Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
well guess what a Federal judge would disagree with you:

That's nice. A federal judge is not a medical expert, and his ruling was overturned on appeal.

Anyway, regardless of your personal opinions on the subject (enjoy that lung cancer in your future!) the point remains that bans on smoking in public were justified by legitimate health concerns. You can disagree about the extent to which those concerns have been proven to be accurate, but there was clearly a lot more behind the ban than "I find smoking aesthetically unpleasant*". But no such concern exists with sexy miniatures. The only possible health or safety issues involving miniatures are related to manufacturing, not aesthetic choices.


*Which, to be fair, is a pretty strong argument. Smoking is disgusting, and I am perfectly happy with smokers being banned from public places. Keep your smoking in private, and put on some clean clothes before you go out in public.

meanwhile you will probably end up getting Cancer from your pots and pans you use, you know those nasty non-stick pans they say are a cancer risk. meanwhile me i think the cancer thing is on the wrong track, it is all a matter of genetics, if you have the cancer gene in you then you are bound to get cancer, if you do not anything short of major radiation exposure you will not get cancer.

what about Polygamy? it is banned how is that a health risk ?

Asterios wrote:
meanwhile you will probably end up getting Cancer from your pots and pans you use, you know those nasty non-stick pans they say are a cancer risk.

And, if this is found to be true, there is a legitimate safety issue that might justify bans or restrictions on those non-stick materials. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of sexy miniatures. Product safety is a manufacturing issue, not an artistic one. Any product safety concerns over sexy miniatures would apply just as much to all miniatures made from the same material.

meanwhile me i think the cancer thing is on the wrong track, it is all a matter of genetics, if you have the cancer gene in you then you are bound to get cancer, if you do not anything short of major radiation exposure you will not get cancer.

I'm glad we have amateur doctors like you to tell us what the health risks are. I, on the other hand, think I'll stick with what the actual experts in the field have to say.

what about Polygamy? it is banned how is that a health risk ?

Polygamy is banned for religious reasons. It should not be banned.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
meanwhile you will probably end up getting Cancer from your pots and pans you use, you know those nasty non-stick pans they say are a cancer risk.

And, if this is found to be true, there is a legitimate safety issue that might justify bans or restrictions on those non-stick materials. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of sexy miniatures. Product safety is a manufacturing issue, not an artistic one. Any product safety concerns over sexy miniatures would apply just as much to all miniatures made from the same material.

meanwhile me i think the cancer thing is on the wrong track, it is all a matter of genetics, if you have the cancer gene in you then you are bound to get cancer, if you do not anything short of major radiation exposure you will not get cancer.

I'm glad we have amateur doctors like you to tell us what the health risks are. I, on the other hand, think I'll stick with what the actual experts in the field have to say.

what about Polygamy? it is banned how is that a health risk ?

Polygamy is banned for religious reasons. It should not be banned.

so if religious individuals find those sexy images wrong they will push to get them banned, just like Polygamy was, this is my point, it doesn't matter what it is, if you get a group complaining enough it will get banned.

Asterios wrote:
so if religious individuals find those sexy images wrong they will push to get them banned, just like Polygamy was, this is my point, it doesn't matter what it is, if you get a group complaining enough it will get banned.

Given that, as I keep pointing out, it is indisputably legal to buy and sell hardcore pornography I'd say that the religious opposition is not very effective.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
so if religious individuals find those sexy images wrong they will push to get them banned, just like Polygamy was, this is my point, it doesn't matter what it is, if you get a group complaining enough it will get banned.

Given that, as I keep pointing out, it is indisputably legal to buy and sell hardcore pornography I'd say that the religious opposition is not very effective.

but miniatures can be construed as toys, and thereby the slippery slope begans.

Asterios wrote:
but miniatures can be construed as toys, and thereby the slippery slope begans.

No, the slippery slope doesn't begin, because it's very easy to put an "18+ only" label on them and end the slope at that. And really, I don't see any problem with sexy miniatures being limited to adults only.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
but miniatures can be construed as toys, and thereby the slippery slope begans.

No, the slippery slope doesn't begin, because it's very easy to put an "18+ only" label on them and end the slope at that. And really, I don't see any problem with sexy miniatures being limited to adults only.

but what about little Army men and or LEGO minifig guns?should those have 18+ labels on them? or hello kitty bubble guns? should they be banned? or banned from certain areas? how about T-Shirts with the American flag on them?

also you slap an 18+ label on a mini only place you will get them is online and even then probably not.

Asterios wrote:
but what about little Army men and or LEGO minifig guns?should those have 18+ labels on them? or hello kitty bubble guns? should they be banned? or banned from certain areas? how about T-Shirts with the American flag on them?

What does any of this have to do with the current subject?

also you slap an 18+ label on a mini only place you will get them is online and even then probably not.

Welcome to 2016. Online shopping is a thing.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
but what about little Army men and or LEGO minifig guns?should those have 18+ labels on them? or hello kitty bubble guns? should they be banned? or banned from certain areas? how about T-Shirts with the American flag on them?

What does any of this have to do with the current subject?

also you slap an 18+ label on a mini only place you will get them is online and even then probably not.

Welcome to 2016. Online shopping is a thing.

those were all things banned from schools, and evidently you do not realize when it comes to minis an 18+ rating is a death sentence.

Asterios wrote:
those were all things banned from schools, and evidently you do not realize when it comes to minis an 18+ rating is a death sentence.

So now we've gone from "banned from being sold" to "banned from schools"? Why do you keep bringing up things that have nothing to do with the subject of sexy miniatures?

And no, I don't think an 18+ rating is a death sentence, considering how many adults play miniatures games. It might hurt profits a bit if your goal, like GW, is to sell as many starter sets as possible to children who will probably never play the game, but those starter sets aren't sexy miniatures. If you're making sexy miniatures then it's a safe bet that your primary market is people who are already 18+ and won't care about an 18+ only rating.

Well, since no one doing any of the complaining is interested in banning, restricting or otherwise limiting what others can buy I don't see a problem. Let them complain. Unless they're advocating some sort of enforced change, it can all be safely dismissed as complaining about things they don't like. Ignore it, move on.

Asterios wrote:

meanwhile you will probably end up getting Cancer from your pots and pans you use, you know those nasty non-stick pans they say are a cancer risk. meanwhile me i think the cancer thing is on the wrong track, it is all a matter of genetics, if you have the cancer gene in you then you are bound to get cancer, if you do not anything short of major radiation exposure you will not get cancer.

what about Polygamy? it is banned how is that a health risk ?

I.... what? That's not how cancer works. Demonstrably so. Genes are a factor, but you aren't immune because you "don't have the gene". Because there is no singular cancer gene, it's not a switch you flip.

Also, as a European, the extreme sensitivity of the US in regards to sexuality is, frankly, very hard to understand to me. It borders on unhealthy in my opinion.

 Korraz wrote:

Asterios wrote:

meanwhile you will probably end up getting Cancer from your pots and pans you use, you know those nasty non-stick pans they say are a cancer risk. meanwhile me i think the cancer thing is on the wrong track, it is all a matter of genetics, if you have the cancer gene in you then you are bound to get cancer, if you do not anything short of major radiation exposure you will not get cancer.

what about Polygamy? it is banned how is that a health risk ?

I.... what? That's not how cancer works. Demonstrably so. Genes are a factor, but you aren't immune because you "don't have the gene". Because there is no singular cancer gene, it's not a switch you flip.

and yet just because a person smokes doesn't guarantee they will get Lung Cancer either, yet if you listen to the hype you will and yet there are people who have smoked all their lives and lived to be 100 without getting lung cancer or any cancer associated with smoking. so how is that explained then?

Asterios wrote:
and yet just because a person smokes doesn't guarantee they will get Lung Cancer either, yet if you listen to the hype you will and yet there are people who have smoked all their lives and lived to be 100 without getting lung cancer or any cancer associated with smoking. so how is that explained then?

If you shoot yourself in the head you aren't guaranteed to die. But that doesn't mean that shooting yourself in the head isn't a stupid idea.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
and yet just because a person smokes doesn't guarantee they will get Lung Cancer either, yet if you listen to the hype you will and yet there are people who have smoked all their lives and lived to be 100 without getting lung cancer or any cancer associated with smoking. so how is that explained then?

If you shoot yourself in the head you aren't guaranteed to die. But that doesn't mean that shooting yourself in the head isn't a stupid idea.

yes but same could be said of taking a shower, does that mean you won't take showers? or drive in a car? or go for a walk? the list goes on, your argument is faulty at best.

I have seen people (famous people) who lived healthy lives and yet died young of various diseases and cancer, and yet also seen people lived anything but healthy lives and live a very long long long time, look at Bob Hope smoked and drank and did all kinds of things and yet lived too a 100 when he died of Pneumonia, or George Burns who always had one of his stogies and smoking and drinking and he also lived to be a 100 until he died of cardiac arrest.

the whole thing of life is to experience it, if you restrict yourself on enjoying life then you are missing out on it and will most likely put yourself into an early grave from stress or such.

This is completely off-topic, so I'm going to end it here: you are free to ignore the well-documented risks of smoking, including vastly increased chances of lung cancer. You are free to declare that you don't care what the risk is, and that your short-term enjoyment is more important than anything else. However, your refusal to acknowledge the fact that you are engaging in a disgusting habit that has a significant chance of killing you (slowly and incredibly painfully, in case you were wondering) does not make the unpleasant truth go away. Nor do any of your laughably bad attempts at explaining away the risk. They merely reveal your own ignorance, both of smoking risks in general and of how statistics work. For your own sake I really hope you figure this out before it is too late.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Korraz wrote:
Also, as a European, the extreme sensitivity of the US in regards to sexuality is, frankly, very hard to understand to me. It borders on unhealthy in my opinion.

It is, but I don't think that's the primary factor here. US sensitivity to sexuality is usually the "JESUS HATES THIS" kind where any sexuality, regardless of context or content, is presumed to be bad. But the objections to sexy miniatures, on the other hand, tend to be complaints about having sexuality that doesn't make any sense in a particular context (half-naked female marines in 40k, for example) or sexuality that is presented in specific ways that are objectionable.

Shooting yourself in the head is actually a great analogy. Statistical outliers are a simple fact of reality. Just because somebody gets hit by lightning thrice doesn't mean that you run a high risk of getting hit by angry sky-plasma every time you leave your house.
And just because somebody has most likely unhealthy habits and lives to 100 doesn't mean it's not unhealthy.
Science is a tool, it creates models, theories and projections that are, by their very nature, imperfect. But that doesn't mean it has no meaning and can be completely disregarded. And, honestly, if blasting your lungs with street pavement for practically no gain whatsoever other than getting addicted to it doesn't sound like a bad idea all by itself, I don't know what does.


On topic: If we take the Titmarines from Prodos as example, yeah, those simply do not make sense. Honestly, I think they look incredibly dumb and ugly. Another ever-repeating gripe of mine are high-heels, because it's bloody impossible to buy SciFi Miniatures of Women that don't wear them (I'm looking at you, Corvus Belli!)
I think they look dumb, I don't buy them and I usually voice my opinion about that, where appropriate.

Thing is, in the end it all comes down to personal preference. If a sculptor feels like creating such a miniature, I definitely should be able to do so. I won't endorse is his business, but if enough other people do for him to stay in business, then he's just producing what sells. I don't really see a problem with that, since I simply don't see those models as harmful. Distasteful? Possibly, not really as something that needs to disappear from the face of the earth.

 Korraz wrote:
Thing is, in the end it all comes down to personal preference.

Ah but here's the rub.

Complaining you don't like an aesthetic is merely expressing personal opinion.

Complaining something is sexist is expressing a moral opinion.

There are a lot of strawmen here. I don't think anyone wants sexy miniatures banned. I certainly don't, although I would probably still be labelled an "SJW" by many people. What I personally would like to see is variety. There is room for cheesecake, there is room for seriousness. But if the majority of what we have is cheesecake, if 99% of all "sexy slave models" are female... Then we have a problem. Why? Because of the society we live in. Historically, women have most often (but not always!) been seen as the lesser gender. Men are the ones with power, the ones who rule, the ones who decide the important things. The women are at home, taking care of the children, providing sexual services, cooking, cleaning, etc. Again, not in all societies and certainly not always. But it is there, and it is very common. This image of the submissive woman is something that has carried forward to our day. It is getting better in many cases. We see more powerful female role models, like Katniss Everdeen of Hunger Games, Elsa and Anna of Frozen, and many others. Women have the power, in many countries, to have their own careers, to be powerful... Although still not nearly as much as men, and they still get paid less for the same work because of those cultural artefacts. And that's the point. These things have effects in real life. No one thing does, but millions and millions of small things put together.

And still, the image of the sexy and submissive woman is everywhere. In advertising, in movies, in comics, in magazines... And in miniature wargaming. All these things contribute to the image we, as a society, have of women. Now again, I don't want to ban anything. Every creator should be free to create whatever they want. The problem is society's, not any one person or company's. But this is something more people should think about. So we get back to the GoA Jabba guy. I personally find the portrayal of sexual slavery in a goofy, often comical game to be in not very good taste. Why continue to propagate the image of the submissive, sexy, woman, going as far as to make her physically chained to the man who controls her? Does it add anything to the portrayal of this character beyond T&A and some quite horrifying implications that don't jive with the general tone of the game? In my opinion it does not. There is always the excuse of "but it's fluffy!". Yes. And GW could make a miniature portraying Dark Eldar group raping a human female, and it would be very fluffy. But would you find it in good taste? Probably not. Note that I'm not equating these two concepts, but simply making the point that everyone makes moral judgements. There are infinite ways to portray this concept without resorting to sexual slavery. Sexual slavery is not goofy, or comical, or something that should be used as a throwaway reference. Again, I don't want to ban anything, but I would love if people put more thought into these things.

 Mymearan wrote:
and they still get paid less for the same work because of those cultural artefacts.

You're going to get yourself labelled a SJW for perpetuating this myth. At least in most western counties it is illegal to pay a woman less for the same work, and it doesn't happen. The reason there's a pay gap isn't because women get paid less for the same work, rather they tend to choose career paths that don't pay as much or work less hours and there's a whole nature vs nurture debate about whether that's biologically engrained or socially imprinted.

All these things contribute to the image we, as a society, have of women.

I think this is overblown BS. The image we as a society have of women comes from those we interact with far more than movies or comics or magazines and certainly not miniatures.

If people are getting their views of women from advertising, movies, comics and magazines I think we have a bigger issue that those people are fething imbeciles.

but I would love if people put more thought into these things.

The more I think about it the more I think it doesn't matter, people will create what they want and what they think will sell and the market can naturally adjust if it needs to do so.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
and they still get paid less for the same work because of those cultural artefacts.

You're going to get yourself labelled a SJW for perpetuating this myth. At least in most western counties it is illegal to pay a woman less for the same work, and it doesn't happen. The reason there's a pay gap isn't because women get paid less for the same work, rather they tend to choose career paths that don't pay as much or work less hours and there's a whole nature vs nurture debate about whether that's biologically engrained or socially imprinted.

All these things contribute to the image we, as a society, have of women.

I think this is overblown BS. The image we as a society have of women comes from those we interact with far more than movies or comics or magazines and certainly not miniatures.

If people are getting their views of women from advertising, movies, comics and magazines I think we have a bigger issue that those people are fething imbeciles.

but I would love if people put more thought into these things.

The more I think about it the more I think it doesn't matter, people will create what they want and what they think will sell and the market can naturally adjust if it needs to do so.

Getting "labeled as an SJW" sounds pretty grim, although it's an inane insult on the level of "hater/fanboy". Anyway, you're right that a large portion of the difference in gender is explained by external factors. But some of it is not. As I work in the public sector in Sweden you'll have to forgive me for using Swedish sources, but according to this report by the Swedish National Mediation Office (http://www.mi.se/files/PDF-er/att_bestalla/loneskillnader/skillnaden14.pdf) the entire difference in salary cannot be explained by using regression analysis of official statistics. If you have concrete proof to the contrary I would genuinely love to read it!

If you don't think that things we see and hear contribute to our opinions of others, I would like to point you to the entire concept of a"stereotype". A stereotype is entirely based on what we see and hear and not on what we actually know. That would include what we see on TV, hear on the radio, talk to our coworkers about etc. And although "imbeciles" probably rely on those stereotypes more than the rest of us, we all have them, and are sometimes irrationally ruled by them. We are creatures of emotion after all, not fact-collecting robots (just look at the rise of populist political parties in Europe, their entire schtick is to appeal to emotion).

 Mymearan wrote:
There are a lot of strawmen here. I don't think anyone wants sexy miniatures banned. I certainly don't, although I would probably still be labelled an "SJW" by many people. What I personally would like to see is variety. There is room for cheesecake, there is room for seriousness. But if the majority of what we have is cheesecake, if 99% of all "sexy slave models" are female... Then we have a problem. Why? Because of the society we live in. Historically, women have most often (but not always!) been seen as the lesser gender. Men are the ones with power, the ones who rule, the ones who decide the important things. The women are at home, taking care of the children, providing sexual services, cooking, cleaning, etc. Again, not in all societies and certainly not always. But it is there, and it is very common. This image of the submissive woman is something that has carried forward to our day. It is getting better in many cases. We see more powerful female role models, like Katniss Everdeen of Hunger Games, Elsa and Anna of Frozen, and many others. Women have the power, in many countries, to have their own careers, to be powerful... Although still not nearly as much as men, and they still get paid less for the same work because of those cultural artefacts. And that's the point. These things have effects in real life. No one thing does, but millions and millions of small things put together.

And still, the image of the sexy and submissive woman is everywhere. In advertising, in movies, in comics, in magazines... And in miniature wargaming. All these things contribute to the image we, as a society, have of women. Now again, I don't want to ban anything. Every creator should be free to create whatever they want. The problem is society's, not any one person or company's. But this is something more people should think about. So we get back to the GoA Jabba guy. I personally find the portrayal of sexual slavery in a goofy, often comical game to be in not very good taste. Why continue to propagate the image of the submissive, sexy, woman, going as far as to make her physically chained to the man who controls her? Does it add anything to the portrayal of this character beyond T&A and some quite horrifying implications that don't jive with the general tone of the game? In my opinion it does not. There is always the excuse of "but it's fluffy!". Yes. And GW could make a miniature portraying Dark Eldar group raping a human female, and it would be very fluffy. But would you find it in good taste? Probably not. Note that I'm not equating these two concepts, but simply making the point that everyone makes moral judgements. There are infinite ways to portray this concept without resorting to sexual slavery. Sexual slavery is not goofy, or comical, or something that should be used as a throwaway reference. Again, I don't want to ban anything, but I would love if people put more thought into these things.

Quite a few women would argue that you can be sexy, submissive and in control - in fact they can be very strong characters - just not always in the bedroom - its a choice they choose to make and they can get pretty irate if they are critisiced about it . They can also be interested in images / representations of submission be that male or female. Lets face it anything related to sexuality is complicated.

GW has done male and female slave models - in fact the first ones I remember are lobotmised male humans for the Slaan long long ago. The old model for Vect had the two slave girls - although one of them had a concelaed blade and so was a bit more ambivalent than perhaps it appeared at first glance.

There are now an awful lot of female models on the market (Praise the lord!) - they range from very practical to cheesecake and many in between. It is however very true that there are many more cheescake ladies than gentlemen, the naked males tending to be from ancients ranges - foundry in particular have quite a few sky clad males - they also do lots of naked or semi naked Nymph warriors. I have lots of both practical and cheesecake female models.

It will, I thnk be intersting to see what the new Alrialle model looks like (the last one was not great)

 Mymearan wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
and they still get paid less for the same work because of those cultural artefacts.

You're going to get yourself labelled a SJW for perpetuating this myth. At least in most western counties it is illegal to pay a woman less for the same work, and it doesn't happen. The reason there's a pay gap isn't because women get paid less for the same work, rather they tend to choose career paths that don't pay as much or work less hours and there's a whole nature vs nurture debate about whether that's biologically engrained or socially imprinted.

All these things contribute to the image we, as a society, have of women.

I think this is overblown BS. The image we as a society have of women comes from those we interact with far more than movies or comics or magazines and certainly not miniatures.

If people are getting their views of women from advertising, movies, comics and magazines I think we have a bigger issue that those people are fething imbeciles.

but I would love if people put more thought into these things.

The more I think about it the more I think it doesn't matter, people will create what they want and what they think will sell and the market can naturally adjust if it needs to do so.

Getting "labeled as an SJW" sounds pretty grim, although it's an inane insult on the level of "hater/fanboy". Anyway, you're right that a large portion of the difference in gender is explained by external factors. But some of it is not. As I work in the public sector in Sweden you'll have to forgive me for using Swedish sources, but according to this report by the Swedish National Mediation Office (http://www.mi.se/files/PDF-er/att_bestalla/loneskillnader/skillnaden14.pdf) the entire difference in salary cannot be explained by using regression analysis of official statistics. If you have concrete proof to the contrary I would genuinely love to read it!

Yeah that's in Swedish (I assume), I don't speak/read Swedish so your source is largely irrelevant to me.

There is a gap of a few percent (not the 20 something percent some people like to pretend) but the data is too limited to account for the last few percent. Things like bargaining for pay increases or taking non-wage benefits like health insurance may account for that last few percent.

This is one report that just came up with a quick googling....

https://www.shrm.org/Advocacy/Issues/CivilRights/Documents/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

If you don't think that things we see and hear contribute to our opinions of others, I would like to point you to the entire concept of a"stereotype"

When I said I thought it was overblown BS, I didn't mean there's no influence whatsoever, just that the influence is overblown.

I don't think those factors you mention (and specifically talking about MINIATURES here) are drivers of peoples impression of women, they are at best followers. I say AT BEST because they are also FANTASY and fantasy is not reality and people are smart enough to figure that out. You can grow up exposed to half naked images of suppressed women in the form of comics and video games all you like and it takes one whack over the head from a mother or older sister for it to have absolutely no influence on your perceived image of women.

Maybe if we were talking 40-50+ years ago I might have agreed with you, especially advertising and movies being big drivers of how we perceive ourselves in society. But we aren't living in the era of "Mad Men" any more and seeing strong women spread throughout different industries and young girls being encouraged that they can do whatever they want by parents, teachers and so on is a larger influence in shaping our views of women in society than any of that other crap, especially when you get down to something like miniatures in a fantasy world I'd call it negligible.

I don't think you give women enough credit for being able to stand on their own two feet instead of being weak minded enough to influenced by such sources, or people in general to discern the difference between hobby/fantasy and reality. *My* view of women doesn't come from the video games or wargames I grew up playing, it comes from a Mum who was one of the most intelligent people I've met, my sister who wouldn't take gak from anyone even as a kid and grew up to be a teacher who excelled so well that her work regularly takes her overseas and she's still one of the strongest and forward people I know, or my other sister who started working the floor in retail and worked her way up to management in the head office of that same retail chain.

Real life influences trump all the other peripheral stuff like..... an underrepresentation of females in a 40k Imperial Guard army or scantily clad Witch Elf models.

In general I think modern feminism is misguided and has gotten to the point where it actually undermines the strength of individual women firstly by focusing on increasingly petty things (that frankly not all women may agree on anyway) and secondly by acting like girls constantly need a leg up to compete with the boys.

Feminism is most definitely still needed, but where it's needed is places like the middle east or africa.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It's because in general criticism also often comes from the people who want stuff banned or are demanding change rather than just politely suggesting it.

I say this isn't true at all.
Remember that post in the Blizzard forums about one Tracer victory pose. It was politely suggesting a change, got the very same amount of flak for being censorship .

 Vulcan wrote:
Here's my definition of immoral: Someone ELSE is hurt in some way, shape, or form. Anything else doesn't matter.

[…]

Now please grant me the same respect.

So, just to make things clear, are you saying that I should abide by your definition of morality, but that you will in turn abide to mine?
Damn. Then, causing unnecessary harm to living, feeling creatures for entertainment purpose is immoral. That involves meat, especially the brand that require extra suffering like foie gras, blood sports like corrida, …

Asterios wrote:
but miniatures can be construed as toys, and thereby the slippery slope begans.

So can sex toys. Beware, all sex toys will be required to be children-friendly by law!

(It's sarcasm. Please, please tell me everyone understood it as sarcasm. It's to show slippery slope arguments don't work and are not logical in the slightest.)

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Asterios wrote:
but miniatures can be construed as toys, and thereby the slippery slope begans.

So can sex toys. Beware, all sex toys will be required to be children-friendly by law!

(It's sarcasm. Please, please tell me everyone understood it as sarcasm. It's to show slippery slope arguments don't work and are not logical in the slightest.)

if you watched neighbors 2, you might be demanding that, but now onto the discourse.

sex toys were designed to be played with only by adults, not kids, while miniatures are designed to be played with in a game played by adults and kids, hence the slippery slope and your argument fail.

now if laws are passed to make all miniature games 18+ then your argument might have had a chance, but they are not, then you say what about the nudes being made 18+? then I say what about the scantily clad ones which parents would deem offensive to their poor childs eyes?ok we make those 18+ ? so that leaves us with what miniatures left that kids can use in their miniature games?but wait those miniatures are holding weapons and promote violence, well have to make those 18+ now and by the time you are done kids are removed from miniature game hobby.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

I say this isn't true at all.
Remember that post in the Blizzard forums about one Tracer victory pose. It was politely suggesting a change, got the very same amount of flak for being censorship .

Because most wanted tracer to not be posed sexy, the comment that made the change was that the pose was out of character and this is what Blizzard actually fixed, gave tracer a new sexy pose (a pin up posture) that is more inline with her character.

I will ask why the GOA character is not right as visual character build and more importantly were is this thread directed, seriously we can agree to disagree, try to debate our position forever and this is fine, but some of the comments in this page alone are horrific, can we continue this debate in a civilized manner?

Asterios wrote:
sex toys were designed to be played with only by adults, not kids, while miniatures are designed to be played with in a game played by adults and kids, hence the slippery slope and your argument fail.

now if laws are passed to make all miniature games 18+ then your argument might have had a chance, but they are not, then you say what about the nudes being made 18+? then I say what about the scantily clad ones which parents would deem offensive to their poor childs eyes?ok we make those 18+ ? so that leaves us with what miniatures left that kids can use in their miniature games?but wait those miniatures are holding weapons and promote violence, well have to make those 18+ now and by the time you are done kids are removed from miniature game hobby.

I have no idea what I am supposed to be talking about. Like, really. I should be trying to demonstrate to you that not every model is going to suddenly become 18+ only?
There are some 18+ movies, and some 18+ video games. It has been the case for a very long time. Do I need to prove to you that all movies and video game won't suddenly become 18+ because of a slippery slope?
The slippery slope is called a fallacy for a reason.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Because most wanted tracer to not be posed sexy, the comment that made the change was that the pose was out of character and this is what Blizzard actually fixed, gave tracer a new sexy pose (a pin up posture) that is more inline with her character.

Not only did the complaint say that the pose was out of character because it was trying to be sexy, but also that changes nothing to my point. The usual suspects cried that the post was a terrible, terrible call to censorship and raged about it for days. Until the new pose was released, actually. They raged and called it censorship despite it being perfectly polite. Their definition of censorship is more akin to “some change that I don't like, pushed by people I don't like” than to anything like the real definition.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

it all comes down to you can please some of the people some of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all the time, there are people who would be offended by anything, look at that one actress who is complaining about Apocalypse strangling Mystique, saying it promotes violence against women, its a snapshot of a scene and taken out of context is wrong, but if the whole scene is taken in it makes sense, but still Sony took it down, thats censorship when people are afraid of saying or doing something in fear of being labeled or called things and so forth.

Asterios wrote:
thats censorship when people are afraid of saying or doing something in fear of being labeled or called things and so forth.

So, your solution to that speech should be free of consequences? That we should silence people who would “label” others?
.

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

Somebody I do not like, wants something I do not like, seems quite a good definition, short but not bad at all.

The fear of slippery slope is quite real and it has been demonstrated enouph times in the history of mankind that it can happen, I will agree some cases are more likely and some are highly unlikely, but the fear of giving a "freedom" leading to an unpredictable chain reaction is always there.
And the question of why change is a question needing to be answered and many think it is not answered in a sufficient way beyond "because I want it to change".