that long diatribe, I said that the LGBT rights movement is not "purely" political in nature. Of course, in order for any cause to be successful, it must contain political aspects.
I dislike bicycles on grounds of considering them a safety danger against pedestrians.
So go take a walk to the 7-11 before the USA loses the title of "most liberal country of the world" (did you mean world or universe?)
The 7-11? I'm not from the USA. I also dont think you have any right ordering me around.
One of those "sexual behaviors" - and let's just be clear, here, that sexual orientation goes a lot farther and is a lot more defining than simple bedroom behavior - is practiced consensually with adults of legal age and has never been demonstrated to inflict harm on anyone (at least, not in any way that heterosexual sex doesn't). One of them is nonconsensual by definition, involves an adult and a child who is neither sexually mature nor capable of adult consent, and has heavily documented evidence of harm for the child and additional, though lesser, harm to the adult.
So no, they don't really compare, any more than sex by force (since the filter won't allow me to use the r word) and oral sex are comparable because they both happen to be "sexual behaviors." Shame on you for trying to imply that they do.
That was not an order but a mere suggestion. Just like many people are suggesting to others to embrace the TRIBBLE propaganda event.
That being said, you made a few weird affirmations that lead me to believe you were ignorant and/or very young. Sorry if I misinterpreted you.
Propaganda? *sigh*
Wait.....you thought that maybe she was a young child and that made it OK for you to bully her?
I liked the part where he stated that the forum rules constituted a contract and that PWE had a legal obligation to follow its own rules.
:eek:
I am heterosexual and I do not have any close TRIBBLE friends or relatives, but yet I never understood the level of bigotry toward gays that still exist in our society. Having grown up in the Bay Area, sometimes I forget how much intolerance towards gays still remains in the heartland of America. It is sad that some of these people call themselves Star Trek fans.
In any case, I have often thought that the subject of Star Trek as a vehicle for social and political progress would make the topic of an interesting book, so not surprisingly, I enjoyed the blog.