Dragongirl
First Post
Xarlen said:
I have a number of domains banned, including hotmail.com for the immense amount of spam I get from from. That is is probably the the problem. Don't worry about it. Switched my ire to someone else now.
My problem with vile darkness
- Thread starter shadow
- Start date
- Status
I have a number of domains banned, including hotmail.com for the immense amount of spam I get from from. That is is probably the the problem. Don't worry about it. Switched my ire to someone else now.
SHARK
First Post
Greetings!
Shadow, what is lacking in the BOVD depiction of "pulp" evil as you call it? As others mentioned, though, other forms of sophisticated evil don't really need "rules" do they? How would rules be made to actually represent the types or actualities of the evil that you think should have been in the book?
Dragongirl--Hey there! Why should the thread be closed? Again, I don't see what you or the other fellow are upset about. So now, what, people can't even mention historical realities? It isn't like a big flame war has been started after all, don't you think? Is it possible that people can be *too* sensitive?
I just think it's kinda intellectually sterile for everyone to think that threads should be closed at the mention of anything that they may disagree with. That's all really. Dialogue is good, you know?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Shadow, what is lacking in the BOVD depiction of "pulp" evil as you call it? As others mentioned, though, other forms of sophisticated evil don't really need "rules" do they? How would rules be made to actually represent the types or actualities of the evil that you think should have been in the book?
Dragongirl--Hey there! Why should the thread be closed? Again, I don't see what you or the other fellow are upset about. So now, what, people can't even mention historical realities? It isn't like a big flame war has been started after all, don't you think? Is it possible that people can be *too* sensitive?
I just think it's kinda intellectually sterile for everyone to think that threads should be closed at the mention of anything that they may disagree with. That's all really. Dialogue is good, you know?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Dragongirl
First Post
I think any thread that states "What's the fuss all about? In the American Psychological Association's DSM (Diagnostic Manual) Homosexuality is determined to be mental disorder, and a sexually deviant behavior. " No matter the sourse of the material should be closed, and the person that would post it to be reprehensible.
SHARK
First Post
Greetings!
Well, Dragongirl, the APA has derived that position at least in part from such *Historical* positions, as Xarlen mentioned. Let's see, historically, Christianity has proscribed it, and following history through contemporary times, that position still exists.
Simply stating that Xarlen's position was mentioning Historical positions--how does my post somehow make *me* reprehensible? That's quite a stretch, Dragongirl, as I didn't personally state my own opinions, or attack anyone, including you, with my post. I just stated some of the historical sources involved.
Again, what are you upset at me about? Because the APA and Christianity have maintained such historical positions--and my mere *mention* of such makes me "reprehensible"?
That is why I asked if you weren't being too sensitive, or expressing my confusion at what you are upset about, because I don't see the anything that was said to be particularly emotional or offensive. What is there to be upset at? Do you see what I'm saying?
I suppose an analogy can be made, as follows:
In discussing different ways societies and such in the game consider things evil, there are some historical examples.
In the dark ages, Saxon Pagans persecuted and killed Christians, because they believed that Christianity was an evil religion, and that their own religion was superior.
Similarly, in many Muslim nations, Christians are persecuted as well. Many are imprisoned and tortured. Many Muslims seem to believe that Christianity is an evil religion.
Many people may agree with this, while others clearly do not. Throughout history, there has been many violent wars and persecutions of Pagans as well as Muslims against Christians.
and on and so forth.
Is this then, "offensive" to Christians, and am I "reprehensible" for even posting that?
Again, merely posting historical examples that are relevant to the discussion, as it were.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Well, Dragongirl, the APA has derived that position at least in part from such *Historical* positions, as Xarlen mentioned. Let's see, historically, Christianity has proscribed it, and following history through contemporary times, that position still exists.
Simply stating that Xarlen's position was mentioning Historical positions--how does my post somehow make *me* reprehensible? That's quite a stretch, Dragongirl, as I didn't personally state my own opinions, or attack anyone, including you, with my post. I just stated some of the historical sources involved.
Again, what are you upset at me about? Because the APA and Christianity have maintained such historical positions--and my mere *mention* of such makes me "reprehensible"?
That is why I asked if you weren't being too sensitive, or expressing my confusion at what you are upset about, because I don't see the anything that was said to be particularly emotional or offensive. What is there to be upset at? Do you see what I'm saying?
I suppose an analogy can be made, as follows:
In discussing different ways societies and such in the game consider things evil, there are some historical examples.
In the dark ages, Saxon Pagans persecuted and killed Christians, because they believed that Christianity was an evil religion, and that their own religion was superior.
Similarly, in many Muslim nations, Christians are persecuted as well. Many are imprisoned and tortured. Many Muslims seem to believe that Christianity is an evil religion.
Many people may agree with this, while others clearly do not. Throughout history, there has been many violent wars and persecutions of Pagans as well as Muslims against Christians.
and on and so forth.
Is this then, "offensive" to Christians, and am I "reprehensible" for even posting that?
Again, merely posting historical examples that are relevant to the discussion, as it were.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Last edited:
Buttercup
Princess of Florin
Shark, the DSM IV, which is the current edition, does not list homosexuality as a mental disorder. The previous edition did not either. I'm fairly certain the edition before that did not either.
Regardless, it isn't an appropriate topic for this board, nor is religion, nor is politics.
Moderators, please close this thread.
Regardless, it isn't an appropriate topic for this board, nor is religion, nor is politics.
Moderators, please close this thread.
- Status
Similar Threads
