And atheists are scientists now?

Quit trying to make this a religious debate, it's pretty disgusting.

Wow. You are basically proving one of my earlier points. You are so *desperate* to frame me as an enemy somehow that you can't see that I've repeatedly said that I'm not against homosexuality. It's sad. You are the one who took us waaay off-topic based on a few notes that I was exchanging with hedwards about my personal view of the matter. We're not even debating homosexuality anymore but instead our views on science. The fact that you're dragging being gay back into it shows your agenda. That said, I'm *really* not all that interested in trading flames with you. I love a good debate, but I see where you want to take this, and I'm not down for it. Bye now.

I never said you were against homosexuality, my issue was with your take on science which is why that was the only thing I was interested in discussing. I explicitly didn't want to talk about religion, but you kept making little snipes about it while pretending you weren't. I was enjoying the discussion outside of the constant atheist cracks.

And for the record, I brought up my sexuality because it pertains to the topic of this thread, and because I was hoping it might explain why I was trying to avoid turning the discussion into a religious one. Whatever "agenda" you may think I have, that was it.

All right, being at home now with my shoes kicked off and a Coors Light in hand, let me try to see where we went wrong.

I mentioned militant atheism and absolute belief in current scientific theory in the context of being just as bad or foolish as religious absolutism. That's it. There was no intent to steer our conversation into theological grounds. The subsequent mention was *humor*. Again no subtext or insinuation. The third mention was a response to your comment. Like it or not, militant atheists are a valid example of scientific absolutism in action, and I find them grating enough to make jokes at their expense. But again, there was no secret agenda. You were mistaken.

You suddenly (to my view; I did read your explanation above) mentioned being gay and then proceeded to accuse me of something I didn't intend. You weren't diplomatic, and in fact your words read as deliberate antagonism to me (at this point I wasn't actually aware that you had taken that particular bit, a passing reference which I considered pretty damn insignificant, waaay out of proportion). I made assumptions about *your* motives. It seemed to me that you were grasping at straws to pick a fight where there wasn't one. If I take you at face value, I was mistaken.

So perhaps we both jumped the gun and made assumptions about one another. I'm willing to chalk it up to a typical Internet (or just call it human) misunderstanding. Fair enough? I'm going to go get some sleep now.

Ok, let's do a quick recap, shall we?

----------

.prdecon #1
I'm not sure what PersonX is complaining about.
Also, DA2 is not a dating sim.

.Lou, #1, answer to predcon #1
I think PersonX's point is [one of the points that PersonX actually tried to make in his rant].
I think it's a valid point even if maybe PersonX could do with some work regarding how he tried to make that point.

.predcon #2, answer to Lou #1
Well Lou, if PersonX's main point was [a point that PersonX never tried to make, a point that Lou never mentioned, a point that no one in the thread had mentioned, a point that i, predcon, decided to bring up out of nowhere] then i agree (and just to be clear, i'm agreeing with myself here)

.Namur #1, answer to Lou #1
Well Lou, i don't think PersonX's point you mentioned is valid at all because [reasons].
Aslo, PersonX comes across as homophobic.

.predcon #3, answer to Namur #1
Well Namur, once again, if PersonX's point was [a point PersonX never tried to make, a point that Lou never mentioned, a point that Namur never mentioned, a point that no one in the thread had mentioned, a point that only i, predcon, brought up, a point revolving around how DA2 is not a dating sim] then it's a valid point (i'm agreeing with myself again here)

By combining this argument (the argument that in fact PersonX never tried to make or combined with anything, that only i, predcon, keep bringing up, the one about how DA2 is not a dating sim), with the fact that he's a tad homophic, PersonX invalidates himself as a bigot. In short the point (that PersonX never tried to make, but that i, predcon keep bringing up for some strange reason) is valid (so i'm agreeing with myself once more here), the man, PersonX, is not (even though i still haven't bothered adressing the points PersonX actually did tried to make or their validity, which means i based my opinion of the man invalidating himslef on a point that i totally made up and have already agreed with myself on at least 3 times now)

.Namur #2
Wait, what? PersonX's point is not valid. For starters that point about how DA2 is not a dating sim was never the point PersonX tried to make to begin with and the point that PersonX did tried to make is not a valid one because [reasons]

.predcon #4
You're not listening. DA2 is not a dating sim. Saying that (even if i, predcon, am the only one saying it even though i'm sure the rest of the world doesn't have a clue about why i keep saying it), it's reasonable. (yeah, i agreed with myself again there)

The manner in which he, PersonX, stated this (and by "he stated this" i mean, naturally, something that PersonX never stated at all but that i, predcon, am so found of stating over and over again) along with his homophobia is not reasonable.

.Namur #3
Yeah, that point about about DA2 not being a dating sim could be valid indeed, Captain Obvious, except who the hell besides yourself tried to make that point in this discussion ? Because PersonX sure as hell never did, and the folks in this thread never did either. Am i missing something?

.predcon #5
I, predcon, am in fact the only one trying to make that point about how DA2 is not a dating sim. You are indeed missing something, which i will now explain to you.

For future reference, when i say stuff like "by combining this argument with (something) he invalidated himself" or "the manner in which he stated this", i, predcon, am in fact not referring to what someone else actually stated or the arguments he/she/they used to back up those statements, but am in fact refering to what i perceive to be a better argument to a random supposition of mine about what he/she/they could have stated but never did and/or a point that he/she/they could have tried to make but never did, because although completely useless to the scope of the ongoing discussion, i like to bring up stuff that gives me the chance of agreeing with myself a few times in a thread.

You may be asking yourself, young padawan, "But predcon, besides useless and perhaphs indicative that you're out of your mind, ins't that sure to bring about lots of needless confusion?" to which i answer to you "Sure, but it does give me the chance to patronize other folks a little while i tapdance away."

----------

Except for the last paragraph, which we can chalk up as poetic embelishment, would you say this is a fair acessment of what he have so far on this subject ?

Let me put it to you in the form into which you are accustomed: "Me say things he should have said. He say bad things instead."

Oh, that's clever.

Maybe next time we can try Portuguese to bypass my difficulties of making proper use of your language ;)

I think "I posed a different argument that was more acceptable...etc" is pretty damn clear, even for someone who speak English as a second (or third) language. When I say "If what he said was...", I'm acknowledging (that means "agreeing to") the fact that he didn't actually say it.

In two previous posts, in two separate ocasions, you wrote a pharagraph saying how the point that the person in question was trying to make was valid because your more acceptable, made up and completely irrelevant to the ongoing discussion, different argument was valid, and in those two separate ocasions you clearly assign your more favorable different argument as something the other person had stated or used as an argument.

"By combining this argument" - he never combined "this" argument with anything because "this" argument is YOUR argument, not his.

"The manner in which he stated this" - he never stated that, you did.

So, when i expressed confusion or asked you for clarification you should have cleaned up your mess instead of patronizing me with "You're not listening" and "yeah, you're missing something" bullshit.

But you can go on pretending that the misunderstanding and confusion was caused by my poor english if that makes you happy.

I will just say one thing on your point that DA2 isnt a dating game. You are correct it isn't. It is however a BioWare RPG and one component of BioWare RPG's is always a romance subplot which does have very vague similarities to a dating game. You can of course ignore this content however a lot of people like it and it's one of the reasons BioWare have a strong female fanbase. It adds an aspect that makes you actually care about the characters more so than other RPG's because it provides that personal investment. Just look at the Lamppost Lickers.

A well written romance subplot is expected in a BioWare game and that wasn't delivered in DA2. Despite the fact ME2 had much less in the way of choice (there were no gay characters at all), the characters were well written and well defined something that can't be said about the characters in DA2.