Raven Crowking
First Post
Again, in order to determine whether or not "I'm uncomfortable" is reason to stop, do you agree that we need to consider the context? Why does that need what you would consider "a proper argument" to answer? You either think the context important, or not.
If the context is important, then we agree on the larger issue -- do I need to consider the context?
If the context is not important, AFAICT there is no twisting going on. Unwillingness to consider the importance of context is and was, AFAICT, a major factor involved with the anti-D&D movement. I.e., "It contains spells, which makes me uncomfortable" united with an unwillingness to consider, or to consider important, the context of those spells. Etc., etc.
I have had the dubious pleasure of engaging in those arguments in the 1980's. IME, the arguments being made here mirror them very, very closely. YMMV, and YEMV.
Now, in deference to the site, and to its fine moderators, I am going to do my utter best to tone down the conversation (from my end). But the point remains outstanding: The anti-D&D movement doesn't limit its social circle at their door; they are concerned with the larger community. The guy playing the secret admirer doesn't extend the other player's decision-making ability to that secret admirer character; he limits it to that player's own character. Neither of these limitations or extensions is inherently more valid than the other. IOW, while I agree that you dismissed the point upthread, I disagree that your dismissal was a rational one.
RC
If the context is important, then we agree on the larger issue -- do I need to consider the context?
If the context is not important, AFAICT there is no twisting going on. Unwillingness to consider the importance of context is and was, AFAICT, a major factor involved with the anti-D&D movement. I.e., "It contains spells, which makes me uncomfortable" united with an unwillingness to consider, or to consider important, the context of those spells. Etc., etc.
I have had the dubious pleasure of engaging in those arguments in the 1980's. IME, the arguments being made here mirror them very, very closely. YMMV, and YEMV.
Now, in deference to the site, and to its fine moderators, I am going to do my utter best to tone down the conversation (from my end). But the point remains outstanding: The anti-D&D movement doesn't limit its social circle at their door; they are concerned with the larger community. The guy playing the secret admirer doesn't extend the other player's decision-making ability to that secret admirer character; he limits it to that player's own character. Neither of these limitations or extensions is inherently more valid than the other. IOW, while I agree that you dismissed the point upthread, I disagree that your dismissal was a rational one.
RC