Search results

I really am not totally happy about having to play D&D pretty much exclusively. I much prefer other games. My current favorites are Aberrant and Trinity. However, my friends pretty much only want to play D&D, so I play D&D. 3rd Edition at least made it palatable with all the new choices and...

Neither. Both are true. I cannot comprehend his writing. It makes it impossible to carry on a conversation.

Anti-intellecutalism isn't, "menolikeyism". If you feel my points have been anti-intellectual, I challenge you to point them out and explain yourself. This is quite funny. "Great thanks to the people who agree with me! You happen to have had the most intellectual arguments!" And how many...

Then you have reading comprehension problems. My point, again and again, has been that it is morally reprehensible to try or wish to prevent the expression of speech you don't like. It's very simple. It's very true. You can be as disturbed or offended as you want to be by the depiction of...

If you could, would you have all the material in The Book of Vile Darkness you don't like expunged? The answer is yes. Or if it's no, you've been misrepresenting yourself all along. So right there, that's how you're trying to force your opinions on others. It doesn't matter that your wish...

They're not. They're publishing the book they want to publish. And even if they were, so what? They're entitled. If Wizards published a book that said, "How to Kill and Eat Kittens," it would still be hypocritical and fundimentally immoral to try to prevent its publishing. What a load of...

And here's the core of my issue: The way to fix that isn't to stifle the expression of Wizards of the Coast. It is to attack those who had this kid suspended. Attack them as forcefully as you can. Or at least expend as much effort trying to shame the party who are actually guilty as you do...

No, advocating that those things shouldn't be published makes you fascists who are trying to bring down free speech. Who the hell brought that up? No one's called you a traitor. Free speech is an invocation of the First Amendment, which I haven't done. I'm talking about simple moral values...

The hobby already does. You do too see his point, you're just pretending not to. I don't see how this quote has anything to do with Meepo's statement that there's already a lot that people would find objectionable in D&D. It's a game about engaging in homocidal vigilanteism and theft. It's a...

You had me until here. Really, where do you get off judging people for what kinds of games they like to play?

I never wanted to burn that book, I just wanted to burn part of it. Saying you don't want to prevent the book from being published is pointless. You are censorious with regard to creative freedom. Period. When you see speech you don't like you want it to be stopped before it can spread...

Re: Re: Hey Psion... The same publisher put out Preacher, which published a book that had a character that would have sex with animals until he killed them, put out Young Justice, a comic book initially pitched at a preteen readership. What you are disingenuously pretending you don't understand...

No, but you want to, and that is itself far more offensive then make pretend necrophilia. Did you hear me invoke either the First Amendment or the first ammendment? No. Not once. I told you you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to stifle creative freedom. I told you that you are the...

Read what I wrote before you reply to it. I didn't say "censorship" I said "censorious". The two words don't mean the same thing. Wrong, I didn't say you shouldn't express your distaste. I said you shouldn't try to prevent the entertainment of others and encourage a publisher to curtail its...

Got it in one, Dr. Freud. It's a very simple principle. If someone wrongs you, you don't try to figure out how you can avoid having drawn their unreasonable ire in the first place. Children understand this. So do you.

There is a fundimental difference in our two positions. You are actively trying to stifle creative freedom, and I am advocating it. If I win, there are options. If you win, there are less options. I don't really like gnomes, but I would be a self-important prick if I tried to prevent Wizards...

1. Offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder. For example, I find the bowing, scraping and toadying around here to be nauseating. 2. You live in a fantasy world. People publish things every day that offend other people. These things are almost never prevented. Witness the continued...

And that's Uncle-Tom-ism applied to gaming. If someone spits in my face I don't think about what I did to make them spit on me. I think about what I'm going to do to make sure they don't do it again. Gain some self-respect.

Then you're using an extreme variant of the word. Shock isn't immature. No matter how often people say so. A finely tuned shock is hardly easy, nor is it something to be dismissed. I don't care whether Micheal Medved says so. It's just incorrect. You'll have to do better than labeling...

If you're offended, that's as offended as I am at the premise of your argument. You can't cloak this in an innocent, "I'm just stating my opinion." That's not the case. You're advocating a change for Wizards that would negatively impact the kind of game I like to play. How dare you do that...