No. In this scenario, no 'right' theory is proposed to the audience at all. Both sides of the story are laid out. The evidence of evolution, and the evidence for creationism. Of course, the evidence for creationism will obviously be far weaker. But that shouldn't be a problem, because the reader obviously has the ability to "apply their own judgement, reach their own conclusions, and be able to justify their choice," don't they?
So what's the problem with that?
I thought Robert was much less of a drunk (well maybe just slightly less drunk but a lot more badass) when he was young and still a soldier, and it was assuming the crown that turned him into how we see him in the story. Then again I haven't gotten around to reading the books yet so there might be some things I don't know.
He was already known for his drinking and whoring before he became king
the evidence for creationism.
And we are done here
Some prophecy obsessed harp player who can't beat a man who was drunk more often than not and didn't even have the balls to face the consequences of running off with/kidnaping Lyanna but instead had his insane daddy burn lords to death.
"hero"
I probably should have said "good guy" instead of "hero." But if the numerous hints peppered throughout the books are to be believed, there was certainly no kidnapping involved and Rhaegar wasn't hiding out of fear or cowardice.
I probably should have said "good guy" instead of "hero." But if the numerous hints peppered throughout the books are to be believed, there was certainly no kidnapping involved and Rhaegar wasn't hiding out of fear or cowardice.
He's not a good guy either, he cheated on his wife and abandoned his children so he could stay in a tower with his 15yr old girlfriend and ignore the war that his actions had caused.
Presentation of unequal arguments on an equal footing.No. In this scenario, no 'right' theory is proposed to the audience at all. Both sides of the story are laid out. The evidence of evolution, and the evidence for creationism. Of course, the evidence for creationism will obviously be far weaker. But that shouldn't be a problem, because the reader obviously has the ability to "apply their own judgement, reach their own conclusions, and be able to justify their choice," don't they?
So what's the problem with that?
He's not a good guy either, he cheated on his wife and abandoned his children so he could stay in a tower with his 15yr old girlfriend and ignore the war that his actions had caused.
I only mean he was the "good guy" in the conflict between him and Robert. On the surface it may seem like Robert was the hero of the war, riding off to rescue his beloved from her evil Targaryen captor, but when you peel back the layers it seems fairly clear that it wasn't like that at all. I'm not going to go into any more details than that so I don't inadvertantly spoil anyone who's planning to read the books.
But yeah, Rhaegar most definitely shirked his responsibilities and caused endless grief for a lot of people all because of a vision. It'll be interesting to see if any of those visions were correct or if it was just how the Targaryen madness manifested itself in him.
He was already known for his drinking and whoring before he became king
Oh, sorry, wasn't trying to disagree or start a fight.
I was just asking that wasn't Robert a rather strong soldier himself and also renown for that in addition to his well known boorishness?
Presentation of unequal arguments on an equal footing.
We don't treat epicycles as a thing anymore, even if gravity isn't fully understood.
The problem with your analogy is the assumption that it consistently applies to ethical choices in a fictional narrative; that one is always superior. People are going to weigh their decisions differently. The merits and drawbacks of ME3's various endings are a contentious topic on the boards. Mages versus templars (basically freedom versus security) is another. Quarians versus Geth - who is right or wrong, who makes a better ally - is yet another, and people bring different criteria to bear on these decisions. Is that a problem?
Hmm. I'm curious how long it took for you to look that up. But we are making progress.
Hmm. I'm curious how long it took for you to look that up. But we are making progress.
Ah your old
"oh yeah but you.... jjust looked that up didn't you?!?!" fallback
It's true. People are going to approach things differently and have different values. (Although almost certainly far less than a person would think, looking at a forum like this.)
Which means that yes, a person is not going to agree with every story in existence.
That seems to be an incomprehensibly offensive notion to some people here. That a story might 'force' an idea they may not agree with.
The problem isn't when a story promotes an idea - people are going to agree or disagree per their own morality. The problem is when it breaks internal consistency in order to do so.It's true. People are going to approach things differently and have different values. (Although almost certainly far less than a person would think, looking at a forum like this.)
Which means that yes, a person is not going to agree with every story in existence.
That seems to be an incomprehensibly offensive notion to some people here. That a story might 'force' an idea they may not agree with.
Is that right? That didn't seem to be your stance earlier. I thought the audience was supposed to "apply their own judgement, reach their own conclusions, and be able to justify their choice."
Is that right? That didn't seem to be your stance earlier. I thought the audience was supposed to "apply their own judgement, reach their own conclusions, and be able to justify their choice."
You can pick out yours if you want to see that I'm not just pulling stuff out of thin air when I say that you commit fallacies in your argument.
Pay special attention to the "tu quoque" "ambiguity" "personal incredulity" and "special pleading"
I'm going to borrow a catchphrase from a banned poster who certainly never, EVER came back to the forums...
I think we're done here.
We were told from the beginning that that was the idea of the Mass Effect trilogy.Is that right? That didn't seem to be your stance earlier. I thought the audience was supposed to "apply their own judgement, reach their own conclusions, and be able to justify their choice."
Oh, sorry, wasn't trying to disagree or start a fight.
I was just asking that wasn't Robert a rather strong soldier himself and also renown for that in addition to his well known boorishness?
When he was young he probably was the best fighter alive, and if he wasn't he surely was one of them
Like Steelcan said he was already known for his hobbies, but he wasn't as deep in the tunnel as he is in the show/books
So I Just finished ME3...Why do I feel like I was kicked in the quads?
...
Sure they show all the good stuff happening to the others in the universe but
nothing more on shepard who saved billions of people...just one breath to hint at survival laying
there with a boulder on her head.
Shepard: "Uhh...guys..guys? Glad your enjoying your victory there but ya wanna get this boulder off my
face? Hellooo? Bleeding to death here...Hello?
Man, did I just get too attached to the character over 3 games? I seriously need therapy here....
Sorry, I just had to get this off my chest.
M.
Welcome to the club. Yeah, the end - both original and the extented one - are still abysmal. That's why I keep using MEHEM.
Yep. The serie is awesome but the ME3 ending and the final choice are a big joke.
We were told from the beginning that that was the idea of the Mass Effect trilogy.
Even in fiction where the intent is to provoke discussion, if you get a particularly biased writer on the team, their opinions are going to be reflected in the writing. Hence in ME3, we don't see any sensible ME2-Mordinesque arguments for the genophage balanced against its detractors, but rather a shrill racist as its only advocate. We don't hear any mention of the extermination of the Quarian race and centuries of murderous isolationism that followed, even from the Quarians themselves; rather, we're subject to a half-hour slideshow of self-sacrificing geth throughout history, the veracity of which nobody challenges.
When the writing team takes grey issues designed to provoke discussion and shifts from neutrality to advocacy, ignoring elements of established lore or disregarding past arguments to weaken one side in favor of the other (otherwise known as a strawman), people aren't all just going to bob their heads and go along with it. Hence why these issues continue to be hotly debated, even after certain writers have made their own sympathies known. Hence why some still lament that we can't continue working with Cerberus.
Exactly. The series ended up being fairly opposed to my worldview, but I didn't magically become pro-Council or stop disliking the idea of Cerberus. I made the same decisions and hold to the same ideology, just with more resentment.
Ending was silly thats why you feel like you got kicked in the quads op.
Exactly. The series ended up being fairly opposed to my worldview, but I didn't magically become pro-Council or stop disliking the idea of Cerberus. I made the same decisions and hold to the same ideology, just with more resentment.
Especially considering how the game gave previously allowed you to define how your Shepard viewed the world and allowed you to define your loyalties and ideology, ME3 comes across with a forced message and definition of what is 'right' versus what is 'wrong'. And its annoying because I'm almost entirely against what the game defines as good and what is evil.
ME1 isn't the best sci fi story ever told, of course. There are some things that didn't make much sense, imo. But I think it's almost a masterpiece compared to ME2/ME3.
There's also a sense of exploration in Mass Effect 1 that isn't quite there in ME2 and ME3. As for the characters...they were ok, but the squadmate dialogue definitely improved as the series progressed. I really liked the dynamic Normandy in ME3, with the crew moving around and having conversations with each other.
Retour en haut
