Originally posted by maji

Originally posted by Horusra

Many American companies have rules against cross dressing in the work place

Sheesh, next they have rules against people who are not attractive enough.

Hooters, strip clubs, models, actors, etc.

Originally posted by Toquio3

Originally posted by someforumguy

Originally posted by Toquio3

Originally posted by rothbard

Originally posted by Brixon

Originally posted by Daedalus732

Originally posted by Brixon

There seems to be a lot of homophobia going on with the people who have a problem with people playing a character of the opposite gender. It's no ones business how people want to play the game, but the person playing the game.

Another disturbing trend in this post is the willingness of some people to give China a pass on it's long history of denying human rights and freedom to it's people. It's real easy for people who have never lived in tyranny, to underestimate the blessings of their own liberty.

 

I don't think it's homophobia or a problem with sexual orientation, but rather a problem with gender bending. The two can sometimes be related, but in this case, the focus is on gender, not sexual orientation.

Unless I read the OP wrong, this is a private company, not the government, setting up this requirement.

Also, I don't think this qualifies as a human rights violation. Plenty of private companies levy restrictions on their employees private lives, even in the U.S., and no one complains because most people agree that a private company has the right to decide such things.

Given that we're talking about a game restriction, I think it's a little insulting to put this in the same category as, say, the crackdown on protesters in the post-Iranian election period.

Problems with gender bending seem a liltte homophobic to me.

Would this "private company" be doing this if was anywhere else but China?
 

Why the scare quotes on "private company"?  As far as location, who cares?  Are you saying they would be prevented by force from doing this in another country?  If so, isn't that an argument that there is MORE freedom in China versus less?

 

Its a matter of mentalities. imposing restrictions to freedeom like this is much more likely to happen in china then holland, for example. saying china is more free then holland because companies have the freedom to limit your freedom is just wrong.

 

What a bs. Private companies always can and will restrict your freedom on their own turf. Just look at official forumrules of any game. There is no such thing as freedom of speech on those forums.

 

absolutely right on that one. however, companies in the western world know that its people are not very likely to roll over and accept certain things. unlike the chinese people, who seem to enjoy being oppressed.

Requiring some condition to be met before you are allowed to play someone's game is NOT OPPRESSION.

Originally posted by rothbard

Originally posted by Toquio3

Originally posted by rothbard

Why the scare quotes on "private company"?  As far as location, who cares?  Are you saying they would be prevented by force from doing this in another country?  If so, isn't that an argument that there is MORE freedom in China versus less?

Its a matter of mentalities, not freedom. imposing restrictions to freedeom like this is much more likely to happen in china then holland, for example. saying china is more free then holland because companies have the freedom to limit your freedom is just wrong.

I think you have it backwards.  The aurora company is not restricting anyone's freedom.  They offer a product, which people are free to purchase or not.  That's it.  If some busybody bureaucrat with a legion of armed thugs at their command can use force to stop the company from offering it's product, then that is a loss of freedom.  Such things are more likely to occur in the "civilized" "moral" social democracies of europe and north america, than they are in China.  That's why, in this case, there is more freedom in China than in other countries of the world.

Im sorry, we just gonna have to agree to disagree. I dont see a ice cream company (for the sake of argument) opening a shop in paris (again, for the sake of argument) selling chocolate only to boys and strawberry only for girls doing very well, business wise. it can happen sure, but is it likely? no.

Originally posted by ozerinx

....That's like saying weren't the Indians annexed by force by the Europeans(Americans).

LOL, now who's the troll?

China invaded and took over Tibet and you argued that the Tibetans brought on this latest crackdown themselves. So using your own analogy... I guess you'd make a great indian fighter.

Personally, I agree with both the Tibetans and the Native American tribes... but at this point in time it would be alot easier to right the wrong in China then it would be to right the wrong in the US.

I remember there is a japanese game that has sex restriction as well where cross dressing wasn't allowed.

Wasn't a very big game it was similar to those like NEXON or IJJI games just small short rounds.

They also ask for correct social that is checked and cell number. They check for your sex and "gives" you your account according to your Social Sex.

Originally posted by rothbard

Originally posted by Toquio3

Originally posted by someforumguy

Originally posted by Toquio3

Originally posted by rothbard

Originally posted by Brixon

Originally posted by Daedalus732

Originally posted by Brixon

There seems to be a lot of homophobia going on with the people who have a problem with people playing a character of the opposite gender. It's no ones business how people want to play the game, but the person playing the game.

Another disturbing trend in this post is the willingness of some people to give China a pass on it's long history of denying human rights and freedom to it's people. It's real easy for people who have never lived in tyranny, to underestimate the blessings of their own liberty.

 

I don't think it's homophobia or a problem with sexual orientation, but rather a problem with gender bending. The two can sometimes be related, but in this case, the focus is on gender, not sexual orientation.

Unless I read the OP wrong, this is a private company, not the government, setting up this requirement.

Also, I don't think this qualifies as a human rights violation. Plenty of private companies levy restrictions on their employees private lives, even in the U.S., and no one complains because most people agree that a private company has the right to decide such things.

Given that we're talking about a game restriction, I think it's a little insulting to put this in the same category as, say, the crackdown on protesters in the post-Iranian election period.

Problems with gender bending seem a liltte homophobic to me.

Would this "private company" be doing this if was anywhere else but China?
 

Why the scare quotes on "private company"?  As far as location, who cares?  Are you saying they would be prevented by force from doing this in another country?  If so, isn't that an argument that there is MORE freedom in China versus less?

 

Its a matter of mentalities. imposing restrictions to freedeom like this is much more likely to happen in china then holland, for example. saying china is more free then holland because companies have the freedom to limit your freedom is just wrong.

 

What a bs. Private companies always can and will restrict your freedom on their own turf. Just look at official forumrules of any game. There is no such thing as freedom of speech on those forums.

 

absolutely right on that one. however, companies in the western world know that its people are not very likely to roll over and accept certain things. unlike the chinese people, who seem to enjoy being oppressed.

Requiring some condition to be met before you are allowed to play someone's game is NOT OPPRESSION.

If you require a webcam to try their product, you can go out and buy one. but limiting your choices because of gender is oppression.

Originally posted by Horusra

 

In England the government forced an old woman to take down a sign that said "Homosexuality is a sin" on her own property because they said it was hate speech...does this make the gays Hetrophobes?

  Oh too funny :) I could deduce from that , that you assume the English government is gay lol.

Your example is not logically sound. The government doesnt represent just homosexuals or just heterosexuals. Being anti hate also doesnt mean you are anti a certain group.

Originally posted by dterry

Originally posted by ozerinx

....That's like saying weren't the Indians annexed by force by the Europeans(Americans).

LOL, now who's the troll?

 

China invaded and took over Tibet and you argued that the Tibetans brought on this latest crackdown themselves. So using your own analogy... I guess you'd make a great indian fighter.

 

Personally, I agree with both the Tibetans and the Native American tribes... but at this point in time it would be alot easier to right the wrong in China then it would be to right the wrong in the US.

Right the wrongs.....good luck with that...countries by nature a Amoral and will always act in their best interest.  So to right the wrongs it would have to be in another countries best interest and frankly where China is involved it is not.

Originally posted by someforumguy

Originally posted by Horusra

 

In England the government forced an old woman to take down a sign that said "Homosexuality is a sin" on her own property because they said it was hate speech...does this make the gays Hetrophobes?

  Oh too funny :) I could deduce from that , that you assume the English government is gay lol.

Your example is not logically sound. The government doesnt represent just homosexuals or just heterosexuals. Being anti hate also doesnt mean you are anti a certain group.

I fail to see the "hate".  According to the news the police came to her house because a gay group was planning a parade along the route and did not want the sign there....heterophobia on their part or maybe Chistianphobia...or sinaphobia

Originally posted by dterry

Originally posted by ozerinx

....That's like saying weren't the Indians annexed by force by the Europeans(Americans).

LOL, now who's the troll?

 

China invaded and took over Tibet and you argued that the Tibetans brought on this latest crackdown themselves. So using your own analogy... I guess you'd make a great indian fighter.

 

Personally, I agree with both the Tibetans and the Native American tribes... but at this point in time it would be alot easier to right the wrong in China then it would be to right the wrong in the US.

Your completely missing the point. If the Native American tribes basically protested and told US to GTFO and leave them alone how do you think US will react? Especially with other American citizens in the area being harmed by the native americans.

This was the case in Tibet. If you were China what would you do watch your citizens in Tibet be beat up on and become "inferior" people compare to the Tibetan monks?

I am dropping this debate unless someone want to go make a thread about this.

Originally posted by Toquio3

Originally posted by rothbard

Originally posted by Toquio3

Originally posted by rothbard

Why the scare quotes on "private company"?  As far as location, who cares?  Are you saying they would be prevented by force from doing this in another country?  If so, isn't that an argument that there is MORE freedom in China versus less?

Its a matter of mentalities, not freedom. imposing restrictions to freedeom like this is much more likely to happen in china then holland, for example. saying china is more free then holland because companies have the freedom to limit your freedom is just wrong.

I think you have it backwards.  The aurora company is not restricting anyone's freedom.  They offer a product, which people are free to purchase or not.  That's it.  If some busybody bureaucrat with a legion of armed thugs at their command can use force to stop the company from offering it's product, then that is a loss of freedom.  Such things are more likely to occur in the "civilized" "moral" social democracies of europe and north america, than they are in China.  That's why, in this case, there is more freedom in China than in other countries of the world.

Im sorry, we just gonna have to agree to disagree. I dont see a ice cream company (for the sake of argument) opening a shop in paris (again, for the sake of argument) selling chocolate only to boys and strawberry only for girls doing very well, business wise. it can happen sure, but is it likely? no.

No but we don't disagree here. It's not about whether it makes good business sense or not.  The point is that you are free to try and run this kind of business in China.  Whereas in other places you will have people screaming for the police to come and force you to change your business model, or be shot.

Originally posted by Horusra

Originally posted by dterry

Originally posted by ozerinx

....That's like saying weren't the Indians annexed by force by the Europeans(Americans).

LOL, now who's the troll?

 

China invaded and took over Tibet and you argued that the Tibetans brought on this latest crackdown themselves. So using your own analogy... I guess you'd make a great indian fighter.

 

Personally, I agree with both the Tibetans and the Native American tribes... but at this point in time it would be alot easier to right the wrong in China then it would be to right the wrong in the US.

 

Right the wrongs.....good luck with that...countries by nature a Amoral and will always act in their best interest.  So to right the wrongs it would have to be in another countries best interest and frankly where China is involved it is not.

I agree completely... and I have been to China several times, in fact I was US Navy intel and the PRC Naval analyst for 7th Fleet in the late 90's. But unraveling the issue with Tibet (right now) would boil down to the removal of Chinese forces from Tibet and China again recognizing them as a sovereign nation. (And hell freezing over)

Unraveling the US occupancy of Native American tribal lands... I doubt if anyone knows where to begin... maybe we could just let Leonard Peltier out for starters. Combine that with the Native American tribes penchant for pointing out that no one owns the land... mix in hundreds of atrocities committed by both sides... multiply that by dozens of different tribes acting independent of each other and in some cases different chiefs in the same tribe going against each other and well... you get a headache really fast.

Originally posted by Toquio3

Originally posted by rothbard

Requiring some condition to be met before you are allowed to play someone's game is NOT OPPRESSION.

 

If you require a webcam to try their product, you can go out and buy one. but limiting your choices because of gender is oppression

Your choice is NOT limited.  You can play the game, or you can not play the game.  That is the choice. 

Originally posted by ozerinx

Originally posted by dterry

Originally posted by ozerinx

....That's like saying weren't the Indians annexed by force by the Europeans(Americans).

LOL, now who's the troll?

 

China invaded and took over Tibet and you argued that the Tibetans brought on this latest crackdown themselves. So using your own analogy... I guess you'd make a great indian fighter.

 

Personally, I agree with both the Tibetans and the Native American tribes... but at this point in time it would be alot easier to right the wrong in China then it would be to right the wrong in the US.

 

Your completely missing the point. If the Native American tribes basically protested and told US to GTFO and leave them alone how do you think US will react? Especially with other American citizens in the area being harmed by the native americans.

This was the case in Tibet. If you were China what would you do watch your citizens in Tibet be beat up on and become "inferior" people compare to the Tibetan monks?

 

I am dropping this debate unless someone want to go make a thread about this.

You are wrong... seriously... the occupancy of tribal lands in the states is hundreds of years old and made horribly complicated by intermarriage and agreements made between the US and tribal elders and a host of other issues. China has been in Tibet what - 50 years now?

Adn again... when did the Dali Lama sanction violence in Tibet to gain it's freedom?

And do you believe this about the monks? Ever heard of Manchukuo or the Marco Polo Bridge?

Originally posted by rothbard

Originally posted by Toquio3

Originally posted by rothbard

Originally posted by Toquio3

Originally posted by rothbard

Why the scare quotes on "private company"?  As far as location, who cares?  Are you saying they would be prevented by force from doing this in another country?  If so, isn't that an argument that there is MORE freedom in China versus less?

Its a matter of mentalities, not freedom. imposing restrictions to freedeom like this is much more likely to happen in china then holland, for example. saying china is more free then holland because companies have the freedom to limit your freedom is just wrong.

I think you have it backwards.  The aurora company is not restricting anyone's freedom.  They offer a product, which people are free to purchase or not.  That's it.  If some busybody bureaucrat with a legion of armed thugs at their command can use force to stop the company from offering it's product, then that is a loss of freedom.  Such things are more likely to occur in the "civilized" "moral" social democracies of europe and north america, than they are in China.  That's why, in this case, there is more freedom in China than in other countries of the world.

Im sorry, we just gonna have to agree to disagree. I dont see a ice cream company (for the sake of argument) opening a shop in paris (again, for the sake of argument) selling chocolate only to boys and strawberry only for girls doing very well, business wise. it can happen sure, but is it likely? no.

No but we don't disagree here. It's not about whether it makes good business sense or not.  The point is that you are free to try and run this kind of business in China.  Whereas in other places you will have people screaming for the police to come and force you to change your business model, or be shot.

maybe im not expressing my self very well. i dont make a distinction between the chinese policies and their private companies. to me, everything inside that border shares a twisted mentality that spawns these horrible policies and business choices. yes the company is free to impede men from playing female characters. it doesnt mean they should. I shouldnt be free to deny someone something just because they are male or female, or black or white. saying you cant kill is not limiting your freedom, is ensuring everyone else has the freedom to live without fear of being killed by monsters.

Originally posted by Horusra

Originally posted by someforumguy

Originally posted by Horusra

 

In England the government forced an old woman to take down a sign that said "Homosexuality is a sin" on her own property because they said it was hate speech...does this make the gays Hetrophobes?

  Oh too funny :) I could deduce from that , that you assume the English government is gay lol.

Your example is not logically sound. The government doesnt represent just homosexuals or just heterosexuals. Being anti hate also doesnt mean you are anti a certain group.

 

I fail to see the "hate".  According to the news the police came to her house because a gay group was planning a parade along the route and did not want the sign there....heterophobia on their part or maybe Chistianphobia...or sinaphobia

So if you dont like to be insulted, it automatically means you suffer from a phobia? Lol. You might want to look up the word phobia. Its the insult they wanted to be removed, it has nothing to do with who the person is that put it there. It could be even a homosexual priest who put it there :p

Originally posted by Toquio3

 

maybe im not expressing my self very well. i dont make a distinction between the chinese policies and their private companies. to me, everything inside that border shares a twisted mentality that spawns these horrible policies and business choices. yes the company is free to impede men from playing female characters. it doesnt mean they should. I shouldnt be free to deny someone something just because they are male or female, or black or white. saying you cant kill is not limiting your freedom, is ensuring everyone else has the freedom to live without fear of being killed by monsters.

You assume that people have a right to life.  I would say that nature says you do not.

Originally posted by Toquio3

Originally posted by rothbard

Originally posted by Toquio3

Originally posted by rothbard

Originally posted by Toquio3

Originally posted by rothbard

Why the scare quotes on "private company"?  As far as location, who cares?  Are you saying they would be prevented by force from doing this in another country?  If so, isn't that an argument that there is MORE freedom in China versus less?

Its a matter of mentalities, not freedom. imposing restrictions to freedeom like this is much more likely to happen in china then holland, for example. saying china is more free then holland because companies have the freedom to limit your freedom is just wrong.

I think you have it backwards.  The aurora company is not restricting anyone's freedom.  They offer a product, which people are free to purchase or not.  That's it.  If some busybody bureaucrat with a legion of armed thugs at their command can use force to stop the company from offering it's product, then that is a loss of freedom.  Such things are more likely to occur in the "civilized" "moral" social democracies of europe and north america, than they are in China.  That's why, in this case, there is more freedom in China than in other countries of the world.

Im sorry, we just gonna have to agree to disagree. I dont see a ice cream company (for the sake of argument) opening a shop in paris (again, for the sake of argument) selling chocolate only to boys and strawberry only for girls doing very well, business wise. it can happen sure, but is it likely? no.

No but we don't disagree here. It's not about whether it makes good business sense or not.  The point is that you are free to try and run this kind of business in China.  Whereas in other places you will have people screaming for the police to come and force you to change your business model, or be shot.

 

maybe im not expressing my self very well. i dont make a distinction between the chinese policies and their private companies. to me, everything inside that border shares a twisted mentality that spawns these horrible policies and business choices. yes the company is free to impede men from playing female characters. it doesnt mean they should. I shouldnt be free to deny someone something just because they are male or female, or black or white. saying you cant kill is not limiting your freedom, is ensuring everyone else has the freedom to live without fear of being killed by monsters.

Thats just ignorant.

So if I do not agree with a political party and say that party is wrong I am now insulting them and my view should be removed by the government?  So long as it does not promote violence I believe that people have a right to an opinion and to express that opinion....

Originally posted by NeverLand7

''Aurora Technology over in China has apparently decided to cut out the middleman in the equation -- they're banning any male players who play female characters, requiring players to confirm their gender via webcam in order to enforce the ruling.''

''Aurora is a subsidiary of Shanda, a company responsible for publishing Aion and Dungeons and Dragons Online in the region, which are names slightly more familiar to players on this side of the pond.''

Source : www.massively.com/2009/10/27/chinese-company-bans-gender-bending/

Pretty extreme if you ask me. For those of you males who like playing as female chars, you would be sorely out of luck in China.

And who is to say what is  right or wrong with what China does in their own country??