269 réponses à ce sujet

[whywhywhywhy]

If all women dropped dead I wouldn't be too far behind.

[Athayniel]

[quote]whywhywhywhy wrote...
It's obvious to me that your trying to shift he conversation into a new paradigm. Unable to argue against my position or support your own with sound theories, examples set in the ME universe or anything that could be taken as proof. Your aim is to change the game, I quote:

"The reason I feel comfortable comparing the mating interactions of a
monogendered species with bigendered species such as humans and
salarians and turians is precisely because there is apparently so little
difference biologically between asari and human females. "

"Appearance has a lot to do with gender in sexually dimorphic species. To
argue differently is nonsensical. "

Your Argument was appearance played a role in defining gender.[/quote]
No... my argument has always been that appearance is a major factor in the identification of gender. What happened with my last post was that I realised we weren't having the same argument, but two different ones with respect to the approaches we're taking on the issue. You are coming from a strictly scientific, clinical take on definition. I am coming from a broader sociological approach of how asari are viewed. When I realised this I made sure to clarify where my arguments were originating from. You have still to refute any of those arguments. Especially since your definitional argument is mostly irrelevant to whether a human female in a relationship with an asari should be considered bisexual or a lesbian, which is the original argument if I recall correctly. Is the relationship between an asari and a human female a lesbian coupling? For all intents and purposes it is because the human female would have to be at least somewhat attracted to the feminine appearance of the asari.

[quote]I maintain how they are viewed is irrelevant to what they are, your assertion is incorrect. And when contrasted against their differences the similiarities are quite small and still irrelevant.[/quote]
I don't think you can dismiss that at all. You insist that because the asari are monogendered that assigning a gendered component to their relationships is irrelevant, which may be true in the case of asari/asari couplings but certainly not in the case of asari/human pairings, as the presence of the human will bring gender into the equation by default.

[quote]Then stop insinuating it. If the "Xenos barrier " as you call it(curiously) is removed you remove their alien nature and are essential left with a lue bald head human. This is the motivating factor behind "removing the Xenos barrier" or trying to contain my argument behind the term "clinical."

The "xenos barrier" cannot be set aside in a biological or social standing. Biologically they are alien and always will be. To attempt it socially, would degrade both the Asari and the relationship. One should be appreciated and admired for their differences that ties them back to their culture within a relationship and not idealized. I also say that the idea that an Alien would be forced to conform to the ideals of a (human) companion or spouse is repulsive.[/quote]
Getting past preconceptions and inhibitions and even prejudices is very much sociological in nature. There are still some people today who look upon individuals of different ethnicities or sexual orientations with distrust and contempt. Getting past that is very much the same as breaking down a barrier. That is what I am talking about. Romantic attachments cannot truly form until such things are set aside and it has nothing to do with denigrating the asari but with broadening the horizons of the human partner. It does not remove their alien nature but does mean that the similarities are brought to the fore instead of the differences being emphasised.

[quote]Then we are in agreement. But you might want to review that thing you said about Appearance defining gender.[/quote]
Why? When their appearance clearly denotes their gender as female. Paint an asari's skin some shade of pink or brown and put a wig over her head folds and she could very easily pass for a human female. Her features and body form very closely resemble that of a human woman and vice versa. Human attraction cues are heavily based on appearance. This cannot really be denied.

[quote]Again trying to label and disregard my argument as "clinical" is expected as you can't find a basis to disprove my position or support your own. Gender isn't irrelevant in defining a relationship by gender, what's irrelevant is your clear attempts to label based off appearance.

The Asari are not female they have one gender that is neither female nor male, nothing you say can refute this. Your claim socially of what humans or others view Asari is asinine. What one sees something as that differs from itself does not change whatever is viewed from what it is. The Asari don't view themselves as female, isn't that a greater point of view then "humans" and others alien species? Why is the Asari perspective disregarded in your argument and what others supposedly view them as define them ? No, Asari define themselves, it's awfully arrogant for "humans and others" to try and define an entire race of people.

Furthermore no example exists of a female human and Asari relationship within the ME universe that you describe that I am aware of. If I am mistaken please inform me of one and an example were they considered themselves Lesbian. Additionally if s/s relationships were added in me3 then that means they were absent in ME1/ME2, so femSheps relationship with Liara isn't Lesbian.[/quote]
Except the game itself has contradicted you. Kaiden remarks during the confrontation scene between himself, Liara and femShep that he wasn't aware Shepard was attracted to women. Clearly humans consider a relationship betwen a human woman and an asari to be a same sex relationship. You can try arguing that is only a single anecdote but I will posit that Kaiden's reaction will be the same as the majority of humanity's. When a human sees an asari they see an alien yes, but a female alien. They do not render the asari genderless the way you insist they do. Being monogendered does not take away their gender. As Nyoka has pointed out. If all human males suddenly vanished, that would not make human women any less female.

I am not disregarding the asari perspective. I would consider asari to be largely gender-blind when it comes to alien species. From their perspective the whole gender based classification of relationships is probably rather baffling. That does not make how those relationships are viewed by other humans any less relevant. Neither is the asari position on gender any more superior or inferior to that of humans. But you cannot remove the gender classification from the relationship either. To do so denigrates the human female just as much.

And no I doubt the asari would consider herself to be a lesbian, but the human woman in the relationship will consider herself to be at least bisexual, attracted to women, having an inclination for the feminine form etc. How the human woman views the relationship is very important and will not be divorced from gender.

[quote]I wasn't wrong. Asari can reproduce with the use of mind meld this is a form of asexual reproduction.[/quote]
If you want to ignore the contribution of the other partner or even that a partner is actually required, which is not the case in purely asexual reproduction, then I doubt I can convince you otherwise.

[quote]They also can reproduce through intercourse[/quote]
Do you have a source for this? The only method I know of is the melding of minds and the fusion of nervous systems which allows the asari to investigate the genetic history of their partners to direct the mutation of the genes they pass on to their offspring.

[quote]neither results in the use of dna of the partner. Describing Asari reproduction as asexual isn't wrong I just chose to sit it aside as I don't feel like getting into the particulars and long winded explanations that you'll gloss over and respond to with gibberish.

In other words I was trying to give you a chance by handicapping myself but your response was incorrect. But to sum things up: Asexual reproduction occurs when offspring
arise from a single parent, and inherit the genes of that parent only. Though a secound partner is used none of that partners DNA is used or present in the Asari child.[/quote]
The partner's DNA is used indirectly. You cannot brush aside its contribution for the sake of semantics and even so the implementation details of asari reproduction aren't particularly germane to the discussion we're having anyway. I only responded to it because you brought it up.

[quote]Asari can reproduce without the use of a male,[/quote]
Correct. An asari is just as capable of producing offspring with a female.
[quote]without the need for fertilization[/quote]
Incorrect. Without a second partner with which to synchronise nervous systems, the asari cannot reproduce. This synchronisation is analogous to fertilisation in this case.
[quote]and do not have a gender.[/quote]
So incredibly incorrect, not to mention that it contradicts huge swathes of your arguments thus far.


[quote]And irrevelant to how the Asari define themselves both socially and biologically which in the end is all that matters.[/quote]
So how the human female sees the relationship doesn't matter? Who's doing the denigrating now?

[quote]"Althought we seek to understand other species, it seems few attempt to understand us. The galaxy is filled with misinformation and rumors about my people." - Dr Tsoni.

*snip quote from me*

"Most of the inaccuracies center around Asari mating rituals. My species is mono-gendered. "Male" or "female" have no real meaning to us." - DR. Tsoni.

*snip quote from me*

Doesn't matter what humans consider Asari to be, doesn't change what they are.[/quote]
No it doesn't but that doesn't stop it from affecting how humans interact with asari, form relationships and bonds with asari, conduct business with asari, fight with asari. How humans view asari is as integral to the dynamic between the two species as the way asari view humans. I do not disagree that BioWare made a conscious effort to distance the asari/human female relationship from the label of lesbian and same-sex but the reaction of the players proves they failed spectacularly. I think I'm safe in saying the vast majority of players consider it to be a same-sex relationship. Not that I'm trying to make an appeal to popularity here. Just pointing out that what it appears to be to the players is very likely what it would appear to be to the human denizens of the Mass Effect galaxy.

[quote]All I see is a long way to say I'm not going to admit your right. You want to claim I'm wrong, BW is wrong(poor writing), everybody is wrong except you. And if you stay at that conclusion your wrong.[/quote]
What? How exactly was anything I wrote there wrong? Is 'father' not a gender loaded term used specifically to define the role of the non-birth parent? Is it not highly likely the asari have a term in their own language for it that is devoid of the gender issues simply by the fact that asari have only one gender? I notice that even when I asked you straight out what your point was your only response is 'I'm right and you're wrong.'

[quote]It doesn't satisfy my criteria as a plausible, reasonable argument and only serves to argue a dichotomy between human relationships and Asari biology/gender. This serves no purpose other then to satisfy your agenda and has no bearing on the argument, as the two are hopelessly intertwined.
[/quote]
Yes... gender and human relationships are hopelessly intertwined. And when an asari enters into a relationship with a human her gender will also become a factor because gender is always a factor in human relationships. The fact that all asari have the same gender does not make it any less relevant. When an asari enters into a romantic relationship with a human woman it will be because the woman finds other women attractive and sexually appealing. The asari's alien nature may add to it but it does not remove her gender from the equation.

[whywhywhywhy]

jreezy wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

1. Of or pertaining to the sex that begets or procreates young, or (in a wider sense) to the sex that produces spermatozoa, by which the ova are fertilized

So if women died, men would suddenly stop producing spermatozoa. Huh.

Who said that?

hahaha, this was a true WTH moment.  This what I'm debating against it makes absolutely no sense at all and the reason I post a lot less.  If all woman died the Human race would end after all the males reach the end of their lifespan.  During this period if no viable cloning(which still changes us from what we were) is put in place the human race would be done.  But this person starts talking about "spermatozoa" abruptly after asking abut all woman dying. 

Nyoka you didn't quite think that through.

Nyoka wrote...

Breaking it down...

No they
wouldn't. They would continue producing spermatozoa. Therefore, they
would be an all-male race.

If humanity lost it's males or females, humanity would be a dead race.  Pass whatever that is your smoking.

Nyoka wrote...
Likewise, women would continue producing ova
if all men died, so humanity would become an all-female race, which
sounds rather familiar.

Oh I get it :innocent: No. We'd all be doomed, 100 year tops. A outbreak ot two coupled with a natural diaster and it's over even faster.

Nyoka wrote...
As
for mind melding parthenogenesis as a means of reproduction, so what?

Sounds like a concession if I ever heard one.

Nyoka wrote...
Reproduction mechanics are not the defining factor here, production of
ova is. Unless, of course, folks are redefining terms to make them fit
into some argument.

Defining factor of what ?  Human gender ?  Takes some time to quote whatever it is your responding to, it makes it a lot more coherent.  As you('ll) see I can't even take your post seriously.  Thanks

Nyoka wrote...
Generally you don't want to define a
biological term mechanically, that is, including the "how" in the
definition.

Really ? Wow, can I quote you on that ?  ....nevermind.

Nyoka wrote...
The reason for this is nature is so diverse that no matter
how imaginative you are, you're likely to leave something out of the
definition. If you include limbs in the definition of locomotion, that
would mean worms don't move around. Similarly, if you include physical
fertilization in the definition of male and female, that would mean
asari are not female, which contradicts the Codex. Most times a good
definition will be conceptual (including only the "what", not the
"how"). The commonly accepted definition of male and female are good
definitions, and acording to those, all Asari are female. As female as
Femshep.

Decided on a new approach a line through whatever's irrelevant feel free to clarify if you feel you made a point in something I edited.  The codex is presented to the player as an alliance encylopedia as such it makes sense that it's listed in that way.  I've explained why in previous post.

Nyoka wrote...
The notion that because they reproduce differently they
can't be considered female contradicts not only the commonly accepted
definition, but algo how it's used in practice. We know plenty of
species who reproduce parthenogenetically sometimes. Example.
Nobody in the scientific community will tell you those snakes are not
female. It's just a bogus idea.

All done.  Thanks for the entertainment.

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 28 septembre 2011 - 04:39 .

[whywhywhywhy]

This is my last post to you I tire of this vicious circle.  I want you to know I understand your post I just disagree with them, they are wrong.  That and the fact you gloss over things you can't answer as not to say I'm wrong.  So to cut down on the amount of bulls-crude I'm ignoring the completely irrelevant though I might respond to ridiculous comments just to be clear.

edit:formatting
example of how you respond :

whywhywhywhy wrote...
It's obvious to me that your trying to shift he conversation into a new paradigm. Unable to argue against my position or support your own with sound theories, examples set in the ME universe or anything that could be taken as proof. Your aim is to change the game, I quote:

"The reason I feel comfortable comparing the mating interactions of a monogendered species with bigendered species such as humans and salarians and turians is precisely because there is apparently so little difference
biologically between asari and human females. "

"Appearance has a lot to do with gender in sexually dimorphic species. To argue differently is nonsensical. "

Your Argument was appearance played a role in defining gender.

Take note of what I highlighted in bold.  The very first thing in your response in bold/underlined

Athayniel wrote...
No... my argument has always been that appearance is a major factor in the identification of gender.

Are you really this confused ? 

Athayniel wrote...
What happened with my last post was that I realised we weren't having the same argument, but two different ones with respect to the approaches we're taking on the issue.

You sure about that ?  I think the above shows I have a complete understanding of your position you either don't understand or refuse to.  Either way I don't want to waste my time continuing.    It's obvious your ignoring facts for argument's sake so what motivation do I have to read the rest of your post ?  I'll pick something at random with a scroll + tap through your post. got a paragraph

Athayniel wrote...
Except the game itself has contradicted you. Kaiden remarks during the
confrontation scene between himself, Liara and femShep that he wasn't aware Shepard was attracted to women.

Howso ? Where is the relationship ?  Where is the lesbian reference that says the Asari accepted the human female as a lesbian lover ?  Kaiden's comment  ?  It's ingame does it supersede Liara's ingame comments of no gender ?  No.  Do I care if they are  viewed as Female ? No.  Have I said it's incorrect ? Absolutely.  So keep trying.

Athayniel wrote...
Clearly humans consider a relationship betwen a human woman and an asari to be a same sex relationship.

So kaiden speaks for every human ? Interesting and doesn't make Asari's gender Female just because someone considers them female.

Athayniel wrote...
You can try arguing that is only a single anecdote but I will posit that Kaiden's reaction will be the same as the majority of humanity's.

So your the authority on it, how dull I expected an actual argument.

Athayniel wrote...
When a human sees an asari they see an alien yes, but a
female alien. They do not render the asari genderless the way you insist they do. Being monogendered does not take away their gender.

Being mono-gendered they have no male or female gender.  What have you to say about Liara's dialog I quoted, I noticed(quick scan to be sure) yeah, you avoided it.  Answer that. Don't run from it.

Athayniel wrote...
As Nyoka has pointed out. If all human males suddenly vanished, that would not make human women any less female.

So are the two of you claiming Asari had males who all disappeared ?  You two remind me of a movie Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels starred in. (joke, chill)  But you are very boring to have this discussion against when all your doing is ignoring facts/points you can't deal with and repeating gibberish. 

It's only fun when you have points or counter points.  I've learned my lesson not to take people at their word on this forum.  Most have agenda's they're arguing and it's not the topic at hand and I can careless to be part of that.

Anyway I've no further reason to stomp your argument as if my pants leg is on fire it hasn't improved and is pointless.

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 28 septembre 2011 - 05:27 .

[Comsky159]

As long as they don't butcher old characters I'm cool.

I would also like to offer congratulations to the Major on another successful troll thread.

Modifié par Comsky159, 28 septembre 2011 - 05:53 .

[Athayniel]

Thanks for the discussion but I agree this will be my last post too. I spent entirely too long responding to your last one at a time when I should have been sleeping. I will only respond to one of your points. If somehow you choose to see that as my glossing over your other points... well I guess I can't stop you.

whywhywhywhy wrote...

This is my last post to you I tire of this vicious circle.  I want you to know I understand your post I just disagree with them, they are wrong.  That and the fact you gloss over things you can't answer as not to say I'm wrong.  So to cut down on the amount of bulls-crude I'm ignoring the completely irrelevant though I might respond to ridiculous comments just to be clear.

edit:formatting
example of how you respond :

whywhywhywhy wrote...
It's obvious to me that your trying to shift he conversation into a new paradigm. Unable to argue against my position or support your own with sound theories, examples set in the ME universe or anything that could be taken as proof. Your aim is to change the game, I quote:

"The reason I feel comfortable comparing the mating interactions of a monogendered species with bigendered species such as humans and salarians and turians is precisely because there is apparently so little difference
biologically between asari and human females. "

"Appearance has a lot to do with gender in sexually dimorphic species. To argue differently is nonsensical. "

Your Argument was appearance played a role in defining gender.

Take note of what I highlighted in bold.  The very first thing in your response in bold/underlined

Athayniel wrote...
No... my argument has always been that appearance is a major factor in the identification of gender.

Are you really this confused ?

Go back to my first post.

Athayniel wrote...
This right here is where your argument falls apart under the weight of your rationalising. If you admit the relationship between dudeShep and Tali or femShep and Garrus are both Xenosexual and Heterosexual then you cannot divest gender from the relationship between femShep and Liara.

Asari are not genderless. They have a gender which bears a striking resemblence to what humans would label as 'female'. From a biological standpoint, the asari share secondary sex characteristics, general aesthetics and reproductive roles with human females. For all intents and purposes the asari are an all-female species, regardless of how they would be classified scientifically.

For a human female to find the asari aesthetically attractive is because she is attracted to the features in the asari which are reminiscent of human women and those features are plentiful. I'm a guy and what I see is blue woman with rigid fleshy tentacles on her head. To argue the matter from some sort of technical classification angle is disingenuous at best.

You also cannot remove the opinion of the human partner from the equation when classifying the relationship. To do so removes their agency in the entire process.

And that's just rude.

See all the times I've bolded where I wrote about appearance. Admittedly I thought from that point on we would be on the same page but you chose to discount all of that in your replies and it was my mistake to think you were responding to them when in fact you were still arguing from the irrelevant technical classification angle.

Do you somehow believe biology has no effect on appearance? That when I say 'biologically' it isn't also a comment on the morphological aspects of appearance? Really?

anyway.... thanks... so long...

[Russalka]

But the problem is that they were designed to be blue tentacle-haired humans, to be discount lesbians, fan service.

To design a species that is totally bisexual, but not really, to argue that homosexual relationships do not exist up until now seems plain rude. And then people say that the gay people are being pandered to. Pandering has always been going on.

[mesmerizedish]

Asari pander to that mythical creature the industry is hunting to near-extinction: the straight male gamer!

[Copyright Theft]

OK, we've reached the 10 page mark without anyone agreeing on anything, time for all arguments to revert to exactly what they were on the first page. Then simply cycle into infinity!

[ElitePinecone]

Copyright Theft wrote...

OK, we've reached the 10 page mark without anyone agreeing on anything, time for all arguments to revert to exactly what they were on the first page. Then simply cycle into infinity!

^ Wisdom, you have it! 

I hardly need point out that discussing the pedant's definition of asari sexuality is an incredible waste of time, and not even relevant to the point of this thread to boot. 

[Dhiro]

Russalka wrote...

But the problem is that they were designed to be blue tentacle-haired humans, to be discount lesbians, fan service.

To design a species that is totally bisexual, but not really, to argue that homosexual relationships do not exist up until now seems plain rude. And then people say that the gay people are being pandered to. Pandering has always been going on.

I'll just leave this here:

[Anwarddyn]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

If all woman died the Human race would end after all the males reach the end of their lifespan.

In our real world, absolutely. But for argument's sake, in the Mass Effect world (the only one that matters for this discussion really) even humanity can procreate without females. Miri had no mother, she was made from 100% daddy DNA.

[whywhywhywhy]

[quote]Nyoka wrote...Unless parthenogenesis, which, by the way, the Asari have. It seems I have to explain the point more clearly: just because there are no males, doesn't mean the Asari are not female. That's the reason for the thought experiment of one of the human genders dying.[/quote] Is that your claim ?  That all Asari males died ?  What a round about way to get to a point, you were being so random it made no sense.  Still doesn't.

Let me point the main problems with your theory:
Asari have one none male or female gender.
Asari are not human
Asari males never died out
Asari never had males
No correlation exist between your imaginary scenario with humans and Asari

[quote]Nyoka wrote...Again: without males, females would continue being females. That simply can't be disputed unless you change the definition of the word.[/quote]This point has no bearing and works on the assumption that Asari are female and had Males that died out.  Both are wrong.

[quote]Nyoka wrote... Now, the asari reproduce via parthenogenesis. Which is entirely irrelevant for the question of whether they are female or not, since the definition of female doesn't involve reproduction mechanics, it only involves production of ova.[/quote]This is completely incorrect as it operates under the assumption Asari biology is the same or similiar to a humans.  Asari are alien.

[quote]Nyoka wrote...
I really can't explain it in a clearer way. It's not hard at all.
To everybody else: do you understand this explanation? Maybe it's just this guy, I don't know.[/quote] It's not me it's you.

[quote]Nyoka wrote...
Parthenogenesis is not cloning.[/quote] Your confused.  You brought up the human diaster in which all women mysteriously died, that comment was directed at that.  You then respond as if the context of the question pertained to Asari.  This reasoning is what makes me feel your posts were not to be taken seriously.  It's similiar to what Athayniel disagreeing to what I said his argument was and stating that same argument I mentioned as his argument.

Your argument was X
Athayniel- uhn uhnnn.  My argument was X!
Why4 heads for the door.

[quote]Nyoka wrote...
Of course I talk about that, since it involves the definition of male. Same way I talk about ova in relation to the commonly accepted definition of female.[/quote]Which deals with Human males and Human females.  Get it yet ?

[quote]Nyoka wrote...
Eh, I think we know a mechanism by which an monogendered race would not go extinct. That's right, parthenogenesis strikes again. [/quote]copy pasting the above answer: Your confused.  You brought up the human diaster in which all women mysteriously died, that comment was directed at that.  You then respond to it as if the context of the question pertained to Asari.  

You can't mix human and Asari which is what it seems your trying to do.

[quote]Nyoka wrote...
The point is you don't need one gender to define another. Females are females regardless of the existence of other genders. Asari are female.[/quote] I quote: "The point is you don't need one gender to define another."  Isn't this exactly what those who feel a human female and an Asari couple are lesbian ?  How does the human female gender define the mono-gendered species ?  Because they look alike ?  I think not.

My position isn't Asari aren't females because males don't exist.  My position is Asari are mono-gendered and lack a female or male gender.  This is also supported ingame.  It troubles me that the interpretation of my clearly presented argument has led you down the road of such random and abstract thinking, in your formation of my position as well as your response to it. I am left with one conclusion. 

And I say this with sincerity and humility you have no point and you are in over your head.

[quote]Nyoka wrote...
No, it isn't. I was trying to explain to you that the means of reproduction are irrelevant to this question. You kept saying stuff about how asari are parthenogenetic and therefore they can't be female. That's incorrect.[/quote]I said Asari aren't female because they are mono-gendered and any relationships with them are Xenosexual. 

I said that Asari aren't the same or similiar biologically as others claimed or insinuated, because Asari are Parthenogenetic.

[quote]Nyoka wrote...
Yes, human gender, as well as gender in general. Production of ova is what defines the female of a species. Parthenogenetic females are still females.[/quote] I imagine all alien species will have their own biology and not be defined by human biology.  Asari aren't females and nowhere did I ever say "they are parthenogenetic so they aren't female."  That is your own incorrect conclusion to operate on the assumption I did..


[quote]Nyoka wrote... Please do.[/quote]It was a joke, you hadn't made a point and I had already....nevermind. 

[quote]Nyoka wrote...
Yes, it makes sense for the Codex to categorize the Asari as female, since they are, according to the definition of the word.[/quote]The codex is presented to the player as a Alliance encyclopedia starting at ME1.  The alliance wrote it so listing Asari as female makes sense.  If you speak with Liara about here people she says:

"Althought we seek to understand other species, it seems few attempt to understand us.  The galaxy is filled with misinformation and rumors about my people." - Dr Tsoni.

"Most of the inaccuracies center around Asari mating rituals.  My species is mono-gendered. "Male" or "female" have no real meaning to us." - DR. Tsoni.

Thus the alliance definition is wrong.  So again it makes sense or is that too much for you to understand ?

[quote]Nyoka wrote...
What definition of the word "female" are you using? Whatever you're using, it's not the definition generally used among scientists, because the accepted one is the one I have been trying to tell you about.[/quote]Their's nothing wrong with my definition and obviously something wrong with your applicational use of the word. Thanks for trying but we're done here.

[quote]Nyoka wrote...
Did you like those female parthenogenetic snakes? Do you think they are not female because they reproduced without the intervention of other genders, or that scientists should not say they are female?
[/quote]I have no idea what your talking about, maybe a past comment I skipped after you started talking about men still being men if all women died ?

update:found it.
[quote]Nyoka wrote...
The notion that because they reproduce differently they can't be
considered female contradicts not only the commonly accepted definition[/quote]copy paste response from above:  Nowhere did I ever say "they are parthenogenetic so they aren't female."  That is your own incorrect
conclusion to operate on the assumption I did.

What I said was: "I said that Asari aren't the same or similiar biologically as
others claimed or insinuated, because Asari are Parthenogenetic." - A bad mofo:lol:

[quote]Nyoka wrote...

but algo how it's used in practice. We know plenty of species who reproduce parthenogenetically sometimes. Example. Nobody in the scientific community will tell you those snakes are not female. It's just a bogus
idea.[/quote] Irrelevant, and misdirected attempt.  Thank.  I'm done with this conversation as noone is able to refute my position with a sensible, rational and wonderfully stunning theory/post/argument.

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 29 septembre 2011 - 10:35 .

[whywhywhywhy]

Anwarddyn wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

If all woman died the Human race would end after all the males reach the end of their lifespan.

In our real world, absolutely. But for argument's sake, in the Mass Effect world (the only one that matters for this discussion really) even humanity can procreate without females. Miri had no mother, she was made from 100% daddy DNA.

Yes Miri was made without a mother but given the fact that her father was an extremely wealthy man precludes that this technology would be available to the common man.  She also can't have babies.  Side effect from her creation ? 

An all human male race akin to the Asari is impossible as Asari don't resort to sceintific manipulation, they aren't born or created in a lab.  Which would be the only means for survival for a all human male race should they overcome all the other crucial hurdles.    

So what's the point if humans could repopulate this way ?  They'd be a scientifically engineered race.  What does that prove ?

[whywhywhywhy]

whywhywhywhy wrote...
Really, hmm.  So perserving the game as is before s/s relationships are added on one side of the toggle.  And adding the s/s relationship in as the other side of the toggle messes up the gameplay ?  This bears repeating.

The game had no s/s content initially, preserving that as a Base ME3 relationship module(BME3RHE).  And adding the s/s ME3 relationship module in whatever way it's going to be implemented(SME3RHO).  Messes up gameplay ?

So upon character creation you click straight the game loads BME3RHE module.  If you choose Gay the game loads SME3RHO module or if you Bi it loads ME3RFREE4ALL module(omits tailoring of Male/female shep content).  Understand however s/s is implemented is how it'll play it wouldn't mess up anything. 

Now that we can disregard that false complaint explain to me how my wanting a BME3RHE module is offensive ?  If it's offensive in anyway it's towards me or others like me who want BME3RHE and are being told we can't have it because it's offensive despite the fact ME1 and 2 was based on BME3RHE. 

Why would something like this be considered offensive ? Or wouldn't work ? 

That's what I want someone to explain to me.  Oh and it needs to make sense.

[Russalka]

It has been said over and over that it acts as a censor and caters to those who find homosexuality offensive.

Plenty of people were not fine with Zevran in Dragon Age, rarely Leliana, boasting on the forums how they killed him not because he wanted to assassinate the Warden, but flirted with him.

I don't think a lot of people want to turn off heterosexual relationships either. People dealt with space lesbians in the previous games just fine. But suddenly, when there is the slightest possibility of a male character flirting with male Shepard, we need to have a toggle?

If you wish to argue for the toggle because homosexual relationships "did not exist" in previous games, then what about other character developments? Many new possibilities will probably arise in the ME3 plot with other relationships too, I imagine. Should those have a toggle to be turned off to please the people who dislike seeing new options everywhere? 

Plenty of people dislike the omni-blade. What option do they have? Not to use it. Maybe people who dislike gay relationships should just not pursue them either?

Modifié par Russalka, 29 septembre 2011 - 12:19 .

[ElitePinecone]

^ The argument is moot, since it won't happen anyway.

This thread is an exercise in sophistry. If you can't see the folly in filtering already-optional content, there's no point having a discussion.

More to the point: why the obsession with 'preserving' some sort of sanctified straight Mass Effect universe? Why, in all honesty, do you find that so confronting? Is the capacity to choose optional content that offensive that you have to design an elaborate module schema?