Actually, I saw it on blogs, and those opinionated people were already skewered by right minded people.  No need for me to get involved.  Besides, they just shoot back with judgmental edicts.

I tend to think the following applies:

It is not as difficult to convince someone that something is sinful as it is to get them to stop the sin.  Proclivities and change of lifestyle make it hard.

But it is more difficult to convince someone who claims something is sinful to understand that it is not.  Ego and pride get in the way.

Perhaps slightly off topic, but I saw this in the news today, and thought of folks here.  It seems that in a senate race in Maine, the republicans have discovered that the democratic challenger is a WoW player, and have created a webpage saying that she's unfit to be senator because of this "bizarre double life" of a WoW player, and her character "likes to stab things."

Now I expect politicians to say whatever they think will help them win elections, but I'd sort of figured that we'd reached the point where playing MMOs was so mainstream that politicians wouldn't use a line of attack like this, but I guess that point is still a bit further off (at least in Maine).

What do you guys think, is there still a stigma to playing video games, RPGs, and the like, or has it become socially acceptable to be an "out" geek?  I'd kind of thought the latter, but now wonder if that's just the place I live, and the social circles I'm part of.  Am I wrong that geek is pretty mainstream now?  Do people still get made fun of at school for playing D&D?  Is it really viewed as a "bizarre double life" to play WoW these days?

Saw that same article today and thought it was rather silly, but not unexpected.  Politics is politics.

However, there is certainly a stigma in the area of the world where I live (northern BC in Canada - small city, large rural population) that paints gamers as nerds with no social lives etc.

Not so much as deviants (like the political attack ad would have you believe), but just sort of anti-social nerds.

Our area of the world is driven by the sport of hockey and very conservative beliefs and lifestyles for the most part.  I can't speak for other places.

I think it depends on the region and the clique. I'm sure there are people who will think playing WoW is still bad. Even I will admit that, while I don't see WoW as specifically sinful, it's a huge time sink, and not a great indicator of someone ready to work hard for my interests. I've lost enough friends to WoW to have a pretty poor view of it.

They call WoW "World of War-Crack" for a reason. I would not feel good about electing a WoW player just because that game sucks you in sooo hard. A table top player or RPoLian however would make me more confident, lots of experience with creative problem solving and difficult diplomatic negotiations.

i think thats its a completly poinjtless agument. What difference would it make if all the time she was playing WOW she was Knitting.

Again a Huge time Sink it takes alot of effort to knit clothing and conentration on what you are doing, but i recon if that was her hobby it wouldn;t have been brought up.

Overall poletitions have personal lifes and aslong as they aren't spending their free time commiting murder or theft, binge drinking or taking alot of drugs then what they do in their time is up to them.

That being said i despise WOW, and its effects on people, but as long as its a hobby its a hobby, only a few people take these things too far.

I disagree.

A representative is exactly that; she is representing me. She is also my employee. And with that in mind, it behooves me to know as much about her as possible.

I would not vote for a woman with an ongoing drug habit. I think it would influence her ability to work properly.
I would not vote for a woman is regularly publicly drunk. It is making a poor representation of me and my community.
I would not vote for a woman who spends most of her time on vacation. I don't believe she is prioritizing her time to my best interests.
I would not vote for a woman who has financial or personal ties to corporations doing business in our area. I would see that as a conflict of interest.
I would not vote for a woman who is tremendously wealthy, or is from a different cultural group than myself. I don't think she would share or properly represent my concerns or fears.
I would not vote for a woman who engages in behavior which is grossly unethical. It makes for a poor role model for the community.

That's a pretty long list of things she may do in her personal life that would disqualify her in my view, and which I would want to know about as a voter. WoW isn't a deal-breaker at all, but for me, it doesn't reflect well on her. It's like that guy who takes two parking spots at the grocery store. I might still vote for him, but I have a bias against him.

Magic is always demonic, no matter what Wiccans say. The problem with people condemning Dungeons and Dragons is that it's nothing but a purely mechanical system set up with make-believe.

Occultic forms of magic and pagan gods aren't needed for a Dungeons and Dragons setting. A DM can make his own rules and fluff to set with the mechanics of the game. For example instead of Pagan gods, Saints, etcetera, or something non-divine can be substituted in their place.

So Lord of the Rings is also demonic?

Anyways, stating that magic is always demonic is WAY oversimplifying it all.  It could easily be argued that biblical miracles are simply magic that has the good god stamp on them (such as Elijah's magic against the prophets of Baal!)
This message was last edited by the player at 19:54, Fri 05 Oct 2012.

Lord of the Rings, and I have read them, don't contain genuine magic. Not even "Wizards" possess spells or occultic powers. They are angels sent to the Earth to guide people away from evil.

Kathulos is right. While it may seem like semantic labeling, it's pretty important. Magic from God is okay, because God is doing it. Magic not from God is from the devil. Gandalf's magic was from God, and Sauron's wasn't.

For D&D, only clerics get their magic from (a) god, but it's clearly not God god, it's some other god. So by a strict reading, it's not kosher.

I believe that this comes from a particular reading of the old testament though. Not every Christian holds this strict belief. And since even 'magic' is loosely defined (for example, Shadowrun magic seems to come from other source which is being researched and may eventually lead back to a scientific explanation. So while it's called magic, it might just be a field of natural science we don't understand. Funny enough though, Shadowrun magic could also be from demons.)

But I think the magic point is pretty minor in the grand scheme. Should a person of any exclusive religion pretend to be a person who worships a diety from another religion? Should people pretend and act out the life of villains? Should they act out and dwell on killing other people? As a shadowrun player, I don't do the worshipping bit so much, but there's plenty of dwelling on how to kill people and wreak havoc. Is that morally right? Is it morally wrong?

Thing is though, that supernatural gifts are not magic by default.

In reply to katisara (msg # 136):

HOwever all of the things mentioned there are abou the person not their hobbies i mean would you vote fro someine who played Chess over someone who played football at the weekends.

My point is that even polititions should be allowed hobbies. You saying that WOW makes someone less of a politition becauswe it distracts them from their job could turn into Cooking for the family every night distracts them from their job so we need to buy all polititions a live in cook.

Or worse still WOW makes people less employable and so people shouldn;t get jobs who play WOW.

My point is what she chooses to do in her own time is her choice and people shouldn;t hound her for it. Now if it turned out that she was playing WOW in work Hours then yes there would be a legitimate argument there. But there is know evedence of that. Polititions work estranged hours but they still have time off. So the only way that what your saying isn;t being hypocritical is if you can honestly say you never take time off from your Job. As how can you expect someone else to do something you don't.

Yes. Chess requires a set of critical thought processes you don't require for football. And a chess player is more like me, and therefore more likely to represent my interests (all else being equal).



Funny thing is, you're right. Most politicians don't cook for their families. In fact, most politicians at the federal level (which is what we're talking about here) miss a lot of time with their families in general. And in fact, this has been brought up as a contributing reason for why women are less represented in politics (as well as business leadership in general). Men are expected to, and given leeway to basically neglect their children. Women really aren't.

More broadly though, if someone says "my hobby is cooking" (for their family or not), I don't think that would bias me one way or another. Why? Because I've never heard of or encountered someone who has spent three or four hours a day, every day, cooking for fun, or who has missed work to cook. Of my friends who play WoW (albeit, I have a selection bias here; most friends don't bring up playing WoW unless it's a big thing for them), almost all of them admit to regularly doing that.

My point is that it's not an issue with hobbies; rather that I'd categorize WoW specifically as more like an addictive substance.



I'd rate an employee differently from a representative because the circumstances are wildly different. An employee is expected to only put in 8 hours, and to meet my specific instructions, with me able to fire him if he fails. A representative is expected to put in 12-16 hours, is on the job 24/7, with no oversight, and firing him is almost impossible.

In response to the 'magic is from the devil' concept:

Really? Do you have a Doctorate of Divinity, Comparative Theology, Anthropology, and Occult Studies?

NO?

Well then I would argue that you are not qualified to make categorical blanket statements about the sources of magic.

Magic can be many things to many people, and I have seen much of it over my lifetime. Most of it is faking and chicanery, but there are things out there that are more than mere illusion, and they come from sources that are beyond our ability to understand let alone categorize.

My partner has been a saint of the Lord, and I can attest that no mater what you may think, sometimes, he leaves blood on his tools and nicks in the blade. I have also seen pagan mages drawing down the power of older gods, and using it to make the world a better place, which cannot be done with the power of Hell. These things I have witnessed, with my own eyes, and therefore you may say what you like, but this is fact. Empirical evidence trumps all manner of belief.

Now there are truly evil mages and priests, and more than a few wear the mask of good 'christian' men and women, but they draw their power from hate and evil and they are not any kind of true christian.

Do not judge so hastily or simply, those who do not believe in god may yet do his work, and those who think they believe may yet serve the devil.

We'd just go in circles since you've witnessed the occult genuinely and I know better from the word of God.

Please, take a good long look at this at your earliest convenience. Your soul might depend on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6Qy1j2LBmU

I have a sincere question:  Why would anyone actually care what the Bible Spoke Against...on average.  And how would one seriously try to connect a 2000+ year old code to modern issues at all.

This is such a good case and point. Grown people are seriously talking about "magick" as if it's "real" in some way that is not utterly material?

I'd be interested to hear you elaborate on this a bit, Alexi.  These are some pretty large claims you're making, and I'd be very interested to know just what it is that you have seen/experienced.

Kathulos, this quote sort of jumped out at me.  Are you saying that what the bible says trumps even what you witness yourself?  So that even seeing, with your own eyes, an event in the real world that contradicts what the bible says, you'd still believe the bible, rather than your direct observations?

If it's spiritually based, such as in the area of miracles.

Magic is anything that has been declared impossible to explain.  I personally don't believe in Magic, but I think it special pleading to declare magic performed by God not to be magic.  The account of him speaking into creation things in Genesis is a literal incantation.

If one can claim that the truth of a subject of "the occult" can be found in a book, then it should match up with direct experience, not used to ignore such things.

What seems even more weird is the way you phrased the argument:


It seems to suggest that written anecdote is somehow truer than genuine experience, when in any other case if somebody tells you something that doesn't match up with genuine experience, that usually means that the anecdote is wrong.  But in this case, even if you've experienced directly that Group A are not a bunch of child-eating psychopaths, if "The Word of God" says otherwise, then you should continue to accuse them of something which you've seen isn't true?

It's weird line of reasoning that can only result in dishonesty and/or prejudice, which doesn't seem like a good way to go about things in my opinion.
This message was last edited by the GM at 00:34, Sun 07 Oct 2012.

To comment on the World of Warcraft politician, it would be interesting to see actually where they stand in their Guild; that would tell me more about their ambitions and abilities to handle government than what games they play when they're not working.

Being the leader of a large guild, scheduling raids and managing fairly the treasury and loot that the guild gains probably takes a lot of work.

Likewise, if in the past they've joined a guild, emptied the guild treasury/vault, then skipped out, that's something I'd like to know about, since that's definitely not the way I want somebody elected into power to behave with the responsibility I've granted them.

The Word of God is the Word of God.

If:

WOG = True

And

True = WOG

Then If:

A = False

Then

A ≠ WOG
-------------

Genuine experience shows that A = False.  Therefore, A ≠ True or WOG.
____________

If said source were the Word of God and thus True, there would be no contradiction from another valid source. Hence the quotation marks.

A = WOG, because A = True, because A = WOG.  Circular Reasoning.

Circular reasoning argument only works when our observations are correct.

Case in point. Magical ability can be used to do good things, but God sees the ultimate END result of all things. Who isn't to say that the good brought about by temporary occult activity won't bring about something wrong in the end?
This message was last edited by the player at 02:50, Sun 07 Oct 2012.