20813 réponses à ce sujet

[Errationatus]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

They aren't the same, and neither of the words "racism" nor "prejudice" fit the defintion of a person not being able to relate to another person, either. 

Then you either didn't read what I'd written or you did and just missed the point.  This also begs the question of "well then, why not?"

So you wouldn't be applying either one of the words correctly.

Actually, for what I was actually saying they're perfectly valid.

If you want to use words or phrases to label others in this way, that do not apply or match the definition, then it undermines your credibility. 

See my response to Adriano.  I'm not labelling anyone.  I simply made a statement - a theoretical one - on why people may treat Jacob differently.  Nowhere did I state categorically that I was correct, and all other ideas thus rendered moot. 

Nitpicking semantics - irrelevant semantical differences, should be beneath anyone claiming intelligence. 

You either have a counter argument or you don't.   A semantic argument is not an argument.  It's how teenagers and creationists justify their bullsh!t.

If you think I'm wrong, show me where. 

That's fair, no?

[Errationatus]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

Niether one of those describe a person being unable to relate to another.

You will please note that in that instance I said a kind of racism.  I did not say it was racism, even though it can be.  I am not accusing people of racism because they don`t like Jacob`s character.  I am simply stating that it might be a factor.

If you don't like me because I'm not your color - if you're already that stupid  - how much effort are you going to put into getting to know me?

Not much.

I still fail to see how that invalidates what I said, sorry.

EDIT - clarification.

Modifié par JakeMacDon, 28 juillet 2010 - 03:16 .

[Errationatus]

JohnnyDollar wrote...
If it is a kind of racism, then it's racism, right?

Sure.  In that post.  In a later post, I clarified it.   Granted, for this particular post, it was a semantical error on my part.  One of those instances where you're arguing for what you meant and not what you said, but not actually plainly stating what you meant.  If that makes any sense.

Good call, my bad.

This is your last statement:
"If you don't like me because I'm not your color - if you're already that stupid  - how much effort are you going to put into getting to know me?"
If that is what you actually meant in your prior statement, then fine, but I didn't get that meaning from your prior statement. 

Yeah - see above.  My initial mistake was in simply assuming that - since most people use words like "racism" "prejudice", and "discrimination" interchangably, that it wouldn't be a problem, although my former critique still stands.  It is a semantic argument, one of which I'm very likely also guilty.

Let's just chalk this up to miscommunication.  I don't know about you, but I'm not really in the mood to debate this particular topic, and I'm sure the rest of the Jack fans in the thread would just assume that we drop it.

Agreed.  I really have to watch my style here.  I'm used to a different kind of forum altogether, and ripping battles were always the norm - ripping, intelligent, civilized battles to be sure, but battles.  Some habits die hard, I guess.

Apologies all round.

Remember, kids, it's just a game.   

Modifié par JakeMacDon, 28 juillet 2010 - 03:51 .

[BobbyTheI]

yorkj86 wrote...

Sundown Native wrote...

Yep.
 
But there's a difference between those two and Jack.

I'd imagine that it'd get somewhat violent before the conclusion came. If not from Jack, then from Murtock. Shepard'd probably be able to restrain himself.

If he's paragon, that is.

The reason I don't think this would happen in ME3, is because, unless the romance arcs were to include their own missions in the third game, the situation would require too much context based upon romance.   As such, it would be the narrative being affected by the romances, which can't happen, outside of romance scenes.

I could see it working from a non-romance perspective: instead of the dilemma of "which man should I choose," it's Jack deciding whether or not to abandon Shepard's mission to go back to running around playing Bonnie and Clyde with Murtock, or stick with Shepard until the Reapers are defeated.  Kinda like the Jaheira quests in BG2: the same events happen, but the romance adds another level to the whole thing.

The twist of Murtock being alive could definitely work: in a hectic situation like they must have been in, Jack could have easily gotten separated from Murtock and just assumed he'd gotten killed.  Maybe find him in a Batarian slave ship, miserable and emaciated, the only thing keeping him alive is the hope of getting free and getting back to his beloved Jack.  A plot twist so cruel, I'm sure BioWare would love to do it to us.  

[axl99]

I would let the lady decide for herself if that was the case.

[NICKjnp]

In honor of the "cannon" that the new book has put into place.... I've created a new male soldier Shepare who is named JohnCANNON Shepard.

[NICKjnp]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

Will his decisions and the ME universe match the novel?

Yeah he is the cannon default Sheploo.  I have to say... I feel dirty after playing the first two hours.  The news announcements and convo with Anderson make me glad that my primary Shepards all saved the council.

[NICKjnp]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

NICKjnp wrote...
Yeah he is the cannon default Sheploo.  I have to say... I feel dirty after playing the first two hours.  The news announcements and convo with Anderson make me glad that my primary Shepards all saved the council.

Well, the neutral decision regarding the council was the best tactical decision(non meta-gaming), imo.  So now you're on the right track anyway.

If by "right track" you mean putting the character aside and going back to my adept then yes...  I'm back on the right track.

[Jackal904]

yorkj86 wrote...

Do you think Shepard being possessive of Jack would send the right message?  Do you think Shepard beating Murtock within an inch of his life for coming back to try to take his woman is going to send the right message?   

Just messing around, kind of, unless you want to respond seriously.

I'm wondering the same thing. Would Jack like a protective Shepard or not? I'm not sure if a protective Shepard would make her feel caged, or if a non-protective Shepard would make Jack think he's a ****. If Murtock were to re-enter the picture in ME3 (although I'm sure he won't) then I would try to get Jack to stay with me, not only for obvious reasons, but because Murtock was a criminal, and I don't want Jack going back to a life of crime. 

But I think a romanced Jack would not even think about going back with Murtock, only an unromanced Jack would be unsure whether to stick with Shepard or go back with Murtock. Which then you would be able to try and convince her to stay with you, or let her go with Murtock, or simply let her decide who to choose.

[BobbyTheI]

yorkj86 wrote...

BobbyTheI wrote...

I could see it working from a non-romance perspective: instead of the dilemma of "which man should I choose," it's Jack deciding whether or not to abandon Shepard's mission to go back to running around playing Bonnie and Clyde with Murtock, or stick with Shepard until the Reapers are defeated.  Kinda like the Jaheira quests in BG2: the same events happen, but the romance adds another level to the whole thing.

The twist of Murtock being alive could definitely work: in a hectic situation like they must have been in, Jack could have easily gotten separated from Murtock and just assumed he'd gotten killed.  Maybe find him in a Batarian slave ship, miserable and emaciated, the only thing keeping him alive is the hope of getting free and getting back to his beloved Jack.  A plot twist so cruel, I'm sure BioWare would love to do it to us.  

You make it sound as if Jack would skip out on Shepard, regardless of her relationship with him, once the ancient mecha gods are all scrap-metal.  Do you think she would, or was that not your meaning?

Nah, I'm sure that as long as there's still adventures to be had, and enemies to be killed, a sufficiently loyal Jack will probably stick around for the fun, even if she isn't Shepard's tattooed love girl.  Although if Shepard doesn't have his Spectre status at the end of ME3, and goes back to just being a plain old Alliance officer, I'm not sure Jack could be convinced to enlist, and military protocols probably wouldn't allow somebody of her background to hang around on Alliance vessels.  Just sort of depends, I guess, on where Shepard's at at the end of ME3.

[Gethforceone]

yorkj86 wrote...

BobbyTheI wrote...

Nah, I'm sure that as long as there's still adventures to be had, and enemies to be killed, a sufficiently loyal Jack will probably stick around for the fun, even if she isn't Shepard's tattooed love girl.  Although if Shepard doesn't have his Spectre status at the end of ME3, and goes back to just being a plain old Alliance officer, I'm not sure Jack could be convinced to enlist, and military protocols probably wouldn't allow somebody of her background to hang around on Alliance vessels.  Just sort of depends, I guess, on where Shepard's at at the end of ME3.

I wonder what being dead does to whether or not Shepard is still considered to be enlisted.  Either way, if he survives ME3, people should feel as if he's earned some time to do what he likes, for a change, tattooed chick at his side.

At the end of the third and after all Shepard's done, they wouldn't dare threaten his spectre and/or military standing.