@Riot A serious discussion about gender. Please read

First Riot Post
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Twisted Fox

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

10-08-2012

uh.... I agree with thread but doubt that is why female gamers don't play this. In general girls tends to be less hardcore gamer then guys. This game has an insanely steep curve, especially for people who dont really play rts, especially mobas. Hell I didn't even know what last hit was cause I only played twitched until level 30 and just laned until level 3, roamed and killed ppl all day. In general being and rts and moba and being very competitive it does not appeal to girls as much as other games. I would have never ever played this game but for my brother and I quit a few times before I reached level 30 but my bro got me back into it. It becomes incredibly fun after you pass the learning curve which not everyplayer does. Out of all the friends I've introduced this game to (more guys then girls) total of around 10 people. Not 1 actually stayed on due to the curve and the fact there are other games such as guild wars, etc. they find more appealing.

Also this community sucks. I tried to get my bff into the game. I helped her make an account and was sitting right next to her watching her play her first coop bot match on easy and another player kept spamming she sucked, etc. She was 1/7 first game ever and she was playing cait. Given the fact it was a bot game and people were hating on her and I explained it was her first game on league ever. My first game was goddamn awful. It was before coop came out and I walked into turret as morgana. I did not know how much damage turret did because in tutorial your ash can tank like 3 hits or something and I did not know turret range. Team raged at me whole freakin game and I kept saying it was my first goddamn game. 1 player stfu up but 3 more continued to harass me. After my first game I basically stopped playing, unless my brother was next to me to help me out and coach me as I played. I did not understand the Ad/AP distinction and brought random items. After someone directed me to mobafire it was still very time consuming to find the items through the shop choices. Did't know armour blocked ad, etc. Could not navigate through jungle found it extremely confusing which camps were where.

My first champ ever (free to play) when I played my first game was morgana and it was because I like gothic cartoony sexy chars. If I could play a pretty or cute char, annie, etc. I would. But hey I play singe a lot cause I can win with him. At the end of the day, regardless of what the chars look like, it will be fun for you if you win or have a lot of friends to play with. although some champs have annoying voices that make me not want to play them ~

Just my 2 cents


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Whiteglint3

Senior Member

10-08-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaella View Post
thats called a logical fallacy
actually, no, it isn't, its usuing logic to defeat you, so very much the opposite.

your stance is the illogical one remember.

by showing you logical and true reasons for women to be treated diffrently, I make you look illogical (which would be true), saying is a fallacy without saying why or how is just sad.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Shaella

Senior Member

10-08-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteglint3 View Post
actually, no, it isn't, its usuing logic to defeat you, so very much the opposite.

your stance is the illogical one remember.

by showing you logical and true reasons for women to be treated diffrently, I make you look illogical (which would be true), saying is a fallacy without saying why or how is just sad.
Oh my ****ing god

What you're doing is a logical fallacy

Allow me to throw it completely out of proportion

since you're not not in favor of treating people equally, you're the same as hitler

NOT WANTING TO TREAT PEOPLE EQUALLY IS KILLING JEWS

that is what you sound like to me


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Ombria

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Member

10-08-2012

I very much enjoyed your post, Rauhel. It was well-written and conveyed many good points. Thank you for taking the time to compose it!

The comments about Akali's outfits especially made me laugh. As a female practitioner of the martial art of ninjutsu, I agree that they are quite impractical (Silverfang is pretty feasible - but that's a lot of metal to reflect moonlight!). Anywho, well done and best regards.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Shadeykris

Senior Member

10-08-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaella View Post
Its also a logical fallacy

It is!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

The favorite by far in this discussion has been the strawman.

Quote:
Straw man

Straw man: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresenting an opponent's position so as to more easily refute it.[2]
Examples

Person A: Sunny days are good.
Person B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death. Therefore, you are wrong.
Problem: B has misrepresented A's claim by falsely suggesting that A claimed that only sunny days are good, and then B refuted the misrepresented version of the claim, rather than refuting A's original assertion.

Mom: You have been playing video games for too long these past few days. You should focus on your school work.
Son: You think I play video games for 20 hours?
Problem: The son has made an exaggeration of what the mom said when it is not what she said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteglint3 View Post
women aren't in combat situations for very, very good reasons.

the main, and mostly only reason is this.

women put into combat situations cause incredible problems when injured in the line of duty, nearly ALWAYS the men combatants instinctively do everything they can to help them, this is bad because if say.

1, female combatant is shot by a sniper, everyone is behind cover, normally the correct procedure is to use coverfire to protect said injured, find the sniper and route him, then apply care to the injured soldier.

when females are put in place, the men will break cover to protect/help her, they will then all be killed, combat effectiveness is instantly lowered to nothing (because they are dead).

this same event happens in other situations, the men WILL do whatever it takes to help the women, its instinct, and it kicks in hard in combat, and it has gotten men killed many times (and the women involved).


women are entirely capable of being in combat, they can kill people just as good as men (infact they are very good fighter pilots and helicopter pilots, and is the main combat role the get to take)

but women should not be put into ground forces combat, they disrupt combat effectiveness and get people killed due to situations I discribed.

so.. knowing this, women are treated diffrently in the army, do you think what I said was sexist? (if you do that means you think progression is more imporant than soldiers lives).

I await your answer, i'm sure your mature enough to give a good one (ha).
It's cool that you have a lot of evidence to back up this sweeping claim based on anecdotal evidence. You do, right? I'll wait.

Note though, that your horrible real world example (oh the humanity!) doesn't even necessarily mean that women should never be soldiers, or that women CAN'T be soldiers, or that women make poor soldiers. At best, you've argued for same *** units - guys together and gals together. To protect the men from their uncontrollable emotional responses, apparently.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Whiteglint3

Senior Member

10-08-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaella View Post
Oh my ****ing god

What you're doing is a logical fallacy

Allow me to throw it completely out of proportion

since you're not not in favor of treating people equally, you're the same as hitler

NOT WANTING TO TREAT PEOPLE EQUALLY IS KILLING JEWS

that is what you sound like to me
it doesn't matter what I "sound like" all that matters is what is actually said.

it wasn't out of porportion it was a very real reason why women and men are treated diffrently.

the cracks in you "maturity" are showing.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

MathMage

Senior Member

10-08-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteglint3 View Post
making these changes would be just as sexist as making more retardedly over sexualized champions.

the only true option is to simply stop making the champions and leave the old ones the way they were, censoring the old champions IS sexist and sets a bad example.
At this point I don't give a **** what you think is sexist or not sexist. That word's too ****ing loaded and you idiots take it as an excuse to start the most ridiculous arguments.

If it's "sexist" to give Fiora a decent fencing posture instead of her current weak-ass pinup pose, that's the kind of sexist I want to be. I'll take this brand of "sexism" that makes for serious champion art design over the status quo any day.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

DeliriumTomorrow

Senior Member

10-08-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteglint3 View Post
making these changes would be just as sexist as making more retardedly over sexualized champions.

the only true option is to simply stop making the champions and leave the old ones the way they were, censoring the old champions IS sexist and sets a bad example.
OP has said multiple times that they don't want to change the existing skins or champs. The entire point of this thread was just to make the differences in the design and presentation of male vs. female champs apparent and use that knowledge to help round out our selection with some diversity in upcoming champs.

I'm honestly confused now as to what your issue with the original post is, and am starting to think you're only here to argue with Shaella, in which case, you both should just make your own thread to argue in.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Bastriuz

Senior Member

10-08-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMage View Post
Christ, I leave the thread for an hour and the reactionaries turn it into a discussion of military effectiveness of coed units.

What the **** does that have to do with putting an extra few inches of cloth on Sona's outfit, wrapping Akali's top all the way around her body, letting Fiora take a serious fencing pose, giving MF's waist some room for internal organs, etc? Or, hell, what does it have to do with giving Ruthless Pantheon and Varus something to wear, giving Tryndamere muscle bulk that would still allow him to move, giving Kassadin muscles instead of endless rows of bumps, etc?

Equating "These skins were done poorly and could be significantly improved" with a radical feminist conspiracy out to advance the cause of women at the cost of soldiers' lives is the stupidest ****ing thing I have ever seen on these forums, and I have seen some real doozies.

We can treat both genders better in this game without decreeing that they have to be treated exactly the same. So why start that discussion, except to troll? Utterly pointless.
My thing is as was stated by someone before no matter what all the female characters that aren't (anivia yordles or annie) still look like the ideal woman nice skinny figure and nice face, cover up akali/sona/evelynn who have you and what do you have? skinny women who could model if they wanted


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Whiteglint3

Senior Member

10-08-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadeykris View Post
It is!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

The favorite by far in this discussion has been the strawman.






It's cool that you have a lot of evidence to back up this sweeping claim based on anecdotal evidence. You do, right? I'll wait.

Note though, that your horrible real world example (oh the humanity!) doesn't even necessarily mean that women should never be soldiers, or that women CAN'T be soldiers, or that women make poor soldiers. At best, you've argued for same *** units - guys together and gals together. To protect the men from their uncontrollable emotional responses, apparently.
my point has been proven across many wars in many diffrent countries, many nations have come to the same conclusion.

women make fine soldiers, as long as they aren't in the same combat unit as men, it has nothing to do with them being inferior or superior whatsoever.

combat effectiveness is the most important thing to consider, because that is the point, killing the enemy, and if killing the enemy is harder because women are in the unit (due to said reasons) it simply will not be done.

your feminist retarded mantras will not affect this, nor will it change the cold calcuated logic it was created by.