223 réponses à ce sujet

[Devil Dynamo]

I'm surprised modzilla hasn't shown up yet.

Modifié par Devil Dynamo, 28 juin 2011 - 03:02 .

[mauro2222]

Hathur wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Realistically, in our world I doubt that by that year the military would even exist.

Wait.... wait... wait.... just... wait.

Are you telling me.... that you're so naive.... as to think .... that within 100-150 years from now.... human beings will no longer possess:

1) Greed
2) Hatred
3) Envy
4) Aggression
5) Necessity / need

... and countless other variables that make humans the violent mammals that we are? Kindly tell me you aren't so naive and so much of an idealist to think those traits will be bred out of our species in a meagre 2 centuries even.... perhaps in tens of thousands of years... but not in hundreds of years.... not even thousands.

Look at our ancestors 10,000 years ago... we're no different from them today when all is said and done... we kill, harm and fight for the exact same reasons... we've made great technological progress but almost no sociological progress at all.

So long as humans posess the genetic desire to inflict violence (for whatever reason), they will forever have organized forces with which to execute said violence.

Gah... youth these days.... so damned idealistic.

It is called human behavior. Education is the base of our behavior. You are telling me that greed, hatred and envy is in our blood? so its human nature?
Human nature is the will to learn, our entire species has this. If you learn to kill, you kill. If you learn to save people, you save people. Moral is all, if you are surrounded by a violent area, then your moral tends to become blurry and you start to justify death and destruction.

And please if you dont have determination and faith, don't call me idealistic -.-"

Modifié par mauro2222, 28 juin 2011 - 03:06 .

[Reapinger]

MonkeyKaboom wrote...

Reapinger wrote...

tobynator89 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Reapinger wrote...

People where I live are rather tolerant of homosexuals, so I think that people could only be more accepting over time. 

"Tolerant" yes, but if given the choice will most parents choose to have homosexual children? I can't imagine any reason they would. Not most anyway.

Some still might. I'm sure homosexuality still exists in the Mass Effect universe, but very few designer babies would be permitted to develop that way.

What? homosexuality is a genetic thing now?

Social trends also indicate that homosexuals would be allowed to adopt children by this point.

That doesn't perpetuate homosexuality though. And YES, there is conclusive evidence that homosexual tendencies are genetic. Most people know from birth that they are homosexual or want to be transexual. 

Cultural behaviors such as those found in some native american tribes and the Etoro of New Guinea for instance show that there is a significant element of choice involved as well.  Its not enough to say its genetic.  Nor is it adequate to say gays simply choose to be gay.  Its really a matter of both.  

Homosexual TENDENCIES is what I cited. Just because you have a tendency doesn't mean you can't be heterosexual. Not going into the nature/nurture debate here because clearly it's both-- as it is with most things. 

[MonkeyKaboom]

Reapinger wrote...

MonkeyKaboom wrote...

Skirata129 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Being overweight is considered a health abnormality, and the establish lore seems to suggest all variations of disease have been eliminated.

Do you think they stopped at obescity, or did they eliminate other abnormalities?

I actually thought about that. homosexuality would be detrimental to the perpetuation of the human species, so it could have been weeded out. Then I thought about what would happen if a politician proposed a cure for homosexuality in america and got mental images of public lynchings. wouldn't go over too well.

If homosexuality were detrimental to reproductive success of the species on the whole, evolution would have taken care to end it by this point via natural selection.  But the fact that over 1500 species have demonstrated homosexual behavior obviates some beneficial effect to survival.  We don't know exactly why yet, but it is there.

It offers no beneficial effects and not enough of a detrimental one. There is no argument that homosexuals perpetuate survival of a species or benefit it. How could you? The very idea is counterproductive. Homosexuals cannot have biological children of their own with their partner barring the most extreme circumstances-- especially in nature. It is an anomaly-- nothing more. That's like having a frog born with no way to reproduce. Sure it happens but it neither helps nor hurts the species because it's a vast minority. 

Over population for starters.  Conflict resolution in certain primates.  You really should research more.

Modifié par MonkeyKaboom, 28 juin 2011 - 03:04 .

[Reapinger]

MonkeyKaboom wrote...

Reapinger wrote...

MonkeyKaboom wrote...

Skirata129 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Being overweight is considered a health abnormality, and the establish lore seems to suggest all variations of disease have been eliminated.

Do you think they stopped at obescity, or did they eliminate other abnormalities?

I actually thought about that. homosexuality would be detrimental to the perpetuation of the human species, so it could have been weeded out. Then I thought about what would happen if a politician proposed a cure for homosexuality in america and got mental images of public lynchings. wouldn't go over too well.

If homosexuality were detrimental to reproductive success of the species on the whole, evolution would have taken care to end it by this point via natural selection.  But the fact that over 1500 species have demonstrated homosexual behavior obviates some beneficial effect to survival.  We don't know exactly why yet, but it is there.

It offers no beneficial effects and not enough of a detrimental one. There is no argument that homosexuals perpetuate survival of a species or benefit it. How could you? The very idea is counterproductive. Homosexuals cannot have biological children of their own with their partner barring the most extreme circumstances-- especially in nature. It is an anomaly-- nothing more. That's like having a frog born with no way to reproduce. Sure it happens but it neither helps nor hurts the species because it's a vast minority. 

Over population for starters.  You really should research more.

Over population only occurs when a species can't adapt to a new environment. Sorry but I fail to see how that's advantageous when other things that would adapt the species to a new environment would be more favorable than a sterilization of sorts. And as far as the condescending tone goes sorry I don't research the benefits of homosexuality on animal populations in my spare time. It's not a concern that anyone has barring you. 

[Medhia Nox]

Well... over population sure, but fashion, culture, intelligence, etiquette, religion. We really have helped out our breeding stock through countless millennia - and we ask for very little in return.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 28 juin 2011 - 03:06 .

[FERMi27]

Guys, it's about time to quit, don't you think? Leave this thread to rod, quit offtoping

[MonkeyKaboom]

Reapinger wrote...

MonkeyKaboom wrote...

Reapinger wrote...

tobynator89 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Reapinger wrote...

People where I live are rather tolerant of homosexuals, so I think that people could only be more accepting over time. 

"Tolerant" yes, but if given the choice will most parents choose to have homosexual children? I can't imagine any reason they would. Not most anyway.

Some still might. I'm sure homosexuality still exists in the Mass Effect universe, but very few designer babies would be permitted to develop that way.

What? homosexuality is a genetic thing now?

Social trends also indicate that homosexuals would be allowed to adopt children by this point.

That doesn't perpetuate homosexuality though. And YES, there is conclusive evidence that homosexual tendencies are genetic. Most people know from birth that they are homosexual or want to be transexual. 

Cultural behaviors such as those found in some native american tribes and the Etoro of New Guinea for instance show that there is a significant element of choice involved as well.  Its not enough to say its genetic.  Nor is it adequate to say gays simply choose to be gay.  Its really a matter of both.  

Homosexual TENDENCIES is what I cited. Just because you have a tendency doesn't mean you can't be heterosexual. Not going into the nature/nurture debate here because clearly it's both-- as it is with most things. 

Cultural TENDENCIES are just as important.  You know those things we call traditions.  Yeah, who'd have thought other cultures would have drastically different traditions as well?...

[Reapinger]

Conflict resolution in certain primates.
----
That is to assert dominance. You really should research more.

EDIT: It's also nice to know you gather your evidence from wikipedia. 

Modifié par Reapinger, 28 juin 2011 - 03:11 .

[Skirata129]

mauro2222 wrote...

Skirata129 wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Fat people should still be disqualified from military service in the future. Simply put, a fat person would not be able to handle the physical demands of either life in the military or combat. So it is realistic that everyone on Shep's team is physically fit. Being physically fit would be one of the prerequisites.

Sure, there should probably be some fat civilians wandering around on colony words or on the Citadel. But I can understand why Bioware didn't devote time to creating character models for them, and I'd rather than time was spent on creating female Turians or new aliens, like the Raloi.

Realistically, in our world I doubt that by that year the military would even exist.

edit: also, yes all those things are in our blood. they're what drove us to the top of the food chain in the first place. and of course dogs can love, at least in the human definition of the word. there's plenty of documented cases of dogs sacrificing themselves for humans, risking their lives for humans and other assorted instances where the dog WAS NOT TRAINED in any way to do those things.

Realistically the military will always exist. name a time in our history when we have not been at war. now look at our closest relatives- chimpanzees and other primates and name when they haven't had violent conflicts.

Violent behavior has nothing in common with war... If you imply that an individual conflict is the same as a war, then you are saying that a entire nation hates the other and they kill each other because of it.

of course violent behavior has something in common with war. They are both fueled by aggression and/or ambition. and for your earlier post, society will never reject money unless some post apocalyptic scenario sends us back to the barter system and even then it would redevelop.
 
Your idea of everyone working not for themselves but for the advancement of humankind is probably the most back asswards thing I've heard. by advancing themselves, humanity is advanced. when someone invents the television to make a profit, both he and humanity profited. Asking people to work for no personal gain whatsoever is evil and can only end in tears and bloodshed.

Modifié par Skirata129, 28 juin 2011 - 03:10 .

[Reapinger]

MonkeyKaboom wrote...

Reapinger wrote...

MonkeyKaboom wrote...

Reapinger wrote...

tobynator89 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Reapinger wrote...

People where I live are rather tolerant of homosexuals, so I think that people could only be more accepting over time. 

"Tolerant" yes, but if given the choice will most parents choose to have homosexual children? I can't imagine any reason they would. Not most anyway.

Some still might. I'm sure homosexuality still exists in the Mass Effect universe, but very few designer babies would be permitted to develop that way.

What? homosexuality is a genetic thing now?

Social trends also indicate that homosexuals would be allowed to adopt children by this point.

That doesn't perpetuate homosexuality though. And YES, there is conclusive evidence that homosexual tendencies are genetic. Most people know from birth that they are homosexual or want to be transexual. 

Cultural behaviors such as those found in some native american tribes and the Etoro of New Guinea for instance show that there is a significant element of choice involved as well.  Its not enough to say its genetic.  Nor is it adequate to say gays simply choose to be gay.  Its really a matter of both.  

Homosexual TENDENCIES is what I cited. Just because you have a tendency doesn't mean you can't be heterosexual. Not going into the nature/nurture debate here because clearly it's both-- as it is with most things. 

Cultural TENDENCIES are just as important.  You know those things we call traditions.  Yeah, who'd have thought other cultures would have drastically different traditions as well?...

I was unaware that any tradition favored gays since they can't have children I also imagine it would be hard to pass down?...

[Medhia Nox]

@Skirata129 - so, you're a capitalist I see.

[mauro2222]

Well here we go again xD

Overpopulation is a educational problem.
Mordin says so, when the technology exceeds the cultural advancement, then you have a real mess.
When you cure diseases that cause infant mortality, when you improve food quality, when you improve life in every single way with tech, you have to be prepared earlier.
Educate people, then advance.

[Skirata129]

and damn proud of it. I have history, reason and human nature to back me up too.

[MonkeyKaboom]

Reapinger wrote...

MonkeyKaboom wrote...

Reapinger wrote...

MonkeyKaboom wrote...

Reapinger wrote...

tobynator89 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Reapinger wrote...

People where I live are rather tolerant of homosexuals, so I think that people could only be more accepting over time. 

"Tolerant" yes, but if given the choice will most parents choose to have homosexual children? I can't imagine any reason they would. Not most anyway.

Some still might. I'm sure homosexuality still exists in the Mass Effect universe, but very few designer babies would be permitted to develop that way.

What? homosexuality is a genetic thing now?

Social trends also indicate that homosexuals would be allowed to adopt children by this point.

That doesn't perpetuate homosexuality though. And YES, there is conclusive evidence that homosexual tendencies are genetic. Most people know from birth that they are homosexual or want to be transexual. 

Cultural behaviors such as those found in some native american tribes and the Etoro of New Guinea for instance show that there is a significant element of choice involved as well.  Its not enough to say its genetic.  Nor is it adequate to say gays simply choose to be gay.  Its really a matter of both.  

Homosexual TENDENCIES is what I cited. Just because you have a tendency doesn't mean you can't be heterosexual. Not going into the nature/nurture debate here because clearly it's both-- as it is with most things. 

Cultural TENDENCIES are just as important.  You know those things we call traditions.  Yeah, who'd have thought other cultures would have drastically different traditions as well?...

I was unaware that any tradition favored gays since they can't have children I also imagine it would be hard to pass down?...

Good grief are you too dense to use Google too?  Go look it up and quit assuming you have half a clue

[Reapinger]

MonkeyKaboom wrote...

Reapinger wrote...

MonkeyKaboom wrote...

Reapinger wrote...

MonkeyKaboom wrote...

Reapinger wrote...

tobynator89 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Reapinger wrote...

People where I live are rather tolerant of homosexuals, so I think that people could only be more accepting over time. 

"Tolerant" yes, but if given the choice will most parents choose to have homosexual children? I can't imagine any reason they would. Not most anyway.

Some still might. I'm sure homosexuality still exists in the Mass Effect universe, but very few designer babies would be permitted to develop that way.

What? homosexuality is a genetic thing now?

Social trends also indicate that homosexuals would be allowed to adopt children by this point.

That doesn't perpetuate homosexuality though. And YES, there is conclusive evidence that homosexual tendencies are genetic. Most people know from birth that they are homosexual or want to be transexual. 

Cultural behaviors such as those found in some native american tribes and the Etoro of New Guinea for instance show that there is a significant element of choice involved as well.  Its not enough to say its genetic.  Nor is it adequate to say gays simply choose to be gay.  Its really a matter of both.  

Homosexual TENDENCIES is what I cited. Just because you have a tendency doesn't mean you can't be heterosexual. Not going into the nature/nurture debate here because clearly it's both-- as it is with most things. 

Cultural TENDENCIES are just as important.  You know those things we call traditions.  Yeah, who'd have thought other cultures would have drastically different traditions as well?...

I was unaware that any tradition favored gays since they can't have children I also imagine it would be hard to pass down?...

Good grief are you too dense to use Google too?  Go look it up and quit assuming you have half a clue

If Google is the basis of your knowledge I have low hopes for the future of the world. Sorry I go off of what I learn in Genetics courses and Biology courses at a private university rather than google all my questions with terrible results. Base your claims on something other than Wikipedia, Google, or any .com and you may have a valid argument on your hands. The claim that I made is that it has no reproductive advantages to be homosexual and I would love to see you prove it wrong. 

[mauro2222]

Skirata129 wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Skirata129 wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Fat people should still be disqualified from military service in the future. Simply put, a fat person would not be able to handle the physical demands of either life in the military or combat. So it is realistic that everyone on Shep's team is physically fit. Being physically fit would be one of the prerequisites.

Sure, there should probably be some fat civilians wandering around on colony words or on the Citadel. But I can understand why Bioware didn't devote time to creating character models for them, and I'd rather than time was spent on creating female Turians or new aliens, like the Raloi.

Realistically, in our world I doubt that by that year the military would even exist.

edit: also, yes all those things are in our blood. they're what drove us to the top of the food chain in the first place. and of course dogs can love, at least in the human definition of the word. there's plenty of documented cases of dogs sacrificing themselves for humans, risking their lives for humans and other assorted instances where the dog WAS NOT TRAINED in any way to do those things.

Realistically the military will always exist. name a time in our history when we have not been at war. now look at our closest relatives- chimpanzees and other primates and name when they haven't had violent conflicts.

Violent behavior has nothing in common with war... If you imply that an individual conflict is the same as a war, then you are saying that a entire nation hates the other and they kill each other because of it.

of course violent behavior has something in common with war. They are both fueled by aggression and/or ambition. and for your earlier post, society will never reject money unless some post apocalyptic scenario sends us back to the barter system and even then it would redevelop.
 
Your idea of everyone working not for themselves but for the advancement of humankind is probably the most back asswards thing I've heard. by advancing themselves, humanity is advanced. when someone invents the television to make a profit, both he and humanity profited. Asking people to work for no personal gain whatsoever is evil and can only end in tears and bloodshed.

WOOO WOOO WOOO.

What the hell? you think that a monetary system is an advanced economic system? and you also think that human society is advanced? wohohoh In which world you live?

"Asking people to work for no personal gain whatsoever is evil and can only end in tears and bloodshed"
So you prefer a medic that works for money and when he sees you he only saw a number instead of a person, nice!
I dont really remember who said it (or Plato or Socrates) that work is not a media to gain something material, is a media to improve themselves.

[Hathur]

mauro2222 wrote...

It is called human behavior. Education is the base of our behavior. You are telling me that greed, hatred and envy is in our blood? so its human nature?
Human nature is the will to learn, our entire species has this. If you learn to kill, you kill. If you learn to save people, you save people. Moral is all, if you are surrounded by a violent area, then your moral tends to become blurry and you start to justify death and destruction.

And please if you dont have determination and faith, don't call me idealistic -.-"

I apologize but your statement proves how exceedingly naive you really are.... Education has very little corrolation with human violence.

Wars are not started by the impoverished, uneducated "unwashed masses"... they are instigated by the powerful, highly intelligent & educated individuals of our species. 

Hatred, envy, lust for power & property and influence are ingrained to some degree or another in all humans (it was crucial to our earliest stages of evolution to ensure our species survival at a time were humanity could have been wiped out by any number of natural disasters or wild animals) -- yes, it is ingrained at the genetic level to some degree or another.... education holds no bearing on how greedy, angry or hateful a person is.... many of the most agregious atrocities our species have ever comitted were insitigated by our most intellgient & educated members.

Were your statement true, we would be less prone to commit murderous genocides than our ancestors 10,000 years ago.... we are not (not by much anyway)... instead, our "education" and intellect has simply made us more efficient killers... we still kill for the same reasons our primitive ancestors did... we just use more sophisticated clubs & spears is all.

Say aloud... with a straight face... "Smart, educated people aren't greedy or violent."

I dare you to say it and not laugh. So long as we have greed, we will fight wars... and therefore we will have militaries.

Modifié par Hathur, 28 juin 2011 - 03:21 .

[Skirata129]

mauro2222 wrote...

Skirata129 wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Skirata129 wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Fat people should still be disqualified from military service in the future. Simply put, a fat person would not be able to handle the physical demands of either life in the military or combat. So it is realistic that everyone on Shep's team is physically fit. Being physically fit would be one of the prerequisites.

Sure, there should probably be some fat civilians wandering around on colony words or on the Citadel. But I can understand why Bioware didn't devote time to creating character models for them, and I'd rather than time was spent on creating female Turians or new aliens, like the Raloi.

Realistically, in our world I doubt that by that year the military would even exist.

edit: also, yes all those things are in our blood. they're what drove us to the top of the food chain in the first place. and of course dogs can love, at least in the human definition of the word. there's plenty of documented cases of dogs sacrificing themselves for humans, risking their lives for humans and other assorted instances where the dog WAS NOT TRAINED in any way to do those things.

Realistically the military will always exist. name a time in our history when we have not been at war. now look at our closest relatives- chimpanzees and other primates and name when they haven't had violent conflicts.

Violent behavior has nothing in common with war... If you imply that an individual conflict is the same as a war, then you are saying that a entire nation hates the other and they kill each other because of it.

of course violent behavior has something in common with war. They are both fueled by aggression and/or ambition. and for your earlier post, society will never reject money unless some post apocalyptic scenario sends us back to the barter system and even then it would redevelop.
 
Your idea of everyone working not for themselves but for the advancement of humankind is probably the most back asswards thing I've heard. by advancing themselves, humanity is advanced. when someone invents the television to make a profit, both he and humanity profited. Asking people to work for no personal gain whatsoever is evil and can only end in tears and bloodshed.

WOOO WOOO WOOO.

What the hell? you think that a monetary system is an advanced economic system? and you also think that human society is advanced? wohohoh In which world you live?

"Asking people to work for no personal gain whatsoever is evil and can only end in tears and bloodshed"
So you prefer a medic that works for money and when he sees you he only saw a number instead of a person, nice!
I dont really remember who said it (or Plato or Socrates) that work is not a media to gain something material, is a media to improve themselves.

of course I want a medic who is working for a profit. the better a job he does on me, the more business he gets and the more he profits. if he ****s up, he loses a patient and a source of income.

[Medhia Nox]

@skirata129 - I didn't say you shouldn't be. Just making an observation.

[mauro2222]

Hathur wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

It is called human behavior. Education is the base of our behavior. You are telling me that greed, hatred and envy is in our blood? so its human nature?
Human nature is the will to learn, our entire species has this. If you learn to kill, you kill. If you learn to save people, you save people. Moral is all, if you are surrounded by a violent area, then your moral tends to become blurry and you start to justify death and destruction.

And please if you dont have determination and faith, don't call me idealistic -.-"

I apologize but your statement proves how exceedingly naive you really are.... Education has very little corrolation with human violence.

Wars are not started by the impoverished, uneducated "unwashed masses"... they are instigated by the powerful, highly intelligent & educated individuals of our species. 

Hatred, envy, lust for power & property and influence are ingrained to some degree or another in all humans (it was crucial to our earliest stages of evolution to ensure our species survival at a time were humanity could have been wiped out by any number of natural disasters or wild animals) -- yes, it is ingrained at the genetic level to some degree or another.... education holds no bearing on how greedy, angry or hateful a person is.... many of the most agregious atrocities our species have ever comitted were insitigated by our most intellgient & educated members.

Were your statement true, we would be less prone to commit murderous genocides than our ancestors 10,000 years ago.... we are not (not by much anyway)... instead, our "education" and intellect has simply made us more efficient killers... we still kill for the same reasons our primitive ancestors did... we just use more sophisticated clubs & spears is all.

Say aloud... with a straight face... "Smart, educated people aren't greedy or violent."

I dare you to say it and not laugh. So long as we have greed, we will fight wars... and therefore we will have militaries.

I dont know which definition of education you have.
Education is not a degree in science, or maths.

[Skirata129]

Hathur wrote...
I dare you to say it and not laugh. So long as we have greed, we will fight wars... and therefore we will have militaries.

 and so long as we have greed, the human race will continue to grow and advance. greed is synonomous with ambition.

[Boiny Bunny]

You might also ask why there are no female [insert species other than human or asari] in the ME universe. At least there will be a single (token) Krogan in ME3...I don't think putting overweight characters into their games is a high priority for Bioware.

[Skirata129]

mauro2222 wrote...

Hathur wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

It is called human behavior. Education is the base of our behavior. You are telling me that greed, hatred and envy is in our blood? so its human nature?
Human nature is the will to learn, our entire species has this. If you learn to kill, you kill. If you learn to save people, you save people. Moral is all, if you are surrounded by a violent area, then your moral tends to become blurry and you start to justify death and destruction.

And please if you dont have determination and faith, don't call me idealistic -.-"

I apologize but your statement proves how exceedingly naive you really are.... Education has very little corrolation with human violence.

Wars are not started by the impoverished, uneducated "unwashed masses"... they are instigated by the powerful, highly intelligent & educated individuals of our species. 

Hatred, envy, lust for power & property and influence are ingrained to some degree or another in all humans (it was crucial to our earliest stages of evolution to ensure our species survival at a time were humanity could have been wiped out by any number of natural disasters or wild animals) -- yes, it is ingrained at the genetic level to some degree or another.... education holds no bearing on how greedy, angry or hateful a person is.... many of the most agregious atrocities our species have ever comitted were insitigated by our most intellgient & educated members.

Were your statement true, we would be less prone to commit murderous genocides than our ancestors 10,000 years ago.... we are not (not by much anyway)... instead, our "education" and intellect has simply made us more efficient killers... we still kill for the same reasons our primitive ancestors did... we just use more sophisticated clubs & spears is all.

Say aloud... with a straight face... "Smart, educated people aren't greedy or violent."

I dare you to say it and not laugh. So long as we have greed, we will fight wars... and therefore we will have militaries.

I dont know which definition of education you have.
Education is not a degree in science, or maths.

education is experience and understanding of the surrounding world. and those who have the most of it tend to be the ones who initiate the wars, run the corporations and lead the armies.

[Liec]

How did we go from "fat people in them video gaims" to "the nature of education and war"? .__.