514 réponses à ce sujet

[Blueprotoss]

HiddenInWar wrote...

I will state again, please get this back on topic or this thread will eventually be locked.

Agreed because it turned into a measuring contest instead of being a mature debate.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 09 septembre 2012 - 01:14 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Blueprotoss wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Perhaps. 

Genocide might have occured, but that wouldn't be natural, or it won't have. 

Disease is natural just like all the life on Earth is.

Then it's not genocide. 

The Night Mammoth wrote... 

You're likely wrong that they were genocided into extinction.

Yet I said it was a possibility that homosapiens caused the mass extinction of Neanderthals.

One guy has hypothesized that modern humans might be partly to blame for the extinction of the neanderthals. 

That's slightly different from saying, conclusively, that our ancestors delibaerately and systematically exterminated them. Without any sort of evidence or supporting argument, might I add. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 09 septembre 2012 - 01:15 .

[I am disappoint]

Blueprotoss wrote...

I am disappoint wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

I am disappoint wrote...

It's just your opinion nothing else killed them off.

I'm so disappointd that you think Neanderthals are still walking around without any proof.

I'm disappointed that you fail to comprehend English, yet again.

I'm actually surprised at how fast you fell on your backbone.
Initially you were saying Homosapiens killed them off.
And then you said they helped kill them off.
And now you're saying I said Neanderthals are still walking around.

Honestly you're all the proof I need that Neanderthals are still walking around.

Ad hominems and insults are everywhere.   

What insults?
You didn't comprehend my clearly used English.
You wanted proof and I gave you proof.

What insults?

[Blueprotoss]

I am disappoint wrote...

What insults?
You didn't comprehend my clearly used English.
You wanted proof and I gave you proof.

What insults?

Yet the ad hominems and insults keep on coming

[HiddenInWar]

The current state of this thread is off topic and could be locked. Please discuss Day 1 DLC and let completely unrelated subjects go. Thank you.

[The Night Mammoth]

Blueprotoss wrote...

I am disappoint wrote...

What insults?
You didn't comprehend my clearly used English.
You wanted proof and I gave you proof.

What insults?

Yet the ad hominems and insults keep on coming

Inigo's getting irate. 

[I am disappoint]

Blueprotoss wrote...

I am disappoint wrote...

What insults?
You didn't comprehend my clearly used English.
You wanted proof and I gave you proof.

What insults?

Yet the ad hominems and insults keep on coming

I don't see how you not understanding a sentence done in clear English, is an insult.

[Blueprotoss]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Then it's not genocide.

How is that when billions of people die every year from disease.

The Night Mammoth wrote... 

One guy has hypothesized that modern humans might be partly to blame for the extinction of the neanderthals. 

That's slightly different from saying, conclusively, that our ancestors delibaerately and systematically exterminated them. Without any sort of evidence or supporting argument, might I add. 

Never said homosapiens wiped out Neanderthals while we did help out with their extinction even when nature killed off most of their numbers.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Inigo's getting irate.

I'm actually calm and collective. 

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 09 septembre 2012 - 01:21 .

[Blueprotoss]

I am disappoint wrote...

I don't see how you not understanding a sentence done in clear English, is an insult.

If you're going to insult someone on grammar then you shouldn't make your own grammar mistake.

[I am disappoint]

Blueprotoss wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...


Then it's not genocide.

How is that when billions of people die every year from disease.

The Night Mammoth wrote... 

One guy has hypothesized that modern humans might be partly to blame for the extinction of the neanderthals. 

That's slightly different from saying, conclusively, that our ancestors delibaerately and systematically exterminated them. Without any sort of evidence or supporting argument, might I add. 

Never said homosapiens wiped out Neanderthals while we did help out with their extinction even when nature killed off most of their numbers.

Blueprotoss wrote...

Is the Neanderthal still around?  Nope because they were killed off by our homosapien ancestors.

Are you serious?

[drayfish]

Blueprotoss wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...


Then it's not genocide.

How is that when billions of people die every year from disease.

This is absurd.

@ Blueprotoss:

Please give me your definition of 'genocide'.

Please, I am asking directly for you to define what you think it means.

Modifié par drayfish, 09 septembre 2012 - 01:21 .

[HiddenInWar]

If I must remind the active commentators of this thread a 4th time, genocide and neanderthals are off topic and completely unrelated to this topic of DLC. I request this thread return to its original intention.

[Blueprotoss]

drayfish wrote...

Please give me your definition of 'genocide'.

Please, I am asking directly for you to define what you think it means.

Mass killings that can be focused on race or religion while humans aren't the only oganisms that do so.

[I am disappoint]

Blueprotoss wrote...

I am disappoint wrote...

I don't see how you not understanding a sentence done in clear English, is an insult.

If you're going to insult someone on grammar then you shouldn't make your own grammar mistake.

Nope, I'm just questioning your understanding of English.
Which is even more odd considering I never even mentioned Grammar.

[Blueprotoss]

I am disappoint wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

I am disappoint wrote...

I don't see how you not understanding a sentence done in clear English, is an insult.

If you're going to insult someone on grammar then you shouldn't make your own grammar mistake.

Nope, I'm just questioning your understanding of English.
Which is even more odd considering I never even mentioned Grammar.

Yet you're still focusing on grammar for some odd reason.

[The Night Mammoth]

Blueprotoss wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Then it's not genocide.

How is that when billions of people die every year from disease.

Dafuq did I jus reed? 

Disease is natural, but disease does not commit genocide because it is not capable of a deliberate action. 

Never said homosapiens wiped out Neanderthals while we did help out with their extinction even when nature killed off most of their numbers.

You said that several times actually. 

I'm actually calm and collective. 

No, as in Inigo Montoya is getting irate at the missuse of the phrase 'ad hominem'. 

Google the name. 

Aaaaaaaaaand I'm out. You don't know what you're talking about, apoligies to the guy pleading for this to stop. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 09 septembre 2012 - 01:31 .

[drayfish]

Blueprotoss wrote...

drayfish wrote...

Please give me your definition of 'genocide'.

Please, I am asking directly for you to define what you think it means.

Mass killings that can be focused on race or religion while humans aren't the only oganisms that do so.

Okay: easy then.  You are wrong.

I'm sorry to say that to you in such a way, but it's easy to fix.  People confuse words all the time, so it's understandable, but what you have said is utterly incorrect.

'Genocide' is an action and an ideology that requires an active choice to decimate a race.  A lion cannot genocide antelope no matter how many he eats, because he lacks the capacity to make a choice.  And it is in the act of making that choice that the meaning of genocide lies.

If you don't believe me, simply google the word or consult a dictionary.

Your definition is not accurate, and it is creating a great deal of unnecessary confusion. 

[I am disappoint]

Blueprotoss wrote...

I am disappoint wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

I am disappoint wrote...

I don't see how you not understanding a sentence done in clear English, is an insult.

If you're going to insult someone on grammar then you shouldn't make your own grammar mistake.

Nope, I'm just questioning your understanding of English.
Which is even more odd considering I never even mentioned Grammar.

Yet you're still focusing on grammar for some odd reason.

In your opinion.

[Blueprotoss]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Disease is natural, but disease does not commit genocide because it is not capable of a deliberate action.

Most of the time genocide isn't deliberate in the nature.

The Night Mammoth wrote... 

You said that several times actually.

Again I never said homosapiens wiped out Neanderthals while we did help out with their extinction even when nature killed off most of their numbers. 

The Night Mammoth wrote... 

No, as in Inigo Montoya is getting irate at the missuse of the phrase 'ad hominem'. 

Google the name. 

Aaaaaaaaaand I'm out. You don't know what you're talking about, apoligies to the guy pleading for this to stop.

Yet I'm still calm and collective.

[Blueprotoss]

drayfish wrote...

Okay: easy then.  You are wrong.

I'm sorry to say that to you in such a way, but it's easy to fix.  People confuse words all the time, so it's understandable, but what you have said is utterly incorrect.

'Genocide' is an action and an ideology that requires an active choice to decimate a race.  A lion cannot genocide antelope no matter how many he eats, because he lacks the capacity to make a choice.  And it is in the act of making that choice that the meaning of genocide lies.

If you don't believe me, simply google the word or consult a dictionary.

Your definition is not accurate, and it is creating a great deal of unnecessary confusion. 

There are multiple meanings to a word just like how there are multiple dictionaries.  Either way genocides are mass killings that can be "focused" on race or religion while humans aren't the only oganisms that do so.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 09 septembre 2012 - 01:39 .

[drayfish]

Again: you are wrong.  It is not me you are arguing with - it is language itself.

Please, I'm not trying to be a jerk.  Read any dictionary.  Any one of them.

Modifié par drayfish, 09 septembre 2012 - 01:40 .

[Blueprotoss]

drayfish wrote...

Again: you are wrong.  It is not me you are arguing with - it is language itself.

 Yet its not as accurate as you think and you aren't the embodiment of language.

drayfish wrote...

Please, I'm not trying to be a jerk.  Read any dictionary.  Any one of them.

Yet every dictionary varies from each other on wording and there are multiple definitions in every dictionary.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 09 septembre 2012 - 01:42 .

[The Night Mammoth]

I like DLC, LOTSB is my favourite part of Mass Effect 2.

Day 1 DLC of the importance of From Ashes doesn't sit right with me. Not exactly sure why yet. To me, it gives the impression that BioWare were making it, saw the deadline for final version was coming, chucked what they had on the disc, and decided to make us pay a heap extra in relative terms just because it wasn't done in time, asif it was going to be part of the whole game but obviously they couldn't finish it. I'm not entirely sure why that means they have to charge 800 points for comparitively little work. 

Knowing that From Ashes is based around things that were even more important to the plot in early development, it just gets me a little irritated.

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 09 septembre 2012 - 01:48 .

[drayfish]

Blueprotoss wrote...

drayfish wrote...

Again: you are wrong.  It is not me you are arguing with - it is language itself.

 Yet its not as accurate as you think and you aren't the embodiment of language.

drayfish wrote...

Please, I'm not trying to be a jerk.  Read any dictionary.  Any one of them.

Yet every dictionary varies from each other on wording and there are multiple definitions in every dictionary.

Okay.

What you have done there is show that you are actually incapable of argument.  Without consulting a single source to back up your claim you have dismissed the entire history of that word's application.  It is like saying 2 plus 2 equals 5.  There is literally nowhere that you will be able to find evidence for what you have just said beyond your own imagination.

There is no wiggle room - no: but sometimes 'blue' also means 'sad'. This is not about grammar.  You are not Wittgenstein.  A word like 'genocide' has a specific and deliberate meaning, and to devolve its application in the manner you are suggesting robs the term of its meaning entirely.

Honestly, I was trying to help you.  If you are headcanonning language itself - changing definitions to suit your own interpretations - you are saying to everyone who reads your posts that you are incapable of any discussion at all.  It says that what you offer is not argument, it is ignorance clouded with arrogance.

[Blueprotoss]

drayfish wrote...

What you have done there is show that you are actually incapable of argument.  Without consulting a single source to back up your claim you have dismissed the entire history of that word's application.  It is like saying 2 plus 2 equals 5.  There is literally nowhere that you will be able to find evidence for what you have just said beyond your own imagination.

There is no wiggle room - no: but sometimes 'blue' also means 'sad'. This is not about grammar.  You are not Wittgenstein.  A word like 'genocide' has a specific and deliberate meaning, and to devolve its application in the manner you are suggesting robs the term of its meaning entirely.

Honestly, I was trying to help you.  If you are headcanonning language itself - changing definitions to suit your own interpretations - you are saying to everyone who reads your posts that you are incapable of any discussion at all.  It says that what you offer is not argument, it is ignorance clouded with arrogance.

If there was no "wiggle room"  then blue wouldn't also be a color.  Either way every word varies from dictionary to dictionary and every word also has multiple definitions.