259 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirigon]

Computer_God91 wrote...


They say that because they don't want to admit to a F/F relationship because they don't want to give a M/M relationship

I don´t really think Liara counts as lesbian......

[Nivenus]

For those who claim that asari aren't female because of their reproductive system.

[Computer_God91]

Nivenus wrote...

For those who claim that asari aren't female because of their reproductive system.

Thank you, this won't change their minds though. They'll find some way around it

[Aradace]

Computer_God91 wrote...

 I was on virmire and talked to liara when I ran past her and she said "I don't know which is worse, the Geth or all this sand in my...nevermind"

HAHAHA 

You DO realize that "monogendered" means that they are merely ALL ONE GENDER right? Meaning that they are indeed still anotomically correct.  The term YOU are thinking of is Eunich (spelling?) where in that case, all they would have is a "ken bump" lol.

[Computer_God91]

Aradace wrote...

Computer_God91 wrote...

 I was on virmire and talked to liara when I ran past her and she said "I don't know which is worse, the Geth or all this sand in my...nevermind"

HAHAHA 

You DO realize that "monogendered" means that they are merely ALL ONE GENDER right? Meaning that they are indeed still anotomically correct.  The term YOU are thinking of is Eunich (spelling?) where in that case, all they would have is a "ken bump" lol.

Allow me to quote myself

Computer_God91 wrote...
I'm going to try to clarify why I used monogendered ealier

I misunderstood the meaning of the word when I posted because I originally though that monogendered meant having no gender. (basically they looked like barbies naked) i know that was a stupid thought but I have come to know what it means now and I don't feel like changing the topic name.

[Aradace]

Computer_God91 wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Computer_God91 wrote...

 I was on virmire and talked to liara when I ran past her and she said "I don't know which is worse, the Geth or all this sand in my...nevermind"

HAHAHA 

You DO realize that "monogendered" means that they are merely ALL ONE GENDER right? Meaning that they are indeed still anotomically correct.  The term YOU are thinking of is Eunich (spelling?) where in that case, all they would have is a "ken bump" lol.

Allow me to quote myself

Computer_God91 wrote...
I'm going to try to clarify why I used monogendered ealier

I misunderstood the meaning of the word when I posted because I originally though that monogendered meant having no gender. (basically they looked like barbies naked) i know that was a stupid thought but I have come to know what it means now and I don't feel like changing the topic name.

Then perhaps a trip to your friendly neighborhood www.dictionary.com is in order next time? 

[Tirigon]

Nivenus wrote...

For those who claim that asari aren't female because of their reproductive system.

That deals with reproduction where the eggs need not to be fertilized. It is different from what asari do, They NEED a partner.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Yeah, I kinda thought the same as FuturePasTimeCE on the topic of Element Zero. I figured it was lighter than Hydrogen or perhaps another state of matter kind of like plasmas or Shirow Masamune's explanation for how some of the tech works in the Appleseed series with Hermes devices. Mass Effect dabbles dangerously close to explaining too much tech that doesn't exist.

It's not at bad as Star Trek (thankfully!), but they come a little too close for my tastes. I kind of prefer tech that's theory based more than fictional spec based. If you tag on too much useless jargon that doesn't mean anything then it comes off sounding what it is...fake. Plus, with how fast technology moves over the past 150 years, overexplaining things with too much tech speak can date the story and keep it from being classic.

the ipad is completely sci fi. it was first featured in star trek over 40 years ago. it's nothing more than a computerized version of a clipboard. unreal specs.

Yeah, but what I am getting at is that, in that case, Star Trek expressed a concept but they didn't try to explain it.  When sci-fi like Star Trek fails is when they try to say how fictional things work. Like with the teleporters, they should just explain what they do, not how they do it. But no...they had to invent a "Heisenberg Compensator" which is pretty rediculous considering that the state of atomic structure is totally unpredictable.

Or the whole tech jargon surrounding "Warp" speed or anything having to do with Star Trek tech. I've never been a fan of Star Trek as a result. Sci fi tech shouldn't be attempted to be overly explained if people are writing about a tech that doesn't exist. It just comes out looking foolish. Heck, just to make a point, I looked up Dilithium crystals to see if I could find out exactly what they do. Not even the Star Trek geeks on several web forum boards can agree on what they do, citing conflicting technical explanations from this movie or that series. It's really kind of funny. 

Concept is one thing, and concepts are in fact the great divide of the genre from any other. But when writing sci fi, it's kind of like walking a mine field. You have to be careful not to just start making crap up left and right or else you're soon swimming in technical jargon just like Star Trek. Fantasy is far more easy as long as writers stick to the rules they set.

Modifié par Ryllen Laerth Kriel, 31 mai 2010 - 09:30 .

[Computer_God91]

Aradace wrote...

Computer_God91 wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Computer_God91 wrote...

 I was on virmire and talked to liara when I ran past her and she said "I don't know which is worse, the Geth or all this sand in my...nevermind"

HAHAHA 

You DO realize that "monogendered" means that they are merely ALL ONE GENDER right? Meaning that they are indeed still anotomically correct.  The term YOU are thinking of is Eunich (spelling?) where in that case, all they would have is a "ken bump" lol.

Allow me to quote myself

Computer_God91 wrote...
I'm going to try to clarify why I used monogendered ealier

I misunderstood the meaning of the word when I posted because I originally though that monogendered meant having no gender. (basically they looked like barbies naked) i know that was a stupid thought but I have come to know what it means now and I don't feel like changing the topic name.

Then perhaps a trip to your friendly neighborhood www.dictionary.com is in order next time? 

That's usually my first stop but I didn't look it up for some reason.

[Crimmsonwind]

@ Aradace: The OP admitted his mistake. That takes balls on a forum. You should be congratulating him, not snidely reminding him about dictionary.com.

[Nivenus]

Tirigon wrote...

Nivenus wrote...

For those who claim that asari aren't female because of their reproductive system.

That deals with reproduction where the eggs need not to be fertilized. It is different from what asari do, They NEED a partner.

A difference that makes no difference in this particular case.

Wikipedia wrote... (emphasis mine)

An interesting aspect to reproduction in these asexual lizards is that mating behaviors are still seen, although the populations are all female. One female plays the role played by the male in closely related species, and mounts the female that is about to lay eggs. This behaviour is due to the hormonal cycles of the females, which cause them to behave like males shortly after laying eggs, when levels of progesterone are high, and to take the female role in mating before laying eggs, when estrogen dominates. Lizards who act out the courtship ritual have greater fecundity than those kept in isolation, due to the increase in hormones that accompanies the mounting. So, although the populations lack males, they still require sexual behavioral stimuli for maximum reproductive success.

Also:

Liara says that physical contact is not always necessary for reproduction. Furthermore, many parthenogenic species do not produce clones because they still use meiosis to differentiate the genes of their offspring.

I don't know why this is still a debate.

Modifié par Nivenus, 31 mai 2010 - 10:11 .

[Crimmsonwind]

@Nivenus: Thank you, so much, for pointing that out.

*edit: I hope that didn't come across as sarcastic, because I was being sincere. :X

Modifié par Crimmsonwind, 31 mai 2010 - 10:15 .

[Computer_God91]

Nivenus wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Nivenus wrote...

For those who claim that asari aren't female because of their reproductive system.

That deals with reproduction where the eggs need not to be fertilized. It is different from what asari do, They NEED a partner.

A difference that makes no difference in this particular case.

Wikipedia wrote... (emphasis mine)

An interesting aspect to reproduction in these asexual lizards is that mating behaviors are still seen, although the populations are all female. One female plays the role played by the male in closely related species, and mounts the female that is about to lay eggs. This behaviour is due to the hormonal cycles of the females, which cause them to behave like males shortly after laying eggs, when levels of progesterone are high, and to take the female role in mating before laying eggs, when estrogen dominates. Lizards who act out the courtship ritual have greater fecundity than those kept in isolation, due to the increase in hormones that accompanies the mounting. So, although the populations lack males, they still require sexual behavioral stimuli for maximum reproductive success.

Also:

Liara says that physical contact is not always necessary for reproduction. Furthermore, many parthenogenic species do not produce clones because they still use meiosis to differentiate the genes of their offspring.

I don't know why this is still a debate.

Because denial is a powerful tool. They really don't have facts to support their claims either, something we keep presenting.

Crimmsonwind wrote...

@ Aradace: The OP admitted his mistake. That takes balls on a forum. You should be congratulating him, not snidely reminding him about dictionary.com.

Thanks for the back up.

Edit: its just easier to admit the mistake rather then spending 5 pages trying to make it sound right.

Edit2: proof reading, i fail to do.

Modifié par Computer_God91, 31 mai 2010 - 10:17 .

[Tirigon]

Your "facts" are no facts. What Nivenus writes is about lizards and I don´t care for them. Asari are not lizards.

[Computer_God91]

Tirigon wrote...

Your "facts" are no facts. What Nivenus writes is about lizards and I don´t care for them. Asari are not lizards.

but they reproduce similarly. go ahead you present something besides worthless opinion at least we are offering something more.

[Tirigon]

Computer_God91 wrote...


but they reproduce similarly. go ahead you present something besides worthless opinion at least we are offering something more.

You are offering nothing but stuff about lizards that´s irrelevant.

[FuturePasTimeCE]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Yeah, I kinda thought the same as FuturePasTimeCE on the topic of Element Zero. I figured it was lighter than Hydrogen or perhaps another state of matter kind of like plasmas or Shirow Masamune's explanation for how some of the tech works in the Appleseed series with Hermes devices. Mass Effect dabbles dangerously close to explaining too much tech that doesn't exist.

It's not at bad as Star Trek (thankfully!), but they come a little too close for my tastes. I kind of prefer tech that's theory based more than fictional spec based. If you tag on too much useless jargon that doesn't mean anything then it comes off sounding what it is...fake. Plus, with how fast technology moves over the past 150 years, overexplaining things with too much tech speak can date the story and keep it from being classic.

the ipad is completely sci fi. it was first featured in star trek over 40 years ago. it's nothing more than a computerized version of a clipboard. unreal specs.

Yeah, but what I am getting at is that, in that case, Star Trek expressed a concept but they didn't try to explain it.  When sci-fi like Star Trek fails is when they try to say how fictional things work. Like with the teleporters, they should just explain what they do, not how they do it. But no...they had to invent a "Heisenberg Compensator" which is pretty rediculous considering that the state of atomic structure is totally unpredictable.

Or the whole tech jargon surrounding "Warp" speed or anything having to do with Star Trek tech. I've never been a fan of Star Trek as a result. Sci fi tech shouldn't be attempted to be overly explained if people are writing about a tech that doesn't exist. It just comes out looking foolish. Heck, just to make a point, I looked up Dilithium crystals to see if I could find out exactly what they do. Not even the Star Trek geeks on several web forum boards can agree on what they do, citing conflicting technical explanations from this movie or that series. It's really kind of funny. 

Concept is one thing, and concepts are in fact the great divide of the genre from any other. But when writing sci fi, it's kind of like walking a mine field. You have to be careful not to just start making crap up left and right or else you're soon swimming in technical jargon just like Star Trek. Fantasy is far more easy as long as writers stick to the rules they set.

 Soooooooooooo... say if someone writen about the internet or computers today existing, like hundreds of years ago... is that a problem? and something like a computerized clipboard/ipad being all sci fi hypothetical didn't exist then, yet now... what if then some guy written about such conceptual technology before it was actually made?

[Computer_God91]

Tirigon wrote...

Computer_God91 wrote...


but they reproduce similarly. go ahead you present something besides worthless opinion at least we are offering something more.

You are offering nothing but stuff about lizards that´s irrelevant.

Did you even read my post?

they reproduce similarly

That's not irrelevant, and I didn't link that someone else did. I have given a definition of a female. It says that the Asari reproduce in a form of parthenogenisis which is what the link was to, but it also talkes about lizards as an example. I will however quote  what Finnegan has said.

There's been some confusion on this point in other threads, so I thought I'd make one specifically dedicated to the topic, state my own points, then open it up to discussion.

First, one common misconception is that asari are asexual, containing both male and female reproductive organs. This is not true. Asari don't act as both male and female; they act solely as females. Female, in its scientific meaning, is the part of an organism that produces eggs, the female gametes.

The fact that they have wide hips and breasts indicates that Asari are even female in a mammalian sense, in that they bring their eggs to term in a womb, give birth, and then nurse their young.

They are not male in any sense of the word, as they do not produce male gametes, or sperm. 

So if there are no male asari, and because they clearly cannot be so xenophilic as to be able to be impregnated by the sperm of any other species they encounter, how can they possibly reproduce? 

The answer is a heavily mysticized version of parthenogenesis, a type of reproduction in which no fertilization by a male ever occurs. On Earth, it's common among lower plants, and it occurs among some species of insects, arachnids, birds, fish, amphibians, and reptiles.

The metaphysical aspect of mingling consciousnesses seems to act as a "trigger" for asari parthenogenesis. This means that asari can essentially reproduce through cuddling. We're not exactly told to what degree Shepherd and Liara get physically intimate. They may simply be holding one another while naked, and it's the psychic melding that makes the activity so pleasurable, or they may actually be having physical intercourse; the important thing to note is that, even if physical intercourse occurs, it is unnecessary for asari reproduction -- it's essentially a recreational bonus.

[Computer_God91]

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Yeah, I kinda thought the same as FuturePasTimeCE on the topic of Element Zero. I figured it was lighter than Hydrogen or perhaps another state of matter kind of like plasmas or Shirow Masamune's explanation for how some of the tech works in the Appleseed series with Hermes devices. Mass Effect dabbles dangerously close to explaining too much tech that doesn't exist. 

It's not at bad as Star Trek (thankfully!), but they come a little too close for my tastes. I kind of prefer tech that's theory based more than fictional spec based. If you tag on too much useless jargon that doesn't mean anything then it comes off sounding what it is...fake. Plus, with how fast technology moves over the past 150 years, overexplaining things with too much tech speak can date the story and keep it from being classic.

the ipad is completely sci fi. it was first featured in star trek over 40 years ago. it's nothing more than a computerized version of a clipboard. unreal specs.

Yeah, but what I am getting at is that, in that case, Star Trek expressed a concept but they didn't try to explain it.  When sci-fi like Star Trek fails is when they try to say how fictional things work. Like with the teleporters, they should just explain what they do, not how they do it. But no...they had to invent a "Heisenberg Compensator" which is pretty rediculous considering that the state of atomic structure is totally unpredictable.

Or the whole tech jargon surrounding "Warp" speed or anything having to do with Star Trek tech. I've never been a fan of Star Trek as a result. Sci fi tech shouldn't be attempted to be overly explained if people are writing about a tech that doesn't exist. It just comes out looking foolish. Heck, just to make a point, I looked up Dilithium crystals to see if I could find out exactly what they do. Not even the Star Trek geeks on several web forum boards can agree on what they do, citing conflicting technical explanations from this movie or that series. It's really kind of funny. 

Concept is one thing, and concepts are in fact the great divide of the genre from any other. But when writing sci fi, it's kind of like walking a mine field. You have to be careful not to just start making crap up left and right or else you're soon swimming in technical jargon just like Star Trek. Fantasy is far more easy as long as writers stick to the rules they set.

 Soooooooooooo... say if someone writen about the internet or computers today existing, like hundreds of years ago... is that a problem? and something like a computerized clipboard/ipad being all sci fi hypothetical didn't exist then, yet now... what if then some guy written about such conceptual technology before it was actually made?

This is unrelated to the topic discuss this somewhere else.

Modifié par Computer_God91, 31 mai 2010 - 11:23 .

[Computer_God91]

Edit: double post removed.

Modifié par Computer_God91, 31 mai 2010 - 11:21 .

[FuturePasTimeCE]

Computer_God91 wrote...

Edit: double post removed.

my bad bro.

just hate when people call me crazy when ever I believe in advanced technology even if it all seem sci fi (cars running on water/h2o, robots, a.i., etc).  *does his crazy man dance* 

Does Major Tom drives a Lincoln Spaceship called the Normandy SR?
Commander Shepard 

so what planet are the Asari from again?
I want to see the M E movie now... can it top Star Trek?

Modifié par FuturePasTimeCE, 01 juin 2010 - 12:08 .