criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube
July Community Calendar
Darth Maul Community Quests

Kelly Marie Tran (AKA Rose in TLJ)

13Next

Replies

  • JAREDUP
    1586 posts Member
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Billkwando wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Who cares

    Also this needs to be in Off Topic, just saying
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Time for this thread to die out and be closed

    Says the guy who refuses to watch Solo because his issue with "supporting Disney with their implementation of their left wing ideas"

    That's the problem with so many folks who oppose those crazy radical "left wing ideas" (like not hating someone for who they are or what they do for a living), it's not enough to simply oppose.....which is your right. You feel the need to try and suppress the viewpoints of those you disagree with.

    I'm not going to get into politics any more than you clearly have, other than to say that I'm very much reminded of the folks who will stop at nothing to suppress the minority vote, under the guise of "voter fraud".

    Yeah, I won't support ideas that go against my religion, if you were a Christian like me, you'd understand.

    Wait, what about Solo did you not like?

    Robosexuals?

    What do you think of Beauty and the Beast? Unacceptable? :lol:

    Robots need love too!

    I don't think anything... the question was posed regarding what a Christian would find offensive... robosexuals would offend many Christians (not to mention a host of other religions). Beauty and the Beast is Disney's lovely ode to Stockholm Syndrome... and technically the "beast" is actually a cursed human prince... while in the case of star wars, the robot is a robot.

    Can’t they just... toughen up?

    Ya, they should... I don't think you should let religious dogma run your life.

    I watched it. I am a Christian. I think they just made up that sexuality to appeal to a larger crowd. I am a Christian, but I do not tell anyone what path they should choose. If Jared decides that he should not watch the movie because he believes that it is wrong. More power to him. I don't go see movies that use God's or Jesus' name as a swear word. We, as Christians and humans, all have things that convict us. Please do not start a religious war on this forum.

    Amen to that
    Billkwando wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Billkwando wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Who cares

    Also this needs to be in Off Topic, just saying
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Time for this thread to die out and be closed

    Says the guy who refuses to watch Solo because his issue with "supporting Disney with their implementation of their left wing ideas"

    That's the problem with so many folks who oppose those crazy radical "left wing ideas" (like not hating someone for who they are or what they do for a living), it's not enough to simply oppose.....which is your right. You feel the need to try and suppress the viewpoints of those you disagree with.

    I'm not going to get into politics any more than you clearly have, other than to say that I'm very much reminded of the folks who will stop at nothing to suppress the minority vote, under the guise of "voter fraud".

    Yeah, I won't support ideas that go against my religion, if you were a Christian like me, you'd understand.

    Wait, what about Solo did you not like?

    Haven't seen it yet

    Why not? It's actually a great movie and would be entertaining for any SW fan. It's not even political.

    I will, when it come to Netflix or something, right now I don't want to send a direct feed of money to Dinsey, (despite me buying the game before the nonsense)

    Let me rephrase my question, I should have asked, what nonsense?

    Well they said lando is a homosexual, which I don't support


    Oh, like maybe Kylo wasn't the first to stick his lightsaber in Han Solo??




    Sorry you don't support pansexuality between made up people, but you're entitled to your feelings. What are your objections to TLJ though? You clearly had an issue with this thread before there was any discussion of the dipping of the Wicket.

    I did not oppose TLJ, though the movie could've ran a bit better (I'm looking at you canto b ight) but nothing insane like a made up sexuality. Though people kept saying Finn and Poe (my two favorite characters in the new trilogy) were "gay" for each other in TFA which was making me eeri, but Rose busted that theory. Thank you Rose!
    For the Greater Good

    9k2nxbv51kuu.gif
  • t3hBar0n
    5000 posts Member
    edited June 2018
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Billkwando wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Who cares

    Also this needs to be in Off Topic, just saying
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Time for this thread to die out and be closed

    Says the guy who refuses to watch Solo because his issue with "supporting Disney with their implementation of their left wing ideas"

    That's the problem with so many folks who oppose those crazy radical "left wing ideas" (like not hating someone for who they are or what they do for a living), it's not enough to simply oppose.....which is your right. You feel the need to try and suppress the viewpoints of those you disagree with.

    I'm not going to get into politics any more than you clearly have, other than to say that I'm very much reminded of the folks who will stop at nothing to suppress the minority vote, under the guise of "voter fraud".

    Yeah, I won't support ideas that go against my religion, if you were a Christian like me, you'd understand.

    Wait, what about Solo did you not like?

    Robosexuals?

    What do you think of Beauty and the Beast? Unacceptable? :lol:

    Robots need love too!

    I don't think anything... the question was posed regarding what a Christian would find offensive... robosexuals would offend many Christians (not to mention a host of other religions). Beauty and the Beast is Disney's lovely ode to Stockholm Syndrome... and technically the "beast" is actually a cursed human prince... while in the case of star wars, the robot is a robot.

    Can’t they just... toughen up?

    Ya, they should... I don't think you should let religious dogma run your life.

    I watched it. I am a Christian. I think they just made up that sexuality to appeal to a larger crowd. I am a Christian, but I do not tell anyone what path they should choose. If Jared decides that he should not watch the movie because he believes that it is wrong. More power to him. I don't go see movies that use God's or Jesus' name as a swear word. We, as Christians and humans, all have things that convict us. Please do not start a religious war on this forum.

    I was responding to a direct question regarding whether someone with religious objections to a fictional movie should "toughen up", and I think they should; whether you do/not is your prerogative. I was raised by incredibly conservative Christian parents who believed that Philippians 4:8 was complete justification for shutting out secular culture entirely... I have experienced the negative effects of religious dogma first hand and that colors my opinion on the matter... if you have had a different experience, more power to you.
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Billkwando wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Who cares

    Also this needs to be in Off Topic, just saying
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Time for this thread to die out and be closed

    Says the guy who refuses to watch Solo because his issue with "supporting Disney with their implementation of their left wing ideas"

    That's the problem with so many folks who oppose those crazy radical "left wing ideas" (like not hating someone for who they are or what they do for a living), it's not enough to simply oppose.....which is your right. You feel the need to try and suppress the viewpoints of those you disagree with.

    I'm not going to get into politics any more than you clearly have, other than to say that I'm very much reminded of the folks who will stop at nothing to suppress the minority vote, under the guise of "voter fraud".

    Yeah, I won't support ideas that go against my religion, if you were a Christian like me, you'd understand.

    Wait, what about Solo did you not like?

    Robosexuals?

    What do you think of Beauty and the Beast? Unacceptable? :lol:

    Robots need love too!

    I don't think anything... the question was posed regarding what a Christian would find offensive... robosexuals would offend many Christians (not to mention a host of other religions). Beauty and the Beast is Disney's lovely ode to Stockholm Syndrome... and technically the "beast" is actually a cursed human prince... while in the case of star wars, the robot is a robot.

    Can’t they just... toughen up?

    What I'm doing is being tough, many Christians are weak and letting a lot of this just fly. Jim Baker is a good inspiration.

    That is fine, we all have our various convictions. My reasoning for not paying theater prices to see Solo is just based on the fact that I disliked TLJ and didn't feel it was worth seeing in the theater... so I will see Solo when it is available for a couple dollars on Redbox or streaming.
  • LaurenXIV
    444 posts Member
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Billkwando wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Who cares

    Also this needs to be in Off Topic, just saying
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Time for this thread to die out and be closed

    Says the guy who refuses to watch Solo because his issue with "supporting Disney with their implementation of their left wing ideas"

    That's the problem with so many folks who oppose those crazy radical "left wing ideas" (like not hating someone for who they are or what they do for a living), it's not enough to simply oppose.....which is your right. You feel the need to try and suppress the viewpoints of those you disagree with.

    I'm not going to get into politics any more than you clearly have, other than to say that I'm very much reminded of the folks who will stop at nothing to suppress the minority vote, under the guise of "voter fraud".

    Yeah, I won't support ideas that go against my religion, if you were a Christian like me, you'd understand.

    Wait, what about Solo did you not like?

    Haven't seen it yet

    Why not? It's actually a great movie and would be entertaining for any SW fan. It's not even political.

    I will, when it come to Netflix or something, right now I don't want to send a direct feed of money to Dinsey, (despite me buying the game before the nonsense)

    Let me rephrase my question, I should have asked, what nonsense?

    Well they said lando is a homosexual, which I don't support

    He isn't. He is some sort of made-up-sexual.


    Pansexual. Its a thing.
    "The question," she replied, "Is not whether you will love, hurt, dream, and die. It is what you will love, why you will hurt, when you will dream, and how you will die. This is your choice. You cannot pick the destination, only the path." - Oathbringer.
  • JAREDUP
    1586 posts Member
    t3hBar0n wrote: »

    I was responding to a direct question regarding whether someone with religious objections to a fictional movie should "toughen up", and I think they should; whether you do/not is your prerogative. I was raised by incredibly conservative Christian parents who believed that Philippians 4:8 was complete justification for shutting out secular culture entirely... I have experienced the negative effects of religious dogma first hand and that colors my opinion on the matter... if you have had a different experience, more power to you.

    Well while I'd say not to supress, but more guide, many people won't care which is their choice, but some might want to understand. Too much has been forced, which scares people away, which is not good. But myself am not gonna attack anyone in opposition, but I don't have to support it though.
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    That is fine, we all have our various convictions. My reasoning for not paying theater prices to see Solo is just based on the fact that I disliked TLJ and didn't feel it was worth seeing in the theater... so I will see Solo when it is available for a couple dollars on Redbox or streaming.

    Got it
    For the Greater Good

    9k2nxbv51kuu.gif
  • Kenobi_Dude
    1485 posts Member
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Billkwando wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Who cares

    Also this needs to be in Off Topic, just saying
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Time for this thread to die out and be closed

    Says the guy who refuses to watch Solo because his issue with "supporting Disney with their implementation of their left wing ideas"

    That's the problem with so many folks who oppose those crazy radical "left wing ideas" (like not hating someone for who they are or what they do for a living), it's not enough to simply oppose.....which is your right. You feel the need to try and suppress the viewpoints of those you disagree with.

    I'm not going to get into politics any more than you clearly have, other than to say that I'm very much reminded of the folks who will stop at nothing to suppress the minority vote, under the guise of "voter fraud".

    Yeah, I won't support ideas that go against my religion, if you were a Christian like me, you'd understand.

    Wait, what about Solo did you not like?

    Robosexuals?

    What do you think of Beauty and the Beast? Unacceptable? :lol:

    Robots need love too!

    I don't think anything... the question was posed regarding what a Christian would find offensive... robosexuals would offend many Christians (not to mention a host of other religions). Beauty and the Beast is Disney's lovely ode to Stockholm Syndrome... and technically the "beast" is actually a cursed human prince... while in the case of star wars, the robot is a robot.

    Can’t they just... toughen up?

    What I'm doing is being tough, many Christians are weak and letting a lot of this just fly. Jim Baker is a good inspiration.

    Letting what fly? What is your beef exactly?

    Letting the church get attacked, doing nothing, we are fishers, not wrestlers, we try to force people into what they are, not allow them on their own. We need to get back to our true roots. That's why the world is getting worse and worse every day.

    The **** are you talking about?...

    I was wondering the same thing, lol.
  • LaurenXIV wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Billkwando wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Who cares

    Also this needs to be in Off Topic, just saying
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Time for this thread to die out and be closed

    Says the guy who refuses to watch Solo because his issue with "supporting Disney with their implementation of their left wing ideas"

    That's the problem with so many folks who oppose those crazy radical "left wing ideas" (like not hating someone for who they are or what they do for a living), it's not enough to simply oppose.....which is your right. You feel the need to try and suppress the viewpoints of those you disagree with.

    I'm not going to get into politics any more than you clearly have, other than to say that I'm very much reminded of the folks who will stop at nothing to suppress the minority vote, under the guise of "voter fraud".

    Yeah, I won't support ideas that go against my religion, if you were a Christian like me, you'd understand.

    Wait, what about Solo did you not like?

    Haven't seen it yet

    Why not? It's actually a great movie and would be entertaining for any SW fan. It's not even political.

    I will, when it come to Netflix or something, right now I don't want to send a direct feed of money to Dinsey, (despite me buying the game before the nonsense)

    Let me rephrase my question, I should have asked, what nonsense?

    Well they said lando is a homosexual, which I don't support

    He isn't. He is some sort of made-up-sexual.


    Pansexual. Its a thing.

    Good to know.
    itt96uodu82s.gif
    Give me an Old Luke skin, and we will be best friends. He is the only one I plan on buying with real $. :-)
    Poe/Hux Concept Ideas: https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/117608/poe-dameron-armitage-hux-concept-ideas/p1?new=1
  • t3hBar0n
    5000 posts Member
    LaurenXIV wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Billkwando wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Who cares

    Also this needs to be in Off Topic, just saying
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Time for this thread to die out and be closed

    Says the guy who refuses to watch Solo because his issue with "supporting Disney with their implementation of their left wing ideas"

    That's the problem with so many folks who oppose those crazy radical "left wing ideas" (like not hating someone for who they are or what they do for a living), it's not enough to simply oppose.....which is your right. You feel the need to try and suppress the viewpoints of those you disagree with.

    I'm not going to get into politics any more than you clearly have, other than to say that I'm very much reminded of the folks who will stop at nothing to suppress the minority vote, under the guise of "voter fraud".

    Yeah, I won't support ideas that go against my religion, if you were a Christian like me, you'd understand.

    Wait, what about Solo did you not like?

    Haven't seen it yet

    Why not? It's actually a great movie and would be entertaining for any SW fan. It's not even political.

    I will, when it come to Netflix or something, right now I don't want to send a direct feed of money to Dinsey, (despite me buying the game before the nonsense)

    Let me rephrase my question, I should have asked, what nonsense?

    Well they said lando is a homosexual, which I don't support

    He isn't. He is some sort of made-up-sexual.


    Pansexual. Its a thing.

    Good to know.

    Basically they are trying to take "extreme sexual deviant" and normalize it... hence "pansexual" lol.
  • JAREDUP wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Billkwando wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Who cares

    Also this needs to be in Off Topic, just saying
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Time for this thread to die out and be closed

    Says the guy who refuses to watch Solo because his issue with "supporting Disney with their implementation of their left wing ideas"

    That's the problem with so many folks who oppose those crazy radical "left wing ideas" (like not hating someone for who they are or what they do for a living), it's not enough to simply oppose.....which is your right. You feel the need to try and suppress the viewpoints of those you disagree with.

    I'm not going to get into politics any more than you clearly have, other than to say that I'm very much reminded of the folks who will stop at nothing to suppress the minority vote, under the guise of "voter fraud".

    Yeah, I won't support ideas that go against my religion, if you were a Christian like me, you'd understand.

    Wait, what about Solo did you not like?

    Robosexuals?

    What do you think of Beauty and the Beast? Unacceptable? :lol:

    Robots need love too!

    I don't think anything... the question was posed regarding what a Christian would find offensive... robosexuals would offend many Christians (not to mention a host of other religions). Beauty and the Beast is Disney's lovely ode to Stockholm Syndrome... and technically the "beast" is actually a cursed human prince... while in the case of star wars, the robot is a robot.

    Can’t they just... toughen up?

    What I'm doing is being tough, many Christians are weak and letting a lot of this just fly. Jim Baker is a good inspiration.

    Letting what fly? What is your beef exactly?

    Letting the church get attacked, doing nothing, we are fishers, not wrestlers, we try to force people into what they are, not allow them on their own. We need to get back to our true roots. That's why the world is getting worse and worse every day.

    We share the truth, God does the rest. Christ never forced anyone into a relationship with him. Why you are talking about are the Religious Wars of the Medieval Era? This is only my opinion. We are not called to fight with others, else Jesus would have allowed Peter to fight on his behalf when he was arrested.
    itt96uodu82s.gif
    Give me an Old Luke skin, and we will be best friends. He is the only one I plan on buying with real $. :-)
    Poe/Hux Concept Ideas: https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/117608/poe-dameron-armitage-hux-concept-ideas/p1?new=1
  • LaurenXIV
    444 posts Member
    As I recall, it means a person is capable of feeling sexual attraction to a person no matter what their sex/gender is.

    Its kinda like bisexuality, but slightly different. Bisexuality tends to be an attraction to men or women in varying amounts. Pansexuality is the same, but includes like... everyone.

    Either way, it fits with Lando's character well :)
    "The question," she replied, "Is not whether you will love, hurt, dream, and die. It is what you will love, why you will hurt, when you will dream, and how you will die. This is your choice. You cannot pick the destination, only the path." - Oathbringer.
  • Kenobi_Dude
    1485 posts Member
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    LaurenXIV wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Billkwando wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Who cares

    Also this needs to be in Off Topic, just saying
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Time for this thread to die out and be closed

    Says the guy who refuses to watch Solo because his issue with "supporting Disney with their implementation of their left wing ideas"

    That's the problem with so many folks who oppose those crazy radical "left wing ideas" (like not hating someone for who they are or what they do for a living), it's not enough to simply oppose.....which is your right. You feel the need to try and suppress the viewpoints of those you disagree with.

    I'm not going to get into politics any more than you clearly have, other than to say that I'm very much reminded of the folks who will stop at nothing to suppress the minority vote, under the guise of "voter fraud".

    Yeah, I won't support ideas that go against my religion, if you were a Christian like me, you'd understand.

    Wait, what about Solo did you not like?

    Haven't seen it yet

    Why not? It's actually a great movie and would be entertaining for any SW fan. It's not even political.

    I will, when it come to Netflix or something, right now I don't want to send a direct feed of money to Dinsey, (despite me buying the game before the nonsense)

    Let me rephrase my question, I should have asked, what nonsense?

    Well they said lando is a homosexual, which I don't support

    He isn't. He is some sort of made-up-sexual.


    Pansexual. Its a thing.

    Good to know.

    Basically they are trying to take "extreme sexual deviant" and normalize it... hence "pansexual" lol.

    Did you just say deviant? Seriously? I sense your dislike or fear of things fluid and non-binary, which is disappointing.
    LaurenXIV wrote: »
    As I recall, it means a person is capable of feeling sexual attraction to a person no matter what their sex/gender is.

    Its kinda like bisexuality, but slightly different. Bisexuality tends to be an attraction to men or women in varying amounts. Pansexuality is the same, but includes like... everyone.

    Either way, it fits with Lando's character well :)

    @LaurenXIV is right. Pansexuality means you’re attracted to anyone regardless or sex/gender identify/gender expression. This is more inclusive than -bisexxual and can include attraction to different genders, transgender people, -inter sex- people, cis gender people, non-binary, etc...

    To me, it makes total sense that Lando is pansexual.
  • t3hBar0n wrote: »
    LaurenXIV wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Billkwando wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Who cares

    Also this needs to be in Off Topic, just saying
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Time for this thread to die out and be closed

    Says the guy who refuses to watch Solo because his issue with "supporting Disney with their implementation of their left wing ideas"

    That's the problem with so many folks who oppose those crazy radical "left wing ideas" (like not hating someone for who they are or what they do for a living), it's not enough to simply oppose.....which is your right. You feel the need to try and suppress the viewpoints of those you disagree with.

    I'm not going to get into politics any more than you clearly have, other than to say that I'm very much reminded of the folks who will stop at nothing to suppress the minority vote, under the guise of "voter fraud".

    Yeah, I won't support ideas that go against my religion, if you were a Christian like me, you'd understand.

    Wait, what about Solo did you not like?

    Haven't seen it yet

    Why not? It's actually a great movie and would be entertaining for any SW fan. It's not even political.

    I will, when it come to Netflix or something, right now I don't want to send a direct feed of money to Dinsey, (despite me buying the game before the nonsense)

    Let me rephrase my question, I should have asked, what nonsense?

    Well they said lando is a homosexual, which I don't support

    He isn't. He is some sort of made-up-sexual.


    Pansexual. Its a thing.

    Good to know.

    Basically they are trying to take "extreme sexual deviant" and normalize it... hence "pansexual" lol.

    “Deviant?” That’s very offensive and hateful... I’m sure you don’t care at all because you don’t appear to have much empathy. Are you uncomfortable with the non-binary?

    Pansexuals are attracted to all people/genders/gender identifies regardless of being cisgender, transgender, or otherwise, as @LaurenXIV wrote.
  • t3hBar0n
    5000 posts Member
    edited June 2018
    “Deviant?” That’s very offensive and hateful... I’m sure you don’t care at all because you don’t appear to have much empathy. Are you uncomfortable with the non-binary?

    Pansexuals are attracted to all people/genders/gender identifies regardless of being cisgender, transgender, or otherwise, as @LaurenXIV wrote.

    A sexual deviant engages in atypical sexual behavior in relation to the general society... as of 2013, 96.6% of the population identified as "straight" per the NHIS data. So, at most 3.4% of the population could even qualify as "pansexual". This is the very definition of the word deviant.

    "deviant"
    departing from usual or accepted standards, especially in social or sexual behavior.

    If we get to a point as a society where being straight accounts for only 3.4% of the population, then being straight would qualify as being deviant... as it would be atypical to the societies norms.

    As far as your question about whether I am comfortable/uncomfortable, what people do in their personal relationships is of no concern to me.
  • t3hBar0n wrote: »
    “Deviant?” That’s very offensive and hateful... I’m sure you don’t care at all because you don’t appear to have much empathy. Are you uncomfortable with the non-binary?

    Pansexuals are attracted to all people/genders/gender identifies regardless of being cisgender, transgender, or otherwise, as @LaurenXIV wrote.

    A sexual deviant engages in atypical sexual behavior in relation to the general society... as of 2013, 96.6% of the population identified as "straight" per the NHIS data. So, at most 3.4% of the population could even qualify as "pansexual". This is the very definition of the word deviant.

    "deviant"
    departing from usual or accepted standards, especially in social or sexual behavior.

    If we get to a point as a society where being straight accounts for only 3.4% of the population, then being straight would qualify as being deviant... as it would be atypical to the societies norms.

    As far as your question about whether I am comfortable/uncomfortable, what people do in their personal relationships is of no concern to me.

    Language is more than the definition. There is a context
  • Let the past die. Kill it if you have to.
    q7h7s29bp66e.gif
    What I am trying to say is that this thread has spiraled out of control, and has left its original topic. I think that it should be closed. Is anyone with me on this?
    @XXXO77O4906?
    itt96uodu82s.gif
    Give me an Old Luke skin, and we will be best friends. He is the only one I plan on buying with real $. :-)
    Poe/Hux Concept Ideas: https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/117608/poe-dameron-armitage-hux-concept-ideas/p1?new=1
  • Dash
    11566 posts Member
    What on earth...
    Origin ID: "NWG_Dash"

    Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyUQ3FFqM-TQd-3xtZmHOGQ?view_as=subscriber
    Link to all my Guides here in Tips & Tricks: https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/113241/custom-class-hero-loadouts-builds-revisited-pt-2-6-14-2018#latest

    "When you ask for trouble, you should not be surprised when it finds you". - Plo Koon
    rjy4wg9w86wa.gif





  • t3hBar0n
    5000 posts Member
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    “Deviant?” That’s very offensive and hateful... I’m sure you don’t care at all because you don’t appear to have much empathy. Are you uncomfortable with the non-binary?

    Pansexuals are attracted to all people/genders/gender identifies regardless of being cisgender, transgender, or otherwise, as @LaurenXIV wrote.

    A sexual deviant engages in atypical sexual behavior in relation to the general society... as of 2013, 96.6% of the population identified as "straight" per the NHIS data. So, at most 3.4% of the population could even qualify as "pansexual". This is the very definition of the word deviant.

    "deviant"
    departing from usual or accepted standards, especially in social or sexual behavior.

    If we get to a point as a society where being straight accounts for only 3.4% of the population, then being straight would qualify as being deviant... as it would be atypical to the societies norms.

    As far as your question about whether I am comfortable/uncomfortable, what people do in their personal relationships is of no concern to me.

    Language is more than the definition. There is a context

    People can choose to be offended about anything they wish. The word "deviant" simply means in deviation from the norm.

    We will set it up so the definition is setup as a sufficient/necessary condition statement in basic formal logic.

    departing from usual or accepted standards ===> deviant
    the contrapositive would be reverse and negate and change all "or" to "and"
    Not deviant ===> Not departing from usual AND accepted standards

    So, departing from usual OR accepted standards is sufficient logically to infer that you are deviant.
    So, if you are NOT deviant than that is sufficient logically to infer that you are NOT departing from usual AND accepted standards.

    Being in the 3.4% of the population means that you are departing from the usual, which due to the OR convention in the original sufficient/necessary formula is sufficient to infer that if you are in the 3.4% you are deviant per simple formal logic.

    If you wish to take offense to this, that is your prerogative.
  • Let the past die. Kill it if you have to.
    q7h7s29bp66e.gif
    What I am trying to say is that this thread has spiraled out of control, and has left its original topic. I think that it should be closed. Is anyone with me on this?
    @XXXO77O4906?

    81ap9trmnmpg.gif

    Seriously, this thread needs to end.
    SFA Reinforcement Ideas - https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/98321/starfighter-assault-reinforcement-ideas#latest

    Specialist Scout Pistol Addition - https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/90785/flash-pistol-scout-pistol-needs-to-be-on-specialist-please/p1

    "Lean upon pain like a crutch and you create anger and a dark fear of truth. Pain guides, but it does not support" Obi-Wan Kenobi

    3i4nza8m24rn.gif
  • JAREDUP
    1586 posts Member
    edited June 2018
    g14e5gekhk7v.jpg
    Heresy thread
    For the Greater Good

    9k2nxbv51kuu.gif
  • t3hBar0n
    5000 posts Member
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    g14e5gekhk7v.jpg
    Heresy thread

    Apostasy I say!
  • Jello770
    5592 posts Member
    LaurenXIV wrote: »
    As I recall, it means a person is capable of feeling sexual attraction to a person no matter what their sex/gender is.

    Its kinda like bisexuality, but slightly different. Bisexuality tends to be an attraction to men or women in varying amounts. Pansexuality is the same, but includes like... everyone.

    Either way, it fits with Lando's character well :)

    No it doesn’t. He wasn’t like that at all in the OT.
    Psn: Jello770
  • Jello770 wrote: »
    LaurenXIV wrote: »
    As I recall, it means a person is capable of feeling sexual attraction to a person no matter what their sex/gender is.

    Its kinda like bisexuality, but slightly different. Bisexuality tends to be an attraction to men or women in varying amounts. Pansexuality is the same, but includes like... everyone.

    Either way, it fits with Lando's character well :)

    No it doesn’t. He wasn’t like that at all in the OT.

    Truth. He only focused on the beauty of Leia in V. That was it.
    itt96uodu82s.gif
    Give me an Old Luke skin, and we will be best friends. He is the only one I plan on buying with real $. :-)
    Poe/Hux Concept Ideas: https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/117608/poe-dameron-armitage-hux-concept-ideas/p1?new=1
  • Jello770 wrote: »
    LaurenXIV wrote: »
    As I recall, it means a person is capable of feeling sexual attraction to a person no matter what their sex/gender is.

    Its kinda like bisexuality, but slightly different. Bisexuality tends to be an attraction to men or women in varying amounts. Pansexuality is the same, but includes like... everyone.

    Either way, it fits with Lando's character well :)

    No it doesn’t. He wasn’t like that at all in the OT.

    Truth. He only focused on the beauty of Leia in V. That was it.

    But... I don’t think it means they are attracted to everyone. Rather that they can be attracted to anyone, regardless of gender.
  • t3hBar0n
    5000 posts Member
    Jello770 wrote: »
    LaurenXIV wrote: »
    As I recall, it means a person is capable of feeling sexual attraction to a person no matter what their sex/gender is.

    Its kinda like bisexuality, but slightly different. Bisexuality tends to be an attraction to men or women in varying amounts. Pansexuality is the same, but includes like... everyone.

    Either way, it fits with Lando's character well :)

    No it doesn’t. He wasn’t like that at all in the OT.

    Truth. He only focused on the beauty of Leia in V. That was it.

    But... I don’t think it means they are attracted to everyone. Rather that they can be attracted to anyone, regardless of gender.

    That still doesn't explain the robot as it is not human.
  • Kenobi_Dude
    1485 posts Member
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    “Deviant?” That’s very offensive and hateful... I’m sure you don’t care at all because you don’t appear to have much empathy. Are you uncomfortable with the non-binary?

    Pansexuals are attracted to all people/genders/gender identifies regardless of being cisgender, transgender, or otherwise, as @LaurenXIV wrote.

    A sexual deviant engages in atypical sexual behavior in relation to the general society... as of 2013, 96.6% of the population identified as "straight" per the NHIS data. So, at most 3.4% of the population could even qualify as "pansexual". This is the very definition of the word deviant.

    "deviant"
    departing from usual or accepted standards, especially in social or sexual behavior.

    If we get to a point as a society where being straight accounts for only 3.4% of the population, then being straight would qualify as being deviant... as it would be atypical to the societies norms.

    As far as your question about whether I am comfortable/uncomfortable, what people do in their personal relationships is of no concern to me.

    Language is more than the definition. There is a context

    People can choose to be offended about anything they wish. The word "deviant" simply means in deviation from the norm.

    We will set it up so the definition is setup as a sufficient/necessary condition statement in basic formal logic.

    departing from usual or accepted standards ===> deviant
    the contrapositive would be reverse and negate and change all "or" to "and"
    Not deviant ===> Not departing from usual AND accepted standards

    So, departing from usual OR accepted standards is sufficient logically to infer that you are deviant.
    So, if you are NOT deviant than that is sufficient logically to infer that you are NOT departing from usual AND accepted standards.

    Being in the 3.4% of the population means that you are departing from the usual, which due to the OR convention in the original sufficient/necessary formula is sufficient to infer that if you are in the 3.4% you are deviant per simple formal logic.

    If you wish to take offense to this, that is your prerogative.

    Such a verbose response, yet it adds little significance to the actual conversation. You also fail to address my very short response that the full meaning of words in language includes much more than an exact definition from a dictionary. Anyone can look up literal meanings of words, but there is a nuance to using words in language. If you have ever studied the English language extensively or other languages in academia/otherwise, you would know that the usage, context, and cultural significance can change the actual meaning of a phrase.

    Deviant can have negative connotations and is often (and historically) used in a negative way by people in the US. Even with your own description of people who are not pansexuals as “normal,” you are also in effect calling pansexuals “abnormal,” which can be considered offensive and demeaning since “abnormal” also has a negative connotation of being undesirable. I’m sure you will fail to understand this (or admit this) since you seem a bit arrogant and probably live within the privelaged white, straight, cisgender male role of US society.

    Anyway, just because Lando flirted with Leia in the OT, it doesn’t mean he only liked women. Maybe he found her attractive along with Luke or C3PO. Its funny how people get so personally attached to “their” idea of what a character is and isn’t based on minimal screen time in episodes 5&6.
  • t3hBar0n
    5000 posts Member
    edited June 2018

    Such a verbose response, yet it adds little significance to the actual conversation. You also fail to address my very short response that the full meaning of words in language includes much more than an exact definition from a dictionary. Anyone can look up literal meanings of words, but there is a nuance to using words in language. If you have ever studied the English language extensively or other languages in academia/otherwise, you would know that the usage, context, and cultural significance can change the actual meaning of a phrase.

    Deviant can have negative connotations and is often (and historically) used in a negative way by people in the US. Even with your own description of people who are not pansexuals as “normal,” you are also in effect calling pansexuals “abnormal,” which can be considered offensive and demeaning since “abnormal” also has a negative connotation of being undesirable. I’m sure you will fail to understand this (or admit this) since you seem a bit arrogant and probably live within the privelaged white, straight, cisgender male role of US society.

    Anyway, just because Lando flirted with Leia in the OT, it doesn’t mean he only liked women. Maybe he found her attractive along with Luke or C3PO. Its funny how people get so personally attached to “their” idea of what a character is and isn’t based on minimal screen time in episodes 5&6.

    I did address it... If you want to be offended by factually correct language and clearly demonstrated logical conclusions, be my guest! To your second point, regarding people who are not pansexuals as normal and pansexuals as abnormal... yes, that is completely correct. The very fact that we are talking about "pansexuality" at all is evidence that this is unusual/atypical/abnormal, otherwise it wouldn't be stirring the kettle.
    If a subgroup comprises significantly less than 3.4% of the population (which includes everyone who doesn't identify as "straight", not just pansexuals) then you are by definition abnormal/atypical/unusual in relation to the general 96.6% of the population which comprises the normal/typical/usual. As far as being desirable or undesirable, of course the 96.6% will likely find other members of the 96.6% more desirable than someone in the 3.4% who is atypical to them. The 3.4% would likely find other members of the 3.4% who are similar to them more desirable than members of the 96.6% population who are atypical to them.

    Anything "can" be offensive if someone chooses to be offended by it... for example I could take offense that you deigned to presume my gender, my race, my role in society, or whether I have privilege or not (no one has ever actually been able to tell me what privilege I allegedly have, just that I may/not have it)... but I choose not to be offended, because I don't care... presume away.
  • t3hBar0n wrote: »
    Jello770 wrote: »
    LaurenXIV wrote: »
    As I recall, it means a person is capable of feeling sexual attraction to a person no matter what their sex/gender is.

    Its kinda like bisexuality, but slightly different. Bisexuality tends to be an attraction to men or women in varying amounts. Pansexuality is the same, but includes like... everyone.

    Either way, it fits with Lando's character well :)

    No it doesn’t. He wasn’t like that at all in the OT.

    Truth. He only focused on the beauty of Leia in V. That was it.

    But... I don’t think it means they are attracted to everyone. Rather that they can be attracted to anyone, regardless of gender.

    That still doesn't explain the robot as it is not human.

    Star Wars is not real life.
  • JAREDUP
    1586 posts Member
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Billkwando wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Who cares

    Also this needs to be in Off Topic, just saying
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Time for this thread to die out and be closed

    Says the guy who refuses to watch Solo because his issue with "supporting Disney with their implementation of their left wing ideas"

    That's the problem with so many folks who oppose those crazy radical "left wing ideas" (like not hating someone for who they are or what they do for a living), it's not enough to simply oppose.....which is your right. You feel the need to try and suppress the viewpoints of those you disagree with.

    I'm not going to get into politics any more than you clearly have, other than to say that I'm very much reminded of the folks who will stop at nothing to suppress the minority vote, under the guise of "voter fraud".

    Yeah, I won't support ideas that go against my religion, if you were a Christian like me, you'd understand.

    Wait, what about Solo did you not like?

    Robosexuals?

    What do you think of Beauty and the Beast? Unacceptable? :lol:

    Robots need love too!

    I don't think anything... the question was posed regarding what a Christian would find offensive... robosexuals would offend many Christians (not to mention a host of other religions). Beauty and the Beast is Disney's lovely ode to Stockholm Syndrome... and technically the "beast" is actually a cursed human prince... while in the case of star wars, the robot is a robot.

    Can’t they just... toughen up?

    What I'm doing is being tough, many Christians are weak and letting a lot of this just fly. Jim Baker is a good inspiration.
    For the Greater Good

    9k2nxbv51kuu.gif
  • JAREDUP
    1586 posts Member
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Billkwando wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Who cares

    Also this needs to be in Off Topic, just saying
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Time for this thread to die out and be closed

    Says the guy who refuses to watch Solo because his issue with "supporting Disney with their implementation of their left wing ideas"

    That's the problem with so many folks who oppose those crazy radical "left wing ideas" (like not hating someone for who they are or what they do for a living), it's not enough to simply oppose.....which is your right. You feel the need to try and suppress the viewpoints of those you disagree with.

    I'm not going to get into politics any more than you clearly have, other than to say that I'm very much reminded of the folks who will stop at nothing to suppress the minority vote, under the guise of "voter fraud".

    Yeah, I won't support ideas that go against my religion, if you were a Christian like me, you'd understand.

    Wait, what about Solo did you not like?

    Robosexuals?

    What do you think of Beauty and the Beast? Unacceptable? :lol:

    Robots need love too!

    I don't think anything... the question was posed regarding what a Christian would find offensive... robosexuals would offend many Christians (not to mention a host of other religions). Beauty and the Beast is Disney's lovely ode to Stockholm Syndrome... and technically the "beast" is actually a cursed human prince... while in the case of star wars, the robot is a robot.

    Can’t they just... toughen up?

    What I'm doing is being tough, many Christians are weak and letting a lot of this just fly. Jim Baker is a good inspiration.
    For the Greater Good

    9k2nxbv51kuu.gif
  • JAREDUP
    1586 posts Member
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Billkwando wrote: »
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Who cares

    Also this needs to be in Off Topic, just saying
    JAREDUP wrote: »
    Time for this thread to die out and be closed

    Says the guy who refuses to watch Solo because his issue with "supporting Disney with their implementation of their left wing ideas"

    That's the problem with so many folks who oppose those crazy radical "left wing ideas" (like not hating someone for who they are or what they do for a living), it's not enough to simply oppose.....which is your right. You feel the need to try and suppress the viewpoints of those you disagree with.

    I'm not going to get into politics any more than you clearly have, other than to say that I'm very much reminded of the folks who will stop at nothing to suppress the minority vote, under the guise of "voter fraud".

    Yeah, I won't support ideas that go against my religion, if you were a Christian like me, you'd understand.

    Wait, what about Solo did you not like?

    Robosexuals?

    What do you think of Beauty and the Beast? Unacceptable? :lol:

    Robots need love too!

    I don't think anything... the question was posed regarding what a Christian would find offensive... robosexuals would offend many Christians (not to mention a host of other religions). Beauty and the Beast is Disney's lovely ode to Stockholm Syndrome... and technically the "beast" is actually a cursed human prince... while in the case of star wars, the robot is a robot.

    Can’t they just... toughen up?

    What I'm doing is being tough, many Christians are weak and letting a lot of this just fly. Jim Baker is a good inspiration.
    For the Greater Good

    9k2nxbv51kuu.gif
  • IIPrest0nII
    4257 posts SWBF Senior Moderator
    I'm closing this thread due to violations of the forum rules.

    https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/76222/star-wars-battlefront-forum-rules-guidelines
    SWBF Forums Senior Moderator/ Check out the forum rules & guidelines
This discussion has been closed.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!