itch.io

> So what IS your opinion on that, exactly?

Pretty neutral. Aika and co. can rename the project however they want, it's their project. They can also make whatever offshoots, alternative variations, forks, rewrites, etc. that they want, and call those whatever they want to.

> Art imitates life is all I'm saying, can't blame people, MOST LGBTQT+ people, for having aversion to a game and community like this.

Art can imitate life, but it doesn't have to. To apply that as an absolute is absurd, especially given the amount of art that is literally impossible and completely detached from reality.

And sure, most people should avoid this game. That's why disclaimers are included, to make sure that anyone who wouldn't like it can know ahead of time that they wouldn't like it, and successfully avoid it.

Nobody is advocating for this sort of fictional content to be 'enjoyed by everyone', not even 'enjoyed by everyone in the LGBTQ+ community'. The game isn't for the entire LGBTQ+ community, it's for a subset of it that is into these things.

> And you're on a kinky porn game- yes, it's 100% perverted. And don't be like that, you know what I mean by perverted: SEXUAL and MORAL perversion.

Again, look up the word 'pervert', 'perversion', 'perverting', etc. Here's Google's first definition for each:

• Pervert
  • alter (something) from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.
• Perversion
  • the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.
• Perverting
  • alter (something) from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.

The exceptions to that general definition being the first definition are the following two, and I'll include the second definition for each one for completeness:

• Perverse
  • (of a person or their actions) showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable, often in spite of the consequences.
  • contrary to the accepted or expected standard or practice.
• Perverted
  • (of a person or their actions) characterized by sexual practices or tendencies that are considered abnormal and unacceptable.
  • (of a thing) having been corrupted or distorted from its original course, meaning, or state.

It's worth noting that for 'perverse', sexual deviancy isn't mentioned until the fourth definition. All the ones in the first group have variations of the wording for the first definition of 'Perverted' as their second definition, except for 'Perverting', which does not list sexual perversion in any definition, but does list, "lead (someone) away from what is considered right, natural, or acceptable."

So, what's my point? Why do I bring this up?

My point is that you're weakening the entire LGBTQ+ community by calling other parts of the LGBTQ+ community 'perverted'. You're falling into the trap of accepting the premise of the conservatives' worldview: that there is a 'correct usage' for sexuality and gender, and anything outside of that 'correct usage' is bad.

They do this on purpose as part of a 'divide and conquer' strategy. Make sure that some of the LGBTQ+ community sees other parts of the LGBTQ+ community as 'deviants' that 'weaken the cause', create in-fighting, and use that as 'proof' that the LGBTQ+ community is a toxic cesspit of hypocrisy.

I grew up in these circles, and can tell you exactly what they say about us: "They can't even decide what is and isn't perverted because they all just want to justify their own sin, without realizing that all of them are equally sinful."

By giving that idea credibility, you're making their argument look far more convincing.

> inb4 you say "morality is subjective" you know dang well what I mean.

Uh.. Did you not read my reply to you where I detail my entire morality system? For me, morality is concrete and absolute, not relative: if a noun causes an overall increase in nouns, it's morally good; if it causes an overall decrease in nouns, it's morally evil.

It's true that we can never realistically know for sure whether any given noun is good or evil.. But we can make well-educated guesses about what trends a given noun is likely to exhibit.

For example, most people have children. Many people have some amount of artistic creation in their life, even if only as crayon drawings while they're kids. So if someone were to pick a random human on Earth and decide whether or not to erase them from having ever existed, on average doing so would be a morally evil thing. On the other hand, if that same randomly chosen person were instead duplicated, on average that would be morally good. However, turning everyone else on Earth into copies of that one random person would be morally evil, due to the loss of diversity.

These are absurd examples, of course, but they outline the sorts of thought processes that go into it.

It's not exactly traditional 'moral absolutism', because, for example, killing someone can be morally good if that someone was going to kill many many more people (or duplicate themselves across the rest of the planet's population).. But killing someone who isn't about to do anything like that is morally evil. The act itself can be good or evil depending on the circumstances, context, and end results.

At the same time, it's not exactly traditional 'moral relativism' either. It doesn't rely on subjective value or opinions such as, "This is right for me, even if it's not right for you." The only ambiguity is in the question of how you figure out whether more nouns or fewer nouns are the result of a noun existing or not (note: actions and events are forms of nouns as well).

> At least you're not a straight cis guy, thankfully.

Why would you think I'd be a straight cis guy? Straight cis guys would almost certainly not enjoy this game, let alone defend it as heavily as I do.