233 réponses à ce sujet

[Creature 1]

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.

Creature 1 approves.  (+10)

[Dark83]

Pyromanen wrote...

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.

Really? We can measure annual rainfall/water absorbtion all over the planet, but we can't get temperature? This is your only concern? "We can't possibly have that many measuring stations."? What about the high altitude measurements (which were actually the single largest problem with climate control at the time I was researching it, prior to it being reconciled), or the ice cores?

[BomimoDK]

montana_boy wrote...

Psychoray wrote...

TripedWire wrote...

Personally I have no problem with either and it baffles me why some people are all 'OMG sex! gayelfsex BAN THIS FILTH!!' whilst barely batting an eyelid at the hyperviolence throughout the game.
Amidst the endless bloody beheadings, eviscerations, impalements, exploding guts and all sorts of **** flying arond theres a little bump and grind and people get ofended? by that?

I give no ****s, that is retarded.

America.

That's right, of course, how could anyone not see it... its the good old U.S. of A that is the culprit.  Any other nation is just wonderful but America... that is the problem.

Good grief!

no other nation cares about the content of a video game. at least here in northern europe we're allowed to decide what we want to see and play without some politician giving a speech or some pissy parent and a jack thompson going "OMFG IT'S TEH BOOBZ!!!" or" WTF IZ UP WITH SHOOZING ZIVILJANZ AT AN AJRPÅRT!!!"
even the people here who are most sensitive to these subjects say, "chill, it's a game" the Videogame-spreads-insanity thing is sooo late 90's and i don't believe it for ****s.
but still, America and china is still in a panic on this, the only difference is that america has enough free speech for the sicko's who haven't actually played and experienced the effects of this content in games (which is nonexistent) rant on about how this is kill simulations training murderers.
i wouldn't be able to kill anyone in real life, and many would say the same.
so yeah. america *facepalm*

[BomimoDK]

Johohoho.Ehehehe wrote...

Cryo84 wrote...

Clearly, religion is the only method used in history to control peoples behavior.

Never mind the USSR, **** Germany, the PRC, Global warming, etc etc.

The problem isn't religion or state, its people.

EDIT, wow, you can't say the name of the National Socialist German Workers party on this forum, THATS enlightenment for you.

Communism, n-a-z-i-sm, Global Warmig etc. are modern religions.

EDIT: Why the hell is the word "n-a-z-i" censored, whereas the word "communism" is not? Has the person who created such automatic censorship actually grown up in a country that used to suffer from any of those regimes? If they have, they would actually realise how silly is to pretend there is a difference between them.

face-****ign-palm. communistic ideals are not bad at all, the regimes who went by them were. but half of europe runs sociologic and kommunistic based health care, so does the US. but americans seem unable to grasp that anything unamerican could work.

[Dark83]

Pyromanen wrote...

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.

With regards to your last, I came accross that too.
The question, as you said, is magnitude (in addition to responsibility). Not it's existance. At worst, it's something like 3 degrees centigrade over 50 years? There's a huge debate over if that'll even do anything.

You appear to acknowledge the theory is correct, but are doubting the conclusions drawn (magnitude, consequences, etc), yes?

[ZeroPlan]

BomimoDK wrote...

montana_boy wrote...

Psychoray wrote...

TripedWire wrote...

Personally I have no problem with either and it baffles me why some people are all 'OMG sex! gayelfsex BAN THIS FILTH!!' whilst barely batting an eyelid at the hyperviolence throughout the game.
Amidst the endless bloody beheadings, eviscerations, impalements, exploding guts and all sorts of **** flying arond theres a little bump and grind and people get ofended? by that?

I give no ****s, that is retarded.

America.

That's right, of course, how could anyone not see it... its the good old U.S. of A that is the culprit.  Any other nation is just wonderful but America... that is the problem.

Good grief!

no other nation cares about the content of a video game. at least here in northern europe we're allowed to decide what we want to see and play without some politician giving a speech or some pissy parent and a jack thompson going "OMFG IT'S TEH BOOBZ!!!" or" WTF IZ UP WITH SHOOZING ZIVILJANZ AT AN AJRPÅRT!!!"
even the people here who are most sensitive to these subjects say, "chill, it's a game" the Videogame-spreads-insanity thing is sooo late 90's and i don't believe it for ****s.
but still, America and china is still in a panic on this, the only difference is that america has enough free speech for the sicko's who haven't actually played and experienced the effects of this content in games (which is nonexistent) rant on about how this is kill simulations training murderers.
i wouldn't be able to kill anyone in real life, and many would say the same.
so yeah. america *facepalm*

Thats not right, many other countries care about video game content. But they may care less about sex , but more about violence or drug related content. In Germany games can completely be banned if the content is too brutal. Happens for Max Payne, Postal 2 and many other games (i don't know them all, but it's abig list).

[GHL_Soul_Reaver]

I still don't get why there is a problem with the issue of sexual content in game contra violent content or whatever, I think it is a fine addition to the game diversity as it is.



Putting the problem up against STDs, teenage pregnancy and whatever else is irrelevan and is caused by a bad socity and often due to religious affairs as well as it is, duh making something a sin when it is not just cause bad stuff to happen and then, and then there is the lack of sexual content in schools at some places in a way that the teens do not get to understand what it is all about and what by nature happens if you do not protect yourself causing problems for those people in general due to knowing what happens naturally to your body is not allowed.



What happens when you do not get informed about stuff? Well you go down to your ancient instincts and multiply for then finding out that it was not the time for it and that you now have to pay for it by having a screw up life because you was not informed, your parents did not want to inform you because it was taboo in your family, the family cast you away for having committed a 'sin' which is bad, I think that many people in way get the ways how religion should be in a wrong way, dunno I live in Europe myself, we have like 1000s years of history at many places here, where as teh US only got a few 100 years with technically mixed society.. what does that mean... it mean that Europe had that much more time to get civilized than the US... in some ways you can compare the US to the middle east, they both got insane fanatics weather they are christian, muslims, jews, catholics, methodists or whatever there is always them fanatics... those fanatics often get away with dominating some people 'desire demon thing' sort of speaking and that makes them blind due to brainwashing and whatever.



It means that a small group of highups makes it a hell for everyone else and enforce them into what to do or whatever... religion and politics are the same, and in either world weather it is religion or politics there is dictators at some places or socities.



Those dictators or whatever that causes fanatical problems need to be fought down weather if it is on the homefront or somewhere else and that is what we do, it would be better though if you clear the homefront first though, that way you got your back covered.

[Creature 1]

Johohoho.Ehehehe wrote...

Dark83 wrote...

If Global Warming is a religion, then so is Gravity, Evolution, Electromagnetism, and the study of Germs.

... and flat Globe, the amount of iron in spinach, smoking is healthy, the superiority of German race etc.

EDIT: Did you actually put that fantasy novel called Evolution amongst scientific theories such as Gravity?

The theory of evolution is a valid scientific theory, the foundation of our understanding of biology, and better understood than the theory of gravity. 

[Pyromanen]

Dark83 wrote...

Pyromanen wrote...

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.

Really? We can measure annual rainfall/water absorbtion all over the planet, but we can't get temperature? This is your only concern? "We can't possibly have that many measuring stations."? What about the high altitude measurements (which were actually the single largest problem with climate control at the time I was researching it, prior to it being reconciled), or the ice cores?

The question is how accurate those measurements we do make are. For alot of purposes, they might be good enough. But claiming that we're dooming the world with a rise in temperature of 0.6 degrees over the last 50 years when the stated degree of inaccuracy on those measurements is about 1.0 degrees, seems rather like bad scientific form to me.
While im not an expert on ice cores, i've read reports that conclude very different things from the deep core drillings that have been done, which leaves me wondering if any conclusive evidence can be drawn from them, either way.

One major problem with the climate models used by the UN to fortell the doom of our planet, is that they suck.
They assume that the outlet of carbondioxide will double almost instantly, and they are hugely inaccurate because we do not yet understand one of the major contributors to the green hosue effect, clouds.
it might sound trivial that clouds can screw up something like that, but from what i've read, they do.

Im not against lower carbondioxide emissions and cutting back on pollution as such, ot pouring funds into research for alternative and renewable sources of fuel, what i do object to is the crusade against the buring of fossil fuels that has swept over the world these last few years. I'd be happy to promote research into new sources of energy to solve the problem of us running out of fossil fuels and to reduce the proven pollution the burning of these create, it just doesnt sit well with me that the motivation for doing so is fear of carbondioxide.

[Pyromanen]

Dark83 wrote...

Pyromanen wrote...

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.

With regards to your last, I came accross that too.
The question, as you said, is magnitude (in addition to responsibility). Not it's existance. At worst, it's something like 3 degrees centigrade over 50 years? There's a huge debate over if that'll even do anything.

You appear to acknowledge the theory is correct, but are doubting the conclusions drawn (magnitude, consequences, etc), yes?

I dont deny that carbondioxide is a green house gas, and that it could affect temperature, not at all, what i am questioning is our understanding of how or why such changes happen, and the conclusions drawn about it in popular science, which is sadly the kind of science politicians are most likely to get in touch with. I question wether the global warming of 0.6 degrees over the last 50 years exists, because i've seen to proof of it, no proof that i havent also seen disproved in scientific writings atleast.

[Creature 1]

GHL_Soul_Reaver wrote...
I live in Europe myself, we have like 1000s years of history at many places here, where as teh US only got a few 100 years with technically mixed society.. what does that mean... it mean that Europe had that much more time to get civilized than the US... in some ways you can compare the US to the middle east, they both got insane fanatics weather they are christian, muslims, jews, catholics, methodists or whatever there is always them fanatics... those fanatics often get away with dominating some people 'desire demon thing' sort of speaking and that makes them blind due to brainwashing and whatever.

Wow.  Do you think Americans just popped up out of nowhere in 1776?  Spontaneous generation?  Alien invasion (in the extraterrestrial sense!)?  America was founded by Europeans, so the founders were as "civilized" as contemporary Europeans at the time, which was really not very (the reason half of the settlers was there was to escape religious persecution). 

Gosh yes, the fanatical Methodists.  Got to watch out for them.  They're quite the threat with their fanatical pro-peace, gay-friendly agenda. 

Modifié par Creature 1, 02 décembre 2009 - 10:51 .

[jalford1980]

Because we live in a country where its ok to give kids toy guns and let them "pretend kill" eachother, but we have trouble talking to them about sex.......which is completly natural.  Though i guess you can say violence is natural too, but come on.....we give kids toy guns for christ sake and we wonder why people shoot eachother........hilarious.

Many european countries find sex perfectly normal but refuse to show viloence on TV....somehow that makes more sense....and the funny thing here is, im totally against gun control and about as far from the liberal side(politically, not morally)as you can get.

[GHL_Soul_Reaver]

Some say that we the US and EU founded Sadam Husein and Aghanistan as well, look at how it runs at those places.



Yes The Europeans founded the US... then left it alone.. the US and EU founded Iraq and Aghanistan back then and left it alone, see what that was alike over just the last 20-30 years.



Not playing the wise or the stupid or whatever person here, just trying to say what history leads to and that it seem like the same tendency worldwide no matter what we do.... the fun thing you mention about the religious thing though is that it is opposite now lol... more relaxed relationship towards religion here than over there..

[Zenon]

Banana Muffin wrote...

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.

I wrote TASTEFULLY DONE WITHOUT (!!!!) BEING PORNOGRAPHIC. Read properly and think before posting.

No need to mention, but I watched enough hardcore porn to know the difference. And I don't need such in a game, other than that I'd have added an option 4 in my suggestion, but I didn't. Still, I feel DA:O is a step backwards compared to ME (or Fahrenheit). But since some players don't want to see boobs, it would make sense to have a setting limiting the nudity in a game voluntarily while giving others the option to see love scenes without underwear. With Google you'd find some footage of Fahrenheit gameplay love scenes to know what I mean.

[red8x]

Actually there was sex in the game.. it's just that you guys couldn't stay on topic to see it.

[rdr99]

I might add a comment or two, being as that I resemble my avatar and would be considered "old" by most of the people here.

1) I don't know how global warming got into a thread about sex taboos in video games unless there is a general belief that if everyone "does it" the temperature will rise and learning the art of seduction in a video game will lend iteself to that.

2) Since we are all here, and very few of us resulted from "test tube" enviornments, we can assume that most of you approve of sexuality in general. If video games can allow other types of human interaction, from outright carnage to theft, lockpicking, coercion, or indeed, acts of kindness, strategy, and good conduct, cannot we allow that learning seduction or at least finding ways to pick a partner to spend some time with might be an equally important skill set that could be treated in video games with consequences of both the rewarding as well as disappointing variety? It's a cold world out there... Perhaps some of these things SHOULD be reviewed in games before the real thing takes place.

[thegreateski]

This thread has degenerated into complete and utter ****.

Modifié par thegreateski, 02 décembre 2009 - 11:08 .

[LichtVonWahrheit]

It is disturbing to see people still deny evolution, often simply because 'the book doesn't say that'. I will not entertain a conversation about the topic with one who doesn't use reason to come to their conclusion



It is simple enough, Genetic recombination and Sexual reproduction, selective mating. Evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Are your children exact copies of you? Are you an exact cope of your parents? No, you are contain a unique genetic makeup that is DIFFERENT from even your closest family.



Every generation has different genetic material, it may only be .0001% different BUT it is different and has changed from the last generation. And there you have evolution, not huge changes, but little changes, sometimes unnoticeable, that add up over thousands of years.

[blondesolid]

never mind

Modifié par blondesolid, 02 décembre 2009 - 11:09 .

[Banana Muffin]

Zenon wrote...

Banana Muffin wrote...

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.

I wrote TASTEFULLY DONE WITHOUT (!!!!) BEING PORNOGRAPHIC. Read properly and think before posting.

No need to mention, but I watched enough hardcore porn to know the difference. And I don't need such in a game, other than that I'd have added an option 4 in my suggestion, but I didn't. Still, I feel DA:O is a step backwards compared to ME (or Fahrenheit). But since some players don't want to see boobs, it would make sense to have a setting limiting the nudity in a game voluntarily while giving others the option to see love scenes without underwear. With Google you'd find some footage of Fahrenheit gameplay love scenes to know what I mean.

I have played Fahrenheit I know the scenes.
I'm sorry I just misinterpreted the  sentence "tastefully done without being pornographic like in Fahrenheit", I thought you meant "tastefully done, without being pornographic like in Fahrenheit"  as in Fahrenheit is pornographic.
But i suppose you meant "tastefully done without being pornographic, like in Fahrenheit" as in Fahrenheit being tastefully done.
Without any comma the sentence is ambiguos and can be interpreted both ways.

Anyway I'm sorry I misunderstood and  I completely agree with you on all points then.

[Banana Muffin]

Zenon wrote...

Banana Muffin wrote...

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.

I wrote TASTEFULLY DONE WITHOUT (!!!!) BEING PORNOGRAPHIC. Read properly and think before posting.



No need to mention, but I watched enough hardcore porn to know the difference. And I don't need such in a game, other than that I'd have added an option 4 in my suggestion, but I didn't. Still, I feel DA:O is a step backwards compared to ME (or Fahrenheit). But since some players don't want to see boobs, it would make sense to have a setting limiting the nudity in a game voluntarily while giving others the option to see love scenes without underwear. With Google you'd find some footage of Fahrenheit gameplay love scenes to know what I mean.

I have played Fahrenheit I know the scenes.

I'm sorry I just misinterpreted the sentence "tastefully done without being pornographic like in Fahrenheit", I thought you meant "tastefully done, without being pornographic like in Fahrenheit" as in Fahrenheit is pornographic.

But i suppose you meant "tastefully done without being pornographic, like in Fahrenheit" as in Fahrenheit being tastefully done.

Without any comma the sentence is ambiguos and can be interpreted both ways.



Anyway I'm sorry I misunderstood and I completely agree with you on all points then.

[Zenon]

Creature 1 wrote...

[..]
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. 

Well, we generally have freedom of speech. But anything related to the holocaust is among the rare exceptions.

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.

I didn't speak on an universal ethical level, but on a moral level. To me the highest universal ethics can be quite accurately summarized as: "Love your neighbour as you love yourself."

But then again maybe one reason I love Bioware's games is, that it puts the player char in a moral dilemma in big decisions and choices...

(EDIT) The quotes were mixed up. Should be fixed now.

Modifié par Zenon, 03 décembre 2009 - 07:11 .

[Banana Muffin]

Creature 1 wrote...

[..]
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. 

I thought you had laws about using the N-word, That would seem a very similar infringment on freedom of speech to me.

I really do resent when americans say they have  freedom of speech like they are the only ones on the planet having it when every country in the EU has it too, It's a requirement for becoming a member.