233 réponses à ce sujet

[Banana Muffin]

Pyromanen wrote...

Having spent some 5 months studying the phenomenon at university, i'd like to state something rather controversial.

I dont believe in global warming.

It cant be scientificly proven, the global average temperatures they use to prove it are technicly impossible to make accurate, and just plain wrong.
Global warming has become a religion in it's own right, many consider what i've just said here heresy.

No you are entitled to your opinion but most scientist will disagree with you. But the main thing is that if the majority of scientists are right about global warning and we ignore the problem we are utterly and completely screwed. If  however the sceptics are right and we take unecessary precautions it's not really that big of a problem. It's not like it's a bad thing to decrease out dependancy on fossil fuels anyway.
I really don't get how the sceptics can think it's ok to play russian roulette with our earth.

[Dark83]

Johohoho.Ehehehe wrote...

"It's fact amongst those in the field." It is not. They did not prove it, they vote for it like a religious conclave. Many scientists refuse it whereby committing heresy. Did not scientists "prove" that smoking was healthy not so long ago? Scientists are nothing more than PR with academic titles for their sponsors - corporations and governments in a nutshell. Any salesman would "prove" that the vacuum cleaner produced by their employer is actually the best. And they do so on a daily basis.

I love how you've deliberately mistated the situation completely backwards.

The utterly crap papers about "smoking is healthy" is obviously lies - created by "scientists" on the payroll of the tobacco companies. Those were obviously revealed to be fake by the rest of the scientific community.

Climate Change is currently accepted. The most hilarious thing about you bringing up the tobacco companies is that that only opposition to Climate Change are all bought out by corporate interests.

Perhaps while you're busy adjusting your tinfoil hat, you'll actually research the "many scientists who refuse", because the last time I did that about 2 years ago, 100% of them were bought and paid for by corporate interests. Every single credible scientists that signed onto a declaration that it was false - and upon that same paper, were hundreds of completely irrelevant people. (One I remember was a post-grad who did biology. Wtf.)

If you look into the credentials of those who wrote the "smoking is healthy" papers, you'll see they've been bought by corporate interests. If you look into the credentials of those who oppose the theory of climate change, and you'll see exactly the same. As of two years ago, there has been at least three seperate groups of scientists who've banded together to oppose Climate Change, only to be exposed as either frauds or corporate shills.

[Xzenorath]

Banana Muffin wrote...

Pyromanen wrote...

Having spent some 5 months studying the phenomenon at university, i'd like to state something rather controversial.

I dont believe in global warming.

It cant be scientificly proven, the global average temperatures they use to prove it are technicly impossible to make accurate, and just plain wrong.
Global warming has become a religion in it's own right, many consider what i've just said here heresy.

No you are entitled to your opinion but most scientist will disagree with you. But the main thing is that if the majority of scientists are right about global warning and we ignore the problem we are utterly and completely screwed. If  however the sceptics are right and we take unecessary precautions it's not really that big of a problem. It's not like it's a bad thing to decrease out dependancy on fossil fuels anyway.
I really don't get how the sceptics can think it's ok to play russian roulette with our earth.

I think the problem lies in the fact that it's too little too late, not that they would rather play russian roulette with our earth. The polar caps aren't going to freeze over simply because we stop driving cars... if you actually believe this, then you're delusional.

It would take SO long for it to freeze back to what it used to be, something else will have destroyed earth by the time we're back to original status.

That, is more or less a "scientific fact".

In the end, whatever you think helps, is really such a tiny little nothing in the grand scheme of things, it'll happen no matter what we do at this point.

[stevej713]

Maybe I should read more pages, but from what I've seen, global warming is the reason why sex is not in video games. Maybe the developers just aren't used to the warm Edmonton summers.

[Sebiale]

Short answer: We are more acclimated to violence than sex.

[Dark83]

Johohoho.Ehehehe wrote...

I'm used to the principle that the prosecutor bears the burden of proof.

This statement, and the attitude and nature of your other posts, clearly highlight a lack of scientific training. that's not how science works.

You have a theory. You test it. If it's proven wrong, you adjust your theory, and try again.
Evolution, Gravity, the Germ Theory of Disease, Climate Change - all these theories are tested and adjusted as new information becomes available. (Even Gravity - our understanding of it changed within the last two years in terms of how it propergates, and the speed at which it does so.)
These theories have no political or theological implications beyond what others give them.

[addiction21]

stevej713 wrote...

Maybe I should read more pages, but from what I've seen, global warming is the reason why sex is not in video games. Maybe the developers just aren't used to the warm Edmonton summers.

I would reccomend reading more.  Its a rather interesting journey.

[BubbRubb]

Dark83 wrote...

Johohoho.Ehehehe wrote...

I'm used to the principle that the prosecutor bears the burden of proof.

This statement, and the attitude and nature of your other posts, clearly highlight a lack of scientific training. that's not how science works.

You have a theory. You test it. If it's proven wrong, you adjust your theory, and try again.
Evolution, Gravity, the Germ Theory of Disease, Climate Change - all these theories are tested and adjusted as new information becomes available. (Even Gravity - our understanding of it changed within the last two years in terms of how it propergates, and the speed at which it does so.)
These theories have no political or theological implications beyond what others give them.

Wow, someone sure think they're smart.

[Dark83]

Oh, I should note that one must distinguish between the "scientific theory of climate change", and a political movement "fight climate change". The theory is sound. The latter however assumes that humanity is responsible and can affect it. That is debatable, and not covered by the theory.

[Fluffykeith]

MrJackdaw wrote...

Why not take Pascal's wager over climate change?

If it is true and we do nothing - we lose everything.
If it is false and we do something - we lose very little.

As I see it the argument here holds well.

If we save fuel - a finite resource - we are holding back a problem our children will face. If we reduce pollution, we will help preserve the forests by a reduction in acid rain etc. The benefits run wide.

Well said.

Its the only planet we have, folks....we aren't going to be colonising anywhere else any time soon. Whats the harm in acting appropriately...just in case? Nothing wrong with caution.

[Banana Muffin]

Zenon wrote...

Concerning the original questions I would like to add a suggestion for future games and sequels:

I like DA:O as is and am happy to have an uncut version in Germany, where often violence gets crippled. Still, not everyone likes it. My idea: Please add violence at various levels with a setting in the preferences/options similar to: 0 no blood, 1 a little blood, 2 a lot of blood, 3 fountains of blood spattered everywhere

Do something similar with nudity and sex. Of course the player actually can choose not to follow romance options at all, but perhaps it is better to have something like: 0 dressed characters (like in NWN2), 1 underwear (like in DA:O), 2 nudity, but artfully hidden with max "sideboob" (like in ME), 3 full nudity with erotic adult content (tastefully done without being pornographic like in Fahrenheit)

You thought Fahrenheit was pornographic like? You haven't seen much porn have you?
You can't have watched much TV either, Californication, True Blood, Nip/Tuck, all of them have more graphic sex than that in each episode.

Modifié par Banana Muffin, 02 décembre 2009 - 10:25 .

[ZeroPlan]

MrJackdaw wrote...

Why not take Pascal's wager over climate change?

If it is true and we do nothing - we lose everything.
If it is false and we do something - we lose very little.

As I see it the argument here holds well.

If we save fuel - a finite resource - we are holding back a problem our children will face. If we reduce pollution, we will help preserve the forests by a reduction in acid rain etc. The benefits run wide.

This i call common sense. Noone can deny the consequences we already have, because of pollution. You can see it all over the world. Dying trees , polluted rivers, fish populations dying. Even if there is no global warming, we all benefit from laws wich prevent greedy companies from destroying our environment.

[Banana Muffin]

Xzenorath wrote...

Banana Muffin wrote...

Pyromanen wrote...

Having spent some 5 months studying the phenomenon at university, i'd like to state something rather controversial.

I dont believe in global warming.

It cant be scientificly proven, the global average temperatures they use to prove it are technicly impossible to make accurate, and just plain wrong.
Global warming has become a religion in it's own right, many consider what i've just said here heresy.

No you are entitled to your opinion but most scientist will disagree with you. But the main thing is that if the majority of scientists are right about global warning and we ignore the problem we are utterly and completely screwed. If  however the sceptics are right and we take unecessary precautions it's not really that big of a problem. It's not like it's a bad thing to decrease out dependancy on fossil fuels anyway.
I really don't get how the sceptics can think it's ok to play russian roulette with our earth.

I think the problem lies in the fact that it's too little too late, not that they would rather play russian roulette with our earth. The polar caps aren't going to freeze over simply because we stop driving cars... if you actually believe this, then you're delusional.

It would take SO long for it to freeze back to what it used to be, something else will have destroyed earth by the time we're back to original status.

That, is more or less a "scientific fact".

In the end, whatever you think helps, is really such a tiny little nothing in the grand scheme of things, it'll happen no matter what we do at this point.

Uhm..ok..
So you are basically saying that we should just sit down and wait for the world to end?
well that's cheerful.

Modifié par Banana Muffin, 02 décembre 2009 - 10:27 .

[Taleroth]

What's up with airline peanuts?

[Dark83]

BubbRubb wrote...

Wow, someone sure think they're smart.

No, that's again the complete opposite of how it works.
One graduates from high school thinking they know everything.
One graduates from university knowing they don't know anything.

It is because I do not think that I am smarter than the collective scientific community that I actually research and look into questionable claims. Someone who does think they're smart makes bold claims without anything to back them, because they're utterly convinced they're correct.

With regards to climate change, I once had a 12 hour debate with some people over it, and we ended up pulling out all sorts of information. At the end, we concluded that the only people who flat out refute the theory are all questionable, but that the credible scientists all support the theory, BUT disagree on two key things: if humans are responsible (and to what extent), and what can (or should) be done about it. It turns out those of us in the debate merely disagreed on the latter points as well. We agreed to disagree, because the latter point is not something covered by the theory.

The theory of climate change does not account for economics (Why are there so many cows/cars? Will reducing them help?) it merely observes what is happening, creates a framework for the observations with which we can make predictions. The framework is tested and adjusted with each observation. This is how science works. You should have learned this in high school.

Edit: As an example, elsewhere I was engaged in a discussion about EULAs. I acknowledge my own ignorance there, and won't state more than I know. Part of being in university isn't to teach you information, you can do that on your own. It's to teach you how to research and think. That's what makes it different from secondary education. Part of this is learning that others know more than you - but at the same time, you should verify your sources. This was how we discovered that the scientific theory of climate change wasn't actually debated, but challenged by those who were all uniformly untrustworthy or unqualified.

Modifié par Dark83, 02 décembre 2009 - 10:31 .

[Fluffykeith]

Johohoho.Ehehehe wrote...

Fluffykeith wrote...

I respect you right to have formed that opinion, Pyromanen. I'd just like to say that having spent 4 years studying the environment at University, and having achieved a degree in the subject, I do believe that global warming is occuring and I do believe that mankind has had and continues to have an impact on it.

Sorry for such harsh example, please, do not feel offended, it is not personal: Anyone who went through an SS Academy during 30s in Germany was wholeheartedly confident that the teaching they received were absolutely true. Anyone would be in their shoes I believe.

I'm not daft enough to be offended by something like that, although I find it interesting that you went for such a hardcore example.

All I will do is point out a what I believe is a major difficulty with your example. The SS Academy's were about indoctrination, yes? However, at University I was taught that its important to think for yourself, that the most important statement in science is "I do not know" because it is the first step to learning, admitting a lck of knowledge and then seeking to learn. I was taught to examine information and come to my own, informed conclusions based on that information, something which I doubt they were teaching in SS Academy. 

Don't leap to the assumption that just because I've looked at the information and decided for myself that global warming is real, that I'm some sort of indoctrinated zombie.

Anyhow...whats this got to do with the topic of the thread?

[Treylinn]

The fact of the matter is you CAN'T marry a styrofoam cooler! So why is this discussion still going on? o.O

[xxcasdegerexx]

First off I do not much care for the insinuation that Mass Effect, DA:O are anything like the GTA (ETC) series which rewards your character for their two fisted, bullet nosed brutality. I am all for freedom of speech and expression and Capitalism but just because you CAN do a thing does not necessarily mean, you should. Portraying "needless" violence, brutality, sexual deviency should never be installed into any kind of media where a child may be able to view and interact with it. There is absolutely no excuse that can be created to justify such a thing. Every ounce of innocense that a child loses before he/she is ready is a ton of heartache later on. It is our responsibility as a society to proliferate this notion. Now some may suggest that The News is guilty of this but I dissagree. WIth parental guidance to explain what is happening a child is likely to come out of such a viewing understanding his/her world a bit more. There is no way to explain away how using a rocket launcher in a school yard to kill a rival gang is necessary however...

Games like Mass Effect, Da:O, Oblivion...Heroes, foes,  Romance, Obstacles, Antagonists, Protagonists, a colorful story, Defeats, Successes, Good over Evil, these games seek to bring forth a novel, a story and to allow someone to rewrite the story to a degree, help shape it and be apart of it. There is violence but not for violence's sake. (Unless ofcourse you play a bad person) The blood and gore is added color and for me, is not at all necessary. (Isn't there a toggle?) The sex scenes do not show all that much but there is enough to tell that the characters are sharing an intimate moment. Now I am not at all saying that a child should be playing these games. They should not. Pajama Sam etc. are more the speed I would consider appropriate for a child. A little older, perhaps games like Lego Star Wars etc. For Teens, shall I even suggest The Sims?(I always hated those games) But my point is every parent with a problemed child  points fingers toward everyone else but themselves when their own children do horrific things. It is they, themselves who have failed their children, not society and certainly not a maker of a video game.

The other main issue is that there is just to much dam freetime on their hands. It used to be everyone worked hard for the family unit to survive. Now, kids spend a very small amount of time doing anything productive for their families or for themselves and they are constantly rewarded for it having to do nothing to earn anything. idle hands and idle minds quite often find ways of getting into trouble. Anyone who claims that they know the maturity level of their children would not give them a copy of GTA to play. Iv'e seen it so many times. A geeky kid relishing in his status as a crime overlord. Giggling his butt off while he kills a hooker his character was pimping because she didn't give him enough money and their own father is behind him just cracking up like it is such the coolest thing ever...I find such a thing appauling on so many levels but it appears that that is where we are headed. Adults want their children to grow up so dam fast so that they themselves will gain enjoyment or have less responsibilty. Its just sick...

[Pyromanen]

Dark83 wrote...

Pyromanen wrote...

Having spent some 5 months studying the phenomenon at university, i'd like to state something rather controversial.

I dont believe in global warming.

It cant be scientificly proven, the global average temperatures they use to prove it are technicly impossible to make accurate, and just plain wrong.

I strongly doubt it is literally impossible - it merely seems technically impossible to you because you lack knowledge of the techniques. Do you have something specific to call impossible with regards to, for example, the Artic ice cores or upper level temperature readings?

A global average temperature is technicly impossible to measure.
We simply dont have enough measuring stations spread out evenly enough over the surface of the earth to do such a thing, and given how most of the earth is covered in water, i doubt we'll ever have them.

[Pyro_Monkey]

Wow, how'd the topic turn to climate change? anyway, back to where we started..



Part of the problem may be that in the US (and yes, Canada too, though I hate to admit it. We must've been corrupted by those darn Americans), have such strict laws against sex and nudity in games. It occurs to me that kids growing up have a distinct lack of positive role models. I mean, the only sex in the media is in pornos, and that's hardly a positive influence. Having normal relationships in video games and movies may be exactly what North Americans need.

[Creature 1]

Zenon wrote...

Ok, I admit, that the discussion -- especially the part I got most involved in -- got a bit out of hand. Actually comparing one kind of victim with another doesn't serve anyone well. I reacted to "Creature 1"'s comment, because I felt it indeed did belittle the holocaust. In Germany you can even get sued and possibly go to jail for that.

It wasn't my intent to compare quantitatively and say one was worse or better, it was a qualitative comparison--they're both, to use a word you don't pull out very often, abominable. 

In the US we have freedom of speech and people can talk about whatever topics they like without fearing legal prosecution, so Germany's laws seem very strange.  I guess in context this infringement of rights is understandable, since we have laws against inciting a crime, and anti-Semitism did lead to a crime of national proportions not too long ago in Germany. 

Concerning morality: It's my view, that morale is closely related to a specific cultural background. If such things are supported or accepted in one country or culture it's not my position to judge. If they do it in my country, where it is considered murder, of course the killer has to be punished according to local laws. Just to set things straight. I think this is comprehensible for everyone reading this.

I would disagree.  I think there is a universal moral law--Do unto others as you would have done unto you.  People who go about enslaving or killing others are violating that principle, and their victims certainly see what's being done to them as a crime.  Certainly when we look back at someone in 1800 who owned slaves (as a convenient example, not saying that you would think it ok), treated them like property, and saw nothing wrong with it we can't judge them with the same harshness we would judge a pro-slavery white supremicist now, because in their culture that was considered normal so it would be hard for them to know better.  But that doesn't mean that we can't say that they were wrong for supporting slavery, or that we can't seek reforms in other nations or cultures to make them more cognizant of human rights. 

It's not my intention to insult anyone. I lived in the US about a year myself and found many things I like about America. There are also things, I see critical, but I won't go on further on this topic. Furthermore the values of the constitution are very positive and I agree with them.

Thanks, I'm fond of the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. 

[Pyromanen]

Banana Muffin wrote...

Pyromanen wrote...

Having spent some 5 months studying the phenomenon at university, i'd like to state something rather controversial.

I dont believe in global warming.

It cant be scientificly proven, the global average temperatures they use to prove it are technicly impossible to make accurate, and just plain wrong.
Global warming has become a religion in it's own right, many consider what i've just said here heresy.

No you are entitled to your opinion but most scientist will disagree with you. But the main thing is that if the majority of scientists are right about global warning and we ignore the problem we are utterly and completely screwed. If  however the sceptics are right and we take unecessary precautions it's not really that big of a problem. It's not like it's a bad thing to decrease out dependancy on fossil fuels anyway.
I really don't get how the sceptics can think it's ok to play russian roulette with our earth.

I would very gladly discuss these things in depth with anyone, and present the things me and my fellow students found in our project, and listen to what people have to say, but im a sceptic. What i saw during the research we did for that project leads me to believe that the concensus among scientists we hear about is not as big as it's being advertised as being.
I read interviews with scientists who worked with the UN panel on climate change, who literally had to threaten to sue them to get thier names taken out of UN reports, because they coudnt stand by what they published, now that hardly sounds credible to me.