Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
49
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 14:26:19 GMT
While government should implement means and laws to prevent people being treated unfairly because of x, y, z, I want to add on my even more unpopular opinion to this one by saying that I don't the government should do this either. I disagree  the biggest advancements in lgbt rights have come from the supreme court so thats the government making laws to stop people being treated unfairly. Personally I value my ability to have sex with my girlfriend without it being a crime, my ability to marry her if we choose to etc... theyre good things to have and wouldnt be here if it wasnt for the government stopping people from being treated unfairly. Would you say they shouldnt have done them??? If theres an opportunity to treat someone who is slightly different in some way badly, there will be those who treat them badly... because some people are jerks unfortunately  by making laws and doing other things to make sure people are treated fairly the government is protecting people from discrimination... because otherwise people who are like minorities wouldnt get protection from the people who dont grant them the same rights as others, discriminate against them etc... it just wouldnt happen. The government making laws to make sure people are treated fairly is better than the opposite; institutionalized discrimination. And personally i wouldnt want to live somewhere without the government making sure people are treated fairly and making laws to do the same... if it wasnt for them my life and the lives of millions of others would be a whole lot worse... And id rather live somewhere which caters to the needs of the victims - ie preventing the discrimination, inequality etc - rather than somewhere which would support the aggressors and/or do nothing to protect people... And it would be better for the vast vast vast majority of people to live somewhere which does offer a degree of protection against discrimination and has laws made by the government to ensure fair treatment of everyone |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1691
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 15:20:57 GMT
Battlefield 1 is a joke and doesn't portray at all very well the first world war. I could write a whole article why it is not the first world war, despite trying to appear as such in this game and why it seems much more like the second world war. I can be okay with some freedoms taken since it is a game, but nope, they went with fully " not realistic " at all, whether in the gameplay ( automatic weapons as hell, I have even seen a rocket launch  ) or the background. The immersion is totally not there for me except a few seconds sometimes. Also as a fan of history, I do not like historical revisionism, even in a video game. I'd give a zero just for that to EA and Dice. What do they learn at school nowadays in their country ? They had an opportunity to do something really different and awesome with this game, they totally failed. Thanks god I didn't buy it. Youtube, and demo is your friend.  I was actually hyped for BF1, I've always been very interested in the first world war and read many books about it - but then I realized its....battlefield and an AAA title. My blitz-boner shrunk into oblivion. I'd have loved a proper game set up in WW1 but all I see is a funny run and gun arcade style shooter game which has absolutely nothing to do with the tactics, problems and battles of this major war. Heck, not even the guns are accurate. In WW1 90% of the time was spent in dreary dirty trenches half underwater, enduring never ending artillery bombardment, gas raids, nightly skirmishes and snipers. The attacks consisted of wave attacks of thousands of soldiers fighting their way through mud, mustard gas clouds and barbed wire only to be greeted by dozens of machine guns. And the next day they lost the 200 meters or so of ground they gained. This game is nothing like that and its at best a funny arcade shooter that does a very poor job at representing that conflict. If you want a glimpse of what WW1 was really like I can recommend a very old, but still very good movie: All quiet on the western front, and the excellent book '' In Stahlgewittern'' (Storm of steel) written by the German soldier Ernst Jünger. Especially reading that book will make you think about all the media BS you've heard about the first world war. I was myself very hyped when I heard it would be about the first world war since it never happened in a video game compared to other modern conflicts or the second world war. How disappointed I was, this week when i watched several hours of gameplay. You summed up my thoughts. At best it's indeed a funny arcade shooter that does a very poor job at representationg that conflict. And thank you for the movie and the book. In the past I was looking for for such thing, but didn't find one that pleased me. I might preo-order the book you advised me. I was actually hyped for BF1, I've always been very interested in the first world war and read many books about it - but then I realized its....battlefield and an AAA title. My blitz-boner shrunk into oblivion. I'd have loved a proper game set up in WW1 but all I see is a funny run and gun arcade style shooter game which has absolutely nothing to do with the tactics, problems and battles of this major war. Heck, not even the guns are accurate. In WW1 90% of the time was spent in dreary dirty trenches half underwater, enduring never ending artillery bombardment, gas raids, nightly skirmishes and snipers. The attacks consisted of wave attacks of thousands of soldiers fighting their way through mud, mustard gas clouds and barbed wire only to be greeted by dozens of machine guns. And the next day they lost the 200 meters or so of ground they gained. This game is nothing like that and its at best a funny arcade shooter that does a very poor job at representing that conflict. If you want a glimpse of what WW1 was really like I can recommend a very old, but still very good movie: All quiet on the western front, and the excellent book '' In Stahlgewittern'' (Storm of steel) written by the German soldier Ernst Jünger. Especially reading that book will make you think about all the media BS you I've heard about the first world war. Not to mention that the Russians and the French are left out in favor of the Americans. >_< Lol. You have no idea of the polemic on the french video game forums. Battlefield for example after the article on one video game site had 17/ 20, it was reduced to to a very weak ( for a battlefield ) 14,8 / 20 because a lot of players disgusted put a bad score. First because of a bad gameplay, they feel cheated, and a conflict badly portrayed, but also because of disrespect for history. I wouldn't say the anti-americanism is strong, because finally, Dice is swedish ( though they work for EA and EA surely decided a few things ) , but this will to always put the anglo-saxons as the heroes of the day in the media ( we are used to that thing, so normaly we just shruggle and enjoy the thing ) in spite of history this time has reached a red line it seems. Personally, since I closely followed the news, I already knew that the frenchs would be non-existents,, so it stopped me from pre-ordering it, since that made me suspect that the first world war would not be accurately portrayed. I was right as well. I'm kinda astonished by the number of french players who complain that if they knew that, they would never have bought the game. I mean, it was obvious to me when you didn't see a single french soldier anywhere in the trailer, gameplay, etc. I'm kiinda laughing at the fact that the frenchs are not available on the map of the Cambrai campaign in their own country and their own countryside, with a major franco-british offensive. But hey who cares about accurately portraying a conflict with a game supposed to be realistic and supposed to accurately portray a conflict according to the devs.  |
|
Gileadan
N5
Agent 46
Clearance Level Ultra
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Origin: ALoneGretchin
Posts: 2,902 Likes: 7,426
inherit
Agent 46
177
0
7,426
Gileadan
Clearance Level Ultra
2,902
August 2016
gileadan
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
ALoneGretchin
|
Post by Gileadan on Oct 24, 2016 15:51:01 GMT
Well, no Battlefield game has ever portrayed a conflict realistically (when it was actually set in a historical conflict and didn't have this very near future nonsense that just advanced the setting a few years with every iteration). I don't think any historical war was ever fought in the merry run-and-gun combat style that you find in any present day multiplayer shooter. Weapons and vehicle stats were "normalized" for game balance, etc.
However, BF1 is really a new low here. No French soldiers? No Russians? But three of the five campaign main characters just happen to come from English speaking countries, and all five of them are on the Entente side, that's how incredibly diverse that campaign is. I was really, really disappointed.
|
|
inherit
Darth Dennis
111
0
Jul 27, 2022 16:20:32 GMT
9,146
masterwarderz
8,113
August 2016
mastermasterwarderz
19,824
|
Post by masterwarderz on Oct 24, 2016 16:04:48 GMT
Well, no Battlefield game has ever portrayed a conflict realistically (when it was actually set in a historical conflict and didn't have this very near future nonsense that just advanced the setting a few years with every iteration). I don't think any historical war was ever fought in the merry run-and-gun combat style that you find in any present day multiplayer shooter. Weapons and vehicle stats were "normalized" for game balance, etc. However, BF1 is really a new low here. No French soldiers? No Russians? But three of the five campaign main characters just happen to come from English speaking countries, and all five of them are on the Entente side, that's how incredibly diverse that campaign is. I was really, really disappointed.  We have had maybe six games that weren't RTS since the 90s that allowed a German campaign set in either world war and you complain about this? Welcome to the club I suppose I should say. |
|
inherit
Elvis has left the building
81
0
12,173
ToLazy4Name
4,618
August 2016
tolazy4name
|
Post by ToLazy4Name on Oct 24, 2016 16:32:10 GMT
I want to add on my even more unpopular opinion to this one by saying that I don't the government should do this either. I disagree the biggest advancements in lgbt rights have come from the supreme court so thats the government making laws to stop people being treated unfairly. Personally I value my ability to have sex with my girlfriend without it being a crime, my ability to marry her if we choose to etc... theyre good things to have and wouldnt be here if it wasnt for the government stopping people from being treated unfairly. Would you say they shouldnt have done them??? Yes, I would, considering the supreme court overstepped its bounds completely in its decision to legalize gay marriage across the entire country. Don't get me wrong, I have no issues with homosexuals and fully support their right to get married, but you've gotta understand that throwing aside the rule of law when it's convenient sets an awful precedent. I'd also say that there should be no law saying you can't discriminate against someone just as there should be no law that you must discriminate against someone. I'd also say that the government should get the hell out of the business of marriage and that it should be completely up to the churches 'n' such involved with the procedure whether or not someone gets married. You're also assuming a whole lot if you think the government needs to make anti-discrimination laws. You do know that most of the discrimination involved in our country's history was perpetuated by the government, right? Most people aren't going to discriminate against others in any setting that matters (business) because in a western liberal capitalist society, people want to interact with as many other people as possible to increase the amount of money they earn. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
49
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 16:33:31 GMT
24K Magic by Bruno Mars sucks... this coming from someone who loves most of his other songs (Uptown Funk being an example of one I dont like because that sucks also)
|
|
inherit
550
0
1,258
Teabaggin Krogan
365
August 2016
teabagginkrogan
|
Post by Teabaggin Krogan on Oct 24, 2016 16:35:57 GMT
Battlefield 1 is a joke and doesn't portray at all very well the first world war. I could write a whole article why it is not the first world war, despite trying to appear as such in this game and why it seems much more like the second world war. I can be okay with some freedoms taken since it is a game, but nope, they went with fully " not realistic " at all, whether in the gameplay ( automatic weapons as hell, I have even seen a rocket launch ) or the background. The immersion is totally not there for me except a few seconds sometimes. Also as a fan of history, I do not like historical revisionism, even in a video game. I'd give a zero just for that to EA and Dice. What do they learn at school nowadays in their country ? They had an opportunity to do something really different and awesome with this game, they totally failed. Thanks god I didn't buy it. Youtube, and demo is your friend. I was actually hyped for BF1, I've always been very interested in the first world war and read many books about it - but then I realized its....battlefield and an AAA title. My blitz-boner shrunk into oblivion. I'd have loved a proper game set up in WW1 but all I see is a funny run and gun arcade style shooter game which has absolutely nothing to do with the tactics, problems and battles of this major war. Heck, not even the guns are accurate. In WW1 90% of the time was spent in dreary dirty trenches half underwater, enduring never ending artillery bombardment, gas raids, nightly skirmishes and snipers. The attacks consisted of wave attacks of thousands of soldiers fighting their way through mud, mustard gas clouds and barbed wire only to be greeted by dozens of machine guns. And the next day they lost the 200 meters or so of ground they gained. This game is nothing like that and its at best a funny arcade shooter that does a very poor job at representing that conflict. If you want a glimpse of what WW1 was really like I can recommend a very old, but still very good movie: All quiet on the western front, and the excellent book '' In Stahlgewittern'' (Storm of steel) written by the German soldier Ernst Jünger. Especially reading that book will make you think about all the media BS you've heard about the first world war. Well you know, they do have to make it fun to play and it's not exactly advertised as some sort of MilSim either. The battlefield games have always been about the fun factor and gameplay than being a very accurate portrayal of modern combat conditions. Spending 90% of the limited free time I have for gaming on kissing dirt in the trenches and swatting mosquitoes and then respawing endlessly during the remaining 10% would get real tiring, real fast, at least for me. That's not to say, I dislike realistic shooters. I love the Arma series and the different modded versions of that. But even those have a limit to how realistic they are. Point being that BF1 like you mentioned is an AAA title aimed at being fun and making money. And while I haven't gotten to play it yet, from what I've seen it looks pretty good. I also particularly love the audio effects especially the weapon and sound effects which are really well done IMO. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
49
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 16:54:45 GMT
I disagree the biggest advancements in lgbt rights have come from the supreme court so thats the government making laws to stop people being treated unfairly. Personally I value my ability to have sex with my girlfriend without it being a crime, my ability to marry her if we choose to etc... theyre good things to have and wouldnt be here if it wasnt for the government stopping people from being treated unfairly. Would you say they shouldnt have done them??? Yes, I would, considering the supreme court overstepped its bounds completely in its decision to legalize gay marriage across the entire country. Don't get me wrong, I have no issues with homosexuals and fully support their right to get married, but you've gotta understand that throwing aside the rule of law when it's convenient sets an awful precedent. I'd also say that there should be no law saying you can't discriminate against someone just as there should be no law that you must discriminate against someone. I'd also say that the government should get the hell out of the business of marriage and that it should be completely up to the churches 'n' such involved with the procedure whether or not someone gets married. Were it up to the people involved not a lot would change  especially in some places there would be no change whatsoever and thats why they had to do it. Even some who dont have anything to do with gay marriage still oppose it. The supreme court did the 100% right thing. It was the right thing to do. If it wasnt for the morons opposing it there wouldnt be the need to make it a legal thing it would just be a standard thing which would already exist. But there was a need to make it a law. Either way, thanks to them, if I decide I want to get married the same way anyone else does I can. And thats a good thing. People kind of bring it upon themselves. If people didnt discriminate thered be no need for laws against it. If no one murdered each other there wouldnt be the need for a law or a reason to enforce it. Bad people make the government make laws because of the things they do. And im entirely for that especially when it gives me rights that other people take for granted... rights which millions of people never had for no reason other than the hate other people did... stepping on the toes of those morons is something that was a long time due for sensible people the law makes absolutely no difference. Just like laws against discrimination, murder and other things. They only affect bad people |
|
inherit
Elvis has left the building
81
0
12,173
ToLazy4Name
4,618
August 2016
tolazy4name
|
Post by ToLazy4Name on Oct 24, 2016 17:02:15 GMT
I'll be interested in hearing your reaction the next time the government makes a law that actually discriminates against someone or when the supreme court oversteps its bounds in regards to something you don't personally agree with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
49
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 17:09:14 GMT
I'll be interested in hearing your reaction the next time the government makes a law that actually discriminates against someone or when the supreme court oversteps its bounds in regards to something you don't personally agree with. If the government makes a law which discriminates against people then ill be critical of it... but that was an act of equality plain and simple and that was a good thing... it gave people the same rights as other people |
|
inherit
Elvis has left the building
81
0
12,173
ToLazy4Name
4,618
August 2016
tolazy4name
|
Post by ToLazy4Name on Oct 24, 2016 17:24:35 GMT
It was a gross overstepping of its bounds. If you support the supreme court doing it, then you support the government doing whatever the hell it wants.
You can support and push for equal rights without saying "fuck it" and allowing the government to completely disregard rule of law.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
49
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 17:59:55 GMT
It was a gross overstepping of its bounds. If you support the supreme court doing it, then you support the government doing whatever the hell it wants. You can support and push for equal rights without saying "fuck it" and allowing the government to completely disregard rule of law.
I do support the supreme court doing THAT, it doesnt mean that im in support of the government doing whatever it wants
For example
In DA2, I totally support the Templars defending Kirkwall... but I dont support them at other times
Because im in favor of the government doing a good thing doesnt mean that id be ok with it doing bad things
(sorry just a disclaimer im not a political person  )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1691
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 18:08:44 GMT
Well you know, they do have to make it fun to play and it's not exactly advertised as some sort of MilSim either. The battlefield games have always been about the fun factor and gameplay than being a very accurate portrayal of modern combat conditions. Spending 90% of the limited free time I have for gaming on kissing dirt in the trenches and swatting mosquitoes and then respawing endlessly during the remaining 10% would get real tiring, real fast, at least for me. That's not to say, I dislike realistic shooters. I love the Arma series and the different modded versions of that. But even those have a limit to how realistic they are. Point being that BF1 like you mentioned is an AAA title aimed at being fun and making money. And while I haven't gotten to play it yet, from what I've seen it looks pretty good. I also particularly love the audio effects especially the weapon and sound effects which are really well done IMO. I think everyone is aware that a video game will not be able to reach a perfect level of realism, and will always have to include the idea of fun gameplay. It's about being authentic though, authentic with the period, and makes it feel so by the players. Why would you want to take the first world war as a background, knowing how it happened, the battles, the tactics used, the context, if finally the gameplay looks relatively similar to other battlefieds, especially in the multiplayer ? That' dumb to me. I mean where are the trenchs ? Gaz raids ? They are totally irrelevant while it was damn important. You'd think they would add some new mechanics, I don't know. I was just also astonished by the prevalence of automatic weapons in this game, that in the end everyone almost favor in the multiplayer... I was hoping going back to WW1 so we would see a gameplay change and focus on more aim oriented weapons. Guess its just window dressing. I thought the different weapons and their different way of working and battle tactics would force us to think differently from modern conflicts. Also wished that the tanks would slow down lol. It wouldn't be less fun to me if it happened. Like i said, a lot of players were enthusiastic precisely because that was considered as refreshing compared to the same things we are used to for years now. If people like me were so excited about this game, that's because Dice and EA willingly chose something different this time compared to other games, chose to portray a conflict that was unique, and as such , a few expected to have at least something correct and different. Personally I feel like only mostly the countryside and character skins change in the end. Also I don't agree with you, the advertisment around the fact that this game would feel unique from other modern fps, and other conflicts was big. What was all this fuss about going back to WW1, to something never been done before to reach this result not really different in the end ? Also, I hate this argument about fun gameplay, a video game is supposed to be fun, who cares about realism since DAII, where a lot of folks defended the ridiculous combat gameplay.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
49
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 18:15:21 GMT
@battlefield discussion - never played a battlefield game but like Assassins Creed isnt historically accurate or realistic but its set in historical times And it says at the start "Inspired by historical events and characters, this work of fiction as designed, developed and produced by a multicultural team of various religious faiths and beliefs" Which is first like the best way to start a video game ever, but also might apply here Like... Assassins Creed Rogue isnt some kind of... I dont know... historical simulator... its a video game... and you know when you see an ad on tv for a horror movie and it says "based on a true story"... you know full well that its gonna be changed and dramaticized and everything... just as everything "based on a true story" is its a work of fiction designed for entertainment and although I totally understand why people generally dont like it I can see both sides I guess |
|
inherit
Psi-Cop
38
0
Feb 21, 2019 15:55:45 GMT
10,231
CrutchCricket
The Emperor Daft Serious
4,577
August 2016
crutchcricket
CrutchCricket
Mass Effect Trilogy
|
Post by CrutchCricket on Oct 24, 2016 18:56:07 GMT
It was a gross overstepping of its bounds. If you support the supreme court doing it, then you support the government doing whatever the hell it wants. You can support and push for equal rights without saying "fuck it" and allowing the government to completely disregard rule of law. Out of curiosity, what do you mean by this? |
|
inherit
Elvis has left the building
81
0
12,173
ToLazy4Name
4,618
August 2016
tolazy4name
|
Post by ToLazy4Name on Oct 24, 2016 19:04:32 GMT
It was a gross overstepping of its bounds. If you support the supreme court doing it, then you support the government doing whatever the hell it wants. You can support and push for equal rights without saying "fuck it" and allowing the government to completely disregard rule of law. Out of curiosity, what do you mean by this? The supreme court is meant to interpret the constitution, not change laws or the constitution. By legalizing gay marriage in all states, it was not interpreting the constitution, it was legislating from a position of power that it isn't supposed to have. |
|
heathenoxman
N2
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
XBL Gamertag: rohlfdawg
PSN: rohlfdawg83
Posts: 239 Likes: 454
inherit
751
0
454
heathenoxman
239
August 2016
heathenoxman
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
rohlfdawg
rohlfdawg83
|
Post by heathenoxman on Oct 24, 2016 19:10:02 GMT
I disagree the biggest advancements in lgbt rights have come from the supreme court so thats the government making laws to stop people being treated unfairly. Personally I value my ability to have sex with my girlfriend without it being a crime, my ability to marry her if we choose to etc... theyre good things to have and wouldnt be here if it wasnt for the government stopping people from being treated unfairly. Would you say they shouldnt have done them??? Yes, I would, considering the supreme court overstepped its bounds completely in its decision to legalize gay marriage across the entire country. Don't get me wrong, I have no issues with homosexuals and fully support their right to get married, but you've gotta understand that throwing aside the rule of law when it's convenient sets an awful precedent. I'd also say that there should be no law saying you can't discriminate against someone just as there should be no law that you must discriminate against someone. I'd also say that the government should get the hell out of the business of marriage and that it should be completely up to the churches 'n' such involved with the procedure whether or not someone gets married. You're also assuming a whole lot if you think the government needs to make anti-discrimination laws. You do know that most of the discrimination involved in our country's history was perpetuated by the government, right? Most people aren't going to discriminate against others in any setting that matters (business) because in a western liberal capitalist society, people want to interact with as many other people as possible to increase the amount of money they earn. You're assuming humans are logical creatures who will act reasonably in that the pursuit of money will trump their desire not to interact with certain sets of people. I'm a cynic: people, as a group, are tribal, territorial, emotion-based creatures who will, most likely, follow their baser instincts when engaging with others. Seeing as how the government had to step in to enforce desegregation, I have no inclination to sit back and wait for the mad apes that run this planet to come to their senses. Unpopular opinion: the store owner who has his feelings hurt by not being able to discriminate against a black person causes less harm to society than the black man not being able to patronize the establishments of his choosing. Part of the role of the U.S. government is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. As for marriage, considering all the legal rights and benefits that come with "marriage," I don't believe it's realistic to expect government out of marriage any time soon. |
|
inherit
Elvis has left the building
81
0
12,173
ToLazy4Name
4,618
August 2016
tolazy4name
|
Post by ToLazy4Name on Oct 24, 2016 19:14:46 GMT
Yes, I would, considering the supreme court overstepped its bounds completely in its decision to legalize gay marriage across the entire country. Don't get me wrong, I have no issues with homosexuals and fully support their right to get married, but you've gotta understand that throwing aside the rule of law when it's convenient sets an awful precedent. I'd also say that there should be no law saying you can't discriminate against someone just as there should be no law that you must discriminate against someone. I'd also say that the government should get the hell out of the business of marriage and that it should be completely up to the churches 'n' such involved with the procedure whether or not someone gets married. You're also assuming a whole lot if you think the government needs to make anti-discrimination laws. You do know that most of the discrimination involved in our country's history was perpetuated by the government, right? Most people aren't going to discriminate against others in any setting that matters (business) because in a western liberal capitalist society, people want to interact with as many other people as possible to increase the amount of money they earn. You're assuming humans are logical creatures who will act reasonably in that the pursuit of money will trump their desire not to interact with certain sets of people. I'm a cynic: people, as a group, are tribal, territorial, emotion-based creatures who will, most likely, follow their baser instincts when engaging with others. Seeing as how the government had to step in to enforce desegregation, I have no inclination to sit back and wait for the mad apes that run this planet to come to their senses. Unpopular opinion: the store owner who has his feelings hurt by not being able to discriminate against a black person causes less harm to society than the black man not being able to patronize the establishments of his choosing. Part of the role of the U.S. government is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. As for marriage, considering all the legal rights and benefits that come with "marriage," I don't believe it's realistic to expect government out of marriage any time soon. It's not realistic to expect many things, yet I stick to my principles regardless. I don't believe discrimination of that kind needs to be worried about. We live in a time where information can be disseminated so quickly that the entire country would know if someone was treating someone unfairly. If a business discriminates against a minority, chances are they're going to be boycotted to hell and back at which point they'll likely go out of business or stop discriminating. Also, again, I don't think many people would discriminate like that to begin with since it goes directly against what is for many people the greater desire, which is to make more money. |
|
inherit
Psi-Cop
38
0
Feb 21, 2019 15:55:45 GMT
10,231
CrutchCricket
The Emperor Daft Serious
4,577
August 2016
crutchcricket
CrutchCricket
Mass Effect Trilogy
|
Post by CrutchCricket on Oct 24, 2016 19:15:50 GMT
The supreme court is meant to interpret the constitution, not change laws or the constitution. By legalizing gay marriage in all states, it was not interpreting the constitution, it was legislating from a position of power that it isn't supposed to have. Did they not interpret the Constitution as guaranteeing the right of gay marriage? Or, more specifically that whatever guarantees regular marriage also applies to gay couples? Seems like that would be the way to do it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
49
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 19:15:51 GMT
Out of curiosity, what do you mean by this? The supreme court is meant to interpret the constitution, not change laws or the constitution. By legalizing gay marriage in all states, it was not interpreting the constitution, it was legislating from a position of power that it isn't supposed to have.
It would kinda be an interpretation though I guess... almost like a modern version... like how they remake movies and things... its a reinterpretation???
|
|
inherit
Elvis has left the building
81
0
12,173
ToLazy4Name
4,618
August 2016
tolazy4name
|
Post by ToLazy4Name on Oct 24, 2016 19:18:35 GMT
The supreme court is meant to interpret the constitution, not change laws or the constitution. By legalizing gay marriage in all states, it was not interpreting the constitution, it was legislating from a position of power that it isn't supposed to have. Did they not interpret the Constitution as guaranteeing the right of gay marriage? Or, more specifically that whatever guarantees regular marriage also applies to gay couples? Seems like that would be the way to do it. Neither the constitution nor the bill of rights has any say in what happens with marriage. Marriage laws are entirely outside of the constitution and bill of rights, thus the supreme court isn't supposed to have any say in the matter. This'll cover my points much more concisely: www.suanews.com/constitution/gay-marriage-what-does-our-constitution-say.html |
|
inherit
Elvis has left the building
81
0
12,173
ToLazy4Name
4,618
August 2016
tolazy4name
|
Post by ToLazy4Name on Oct 24, 2016 19:19:33 GMT
The supreme court is meant to interpret the constitution, not change laws or the constitution. By legalizing gay marriage in all states, it was not interpreting the constitution, it was legislating from a position of power that it isn't supposed to have.
It would kinda be an interpretation though I guess... almost like a modern version... like how they remake movies and things... its a reinterpretation???
There's nothing to interpret or reinterpret. The supreme court has no jurisdiction over marriage laws. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
49
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 19:25:30 GMT
It would kinda be an interpretation though I guess... almost like a modern version... like how they remake movies and things... its a reinterpretation???
There's nothing to interpret or reinterpret. The supreme court has no jurisdiction over marriage laws.
Eh it would be probably better for Congress but the thing is there is there are people who want to amend the constitution with a definite like thing of marriage I remember reading about it somewhere... cant remember its name but there are people who want to make it a constitutional thing
That being said Prop 8 over here was found to be unconstitutional so it CAN be partly a constitutional thing I guess it depends on the circumstances I can KINDA see why the supreme court got involved and personally I dont have anything against them for doing it at all
|
|
inherit
Elvis has left the building
81
0
12,173
ToLazy4Name
4,618
August 2016
tolazy4name
|
Post by ToLazy4Name on Oct 24, 2016 19:33:51 GMT
The constitution and bill of rights are political documents and should remain as such. Bringing moral questions into the purview of the supreme court is asking for trouble.
|
|
Draining Dragon
N4
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
You have power over your mind - not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength.
Staff Mini-Profile Theme: Draining Dragon
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
Posts: 2,178 Likes: 7,575
inherit
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
2
0
7,575
Draining Dragon
You have power over your mind - not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength.
2,178
August 2016
drainingdragon
Draining Dragon
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Draining Dragon on Oct 24, 2016 19:34:57 GMT
I hate to break this up, but this discussion really should be taken to the Wrongthink thread or PM.
|
|
the biggest advancements in lgbt rights have come from the supreme court so thats the government making laws to stop people being treated unfairly.
by making laws and doing other things to make sure people are treated fairly the government is protecting people from discrimination... because otherwise people who are like minorities wouldnt get protection from the people who dont grant them the same rights as others, discriminate against them etc... it just wouldnt happen. The government making laws to make sure people are treated fairly is better than the opposite; institutionalized discrimination. And personally i wouldnt want to live somewhere without the government making sure people are treated fairly and making laws to do the same... if it wasnt for them my life and the lives of millions of others would be a whole lot worse... And id rather live somewhere which caters to the needs of the victims - ie preventing the discrimination, inequality etc - rather than somewhere which would support the aggressors and/or do nothing to protect people... And it would be better for the vast vast vast majority of people to live somewhere which does offer a degree of protection against discrimination and has laws made by the government to ensure fair treatment of everyone 
) or the background. The immersion is totally not there for me except a few seconds sometimes. 
We have had maybe six games that weren't RTS since the 90s that allowed a German campaign set in either world war and you complain about this?
especially in some places there would be no change whatsoever and thats why they had to do it. Even some who dont have anything to do with gay marriage still oppose it. The supreme court did the 100% right thing. It was the right thing to do. If it wasnt for the morons opposing it there wouldnt be the need to make it a legal thing it would just be a standard thing which would already exist. But there was a need to make it a law. Either way, thanks to them, if I decide I want to get married the same way anyone else does I can. And thats a good thing.
)
Be seeing you.
