27956 réponses à ce sujet

[Lemonwizard]

LOLandStuff wrote...

Try getting into an argument with a furry who believes sex with aliens is bestiality, while sex with anthro is ok. The explanation behind this? Anthropomorphic animals are cpure and can reflect your inner animal. Also you can find a little of yourself in one. While aliens from outer space don't display any earth animal whatever feature.

Logic is fun. They should try it sometime.

[Mariquis]

Oh wow, how come this thread is always so active when I'm asleep!

E
Insofar as the marriage thing (sorry going way back) I think it's way too ambiguous to really say one way or another. I'm personally kind of '...so what?' towards marriage, so it wouldn't be something I'd see my main Shep doing. But even within each of the origins I could see different interpretations. For instance my Earthborn could be completely careless of most social conventions because of her harsh upbringing.... or she could want something like that to cherish because during her tough childhood she viewed it as 'the ideal.'  

I honestly wonder how it would work. I mean ceremony-wise obviously people can just do whatever they want, but I imagine both races have different LEGAL conventions, and I wonder how they're reconciled or combined?

As far as equality goes, I think that turians would probably be less likely to have oppressed females in such a significant way (for so long). Not only have they been around way longer than us (so they would have gotten it out of their system way longer ago), but even before they became space-faring they don't really have a religion which could lead to the subjugation of females, their religion being based on intangible spirits of whom can only be prayed to for inspiration and cannot interfere in the events of mortals. Of course, I understand that just because a religion does not explicitly mention subjugation doesn't mean it won't happen, but it seems a bit more likely to me. 

Also someone mentioned sentience as an argument against beastiality.  I think you're looking for sapience.  I literally just learned to differentiate between sentience ( can have feelings and experiences) and sapience (self-awareness) the other day -- I figured I should impart that wisdom 
EDIT: Sorry guys, grammar-fail

Garrus action shot! (Yeah geez guys, stand clear.)

Modifié par Mariquis, 12 mai 2010 - 07:49 .

[Sialater]

Mariquis wrote...

Oh wow, how come this thread is always so active when I'm asleep!

E
Insofar as the marriage thing (sorry going way back) I think it's way too ambiguous to really say one way or another. I'm personally kind of '...so what?' towards marriage, so it wouldn't be something I'd see my main Shep doing. But even within each of the origins I could see different interpretations. For instance my Earthborn could be completely careless of most social conventions because of her harsh upbringing.... or she could want something like that to cherish because during her tough childhood she viewed it as 'the ideal.'  

I honestly wonder how it would work. I mean ceremony-wise obviously people can just do whatever they want, but I imagine both races have different LEGAL conventions, and I wonder how they're reconciled or combined?

As far as equality goes, I think that turians would probably be less likely to have oppressed females in such a significant way (for so long). Not only have they been around way longer than us (so they would have gotten it out of their system way longer ago), but even before they became space-faring they don't really have a religion which could lead to the subjugation of females, their religion being based on intangible spirits of whom can only be prayed to for inspiration and cannot interfere in the events of mortals. Of course, I understand that just because a religion does not explicitly mention subjugation doesn't mean it won't happen, but it seems a bit more likely to me. 

Also someone mentioned sentience as an argument against beastiality.  I think you're looking for sapience.  I literally just learned to differentiate between sentience ( can have feelings and experiences) and sapience (self-awareness) the other day -- I figured I should impart that wisdom 
EDIT: Sorry guys, grammar-fail

Garrus action shot! (Yeah geez guys, stand clear.)

Problem is, Star Trek continuously misused Sentients for Sapient.

I'm pretty sure my dogs are sentient.  They are not, however, sapient.

[Lemonwizard]

Mariquis wrote...

As far as equality goes, I think that turians would probably be less likely to have oppressed females in such a significant way (for so long). Not only have they been around way longer than us (so they would have gotten it out of their system way longer ago), but even before they became space-faring they don't really have a religion which could lead to the subjugation of females, their religion being based on intangible spirits of whom can only be prayed to for inspiration and cannot interfere in the events of mortals. Of course, I understand that just because a religion does not explicitly mention subjugation doesn't mean it won't happen, but it seems a bit more likely to me. 

Actually, regarding the cultural origins of sexism, I once read a very interesting article discussing that there is some evidence to suggest that 8 or 9 thousand years ago before the development of large scale civilizations when most humans lived in small bands, there were just as many matriarchal societies as there were patriarchal ones. The difference between them, however, was that male dominated societies were almost uniformly more violent and warlike than female dominated societies, who were generally more cooperative with other tribes they encountered (which is a trend that is easy to witness even today, men are typically more confrontational than women).


The result? Over the years, the male dominated societies wiped all the female dominated societies out. Once agriculture was invented and recorded history began, all of the world's civilizations were patriarchal, male-centric ones.


It's only thousands of years later that society's reaching the point where talking gets more done than swords or guns do that women are finally being allowed to get the rights they deserve.



EDIT: And I completely forgot to tie it back in to what I was responding to, >_<. The point I was going to make is that if Turians, during such a pre-civilization time period, had women who were either just as aggressive as men or the species has less of a sexual dimorphism favoring males in terms of physical power (which is lightly implied by Garrus's reach and flexibility conversation, the scout in question is his equal in hand to hand combat), I could see a society that wouldn't have had to "get over" sexism at all, because it never developed the concept in the first place.

Modifié par Lemonwizard, 12 mai 2010 - 08:19 .

[Collider]

That's what I suspect too, lemon. So far as my studies have led me to believe, anyways. There are plenty of instances in which figures of goddesses were found that dated pre-agriculture among humans and possibly hominids. Likely they were revered because of the feminine ability to produce life - all the more important when humanity once was basically just roaming bands. On the onset of agricultural and civilization (ironically), is when sexism really took root - likely coinciding with the idea of property - the men likely thought they "owned" their female companions.

[Collider]

On the same note, it's believed among anthropologists that humans evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos. The former is very prone to tribal warfare, and the males have more status than the females - some male chimpanzees even have harems. The latter is a female dominated society which is much more peaceful than the chimpanzees. I think humans share features from both - they are capable of great injustice and cruelty, but also altruism.

[Mariquis]

Yes actually I agree with you both highly! History viewed through the lens of white male anthropologists from the 'good old days' ignored the fact that in some cases a woman was in charge. An account of this can be found in N. Bonvillain's Anthropology textbook. But there are even matriarchal societies still in existence today like the Mosuo in China. An interesting example in culture are some of Margaret Mead's studies (in which she describes three tribes she investigated) where in one group both sexes acted 'masculine,' one in which both sexes acted 'feminine,' and one in which the males acted 'feminine' and the females 'masculine.'



It would certainly be an interesting concept to have a society that never developed that kind of divide (Asari not included, since they're unisex). I would adore if that topic was acknowledged in some way. Actually with Jacob's loyalty mission I was quite choked that it wasn't mentioned since seeing all the women reduced to playthings is kind of a bit of a throwback to that old idea (particularly by my Fshep or by any alien crewmates -- since it might be seen differently by say Samara or Garrus).



I would love if there was some encyclopedia released after the completion of the series if only to answer all these questions! Although I have to say the influx of info from those recent Bioware-news clips are awesome.

[Collider]

A lot of what is considered feminine and masculine is decided by society, as Mariquis points out. In some societies that are more than two genders, even.

Btw, apparently they are going to announce new DLC tomorrow.

Modifié par Collider, 12 mai 2010 - 08:47 .

[Lemonwizard]

I really hope that "new DLC" doesn't mean "another appearance pack".

[Collider]

Lemonwizard wrote...

I really hope that "new DLC" doesn't mean "another appearance pack".

I want to see the other appearances packs so I don't mind. Just so long as they release more substantial DLC in the future, which I expect to happen.

[Lemonwizard]

I haven't got a problem with appearance packs, I'd just much rather they be included as another feature of a larger pack that includes new missions we can play, etc.

[Collider]

I'd rather keep them separate. It's possible that including an appearance outfits in the large pack would increase the price - what if I didn't like the outfits?

[Xsause]

For the lulz.

[Sand King]

Xsause wrote...



For the lulz.

[Collider]

Xsause wrote...
[/img]

For the lulz.

I just felt like posting that.

Modifié par Collider, 12 mai 2010 - 09:08 .

[Shazzammer2]

aynxalot wrote...

Lemonwizard wrote...

LOLandStuff wrote...

Try getting into an argument with a furry who believes sex with aliens is beastiality, while sex with anthro is ok. The explanation behind this? Anthropomorphic animals are cpure and can reflect your inner animal. Also you can find a little of yourself in one. While aliens from outer space don't display any earth animal whatever feature.

Logic is fun. They should try it sometime.

Brain....hurting......ears....bleeding......

I won't argue it, since it would be preaching to the soapbox and even debating it with the people/person in question would no doubt yield approx. the same result as slamming my head in the door repeatedly.

Suffice to say that Garrus is totally *rawr* and they can just deal with the mental image of FemShep hitting that.



artist: ariscards. This is coming along AWESOME.

bows head in shame.

I suck at drawing. <_< NOW I know.

Modifié par Shazzammer2, 12 mai 2010 - 09:16 .

[irene9876]

Hi everyone

I hope you don't mind me adding my bit to the discussion about Garrus staying/leaving Shepherd (presumably to prove himself iirc)...

According to the wiki (http://masseffect.wi...com/wiki/Turian) the Turian "instinct is to equate the self with the group.  It also explains that they view groups as having all-encompasing "spirits."  This leads me to believe that they attribute success and failure to the group more so than any specific individual in that group.

An example of this, I believe, is the differences in ME2 conversations with Garrus from those who didn't recruit him in ME1 and those who did.  IIRC, the unrecruited Garrus would say he was on Omega because he burned his bridges at C-Sec.  However if you recruited him and either persuaded him along Paragon lines, or went the neutral path in the ME1 conversations, he mentions that they offered his job back (the paragon route obviously having him accept the offer while the neutral one didn't).  The only difference between a recruited and unrecruited Garrus is that the recruited Garrus was on the team that saved the Citadel.  This would be seen as a success attributed to the team as a group.  Since Garrus was a part of that team, he was acknowleged as successful regardless of his previous individual history.

Unfortunately, after Shepherd's death the Alliance broke the team up.  The group Garrus identified and equated himself with was gone.  So he eventually made his way to Omega.  Now we know that things turned out badly for him there.  We also know he was rather hard on himself, as its leader, due to the results.  But really it was his team's weak link (Sidonus) that caused it to fail.

But then Shepherd shows back up and "reconstitutes" his/her team.  By Garrus joining the team and doing his part, he is already proving himself (to himself).  And if the team survives the Suicide Mission, he along with all the others are seen as a successful unit.  Add to that the fact that "Turians value knowing one's own limitations more than being ambitious" and I really can't see a reason why Garrus would leave, or even want to.

I do understand the arguement that he might have to leave in order to prove himself as not a failure.  But that's an argument made from a human perspective.  Garrus is not human.


And now it appears that I have made my second wall of text post here. 

Modifié par irene9876, 12 mai 2010 - 09:23 .

[Collider]

I also agree that he doesn't have to leave to prove himself. I think surviving the suicide mission and defeating the Collectors, as well as taking care of Sidonis, should be enough. Garrus has no other place to go that isn't ridiculous. He has no political standing among the Turians whatsoever. I don't see him as the General type either as was suggested by someone in this thread, he's more suited to small squads.

[Sialater]

irene9876 wrote...

Hi everyone

I hope you don't mind me adding my bit to the discussion about Garrus staying/leaving Shepherd (presumably to prove himself iirc)...

According to the wiki (http://masseffect.wi...com/wiki/Turian) the Turian "instinct is to equate the self with the group.  It also explains that they view groups as having all-encompasing "spirits."  This leads me to believe that they attribute success and failure to the group more so than any specific individual in that group.

An example of this, I believe, is the differences in ME2 conversations with Garrus from those who didn't recruit him in ME1 and those who did.  IIRC, the unrecruited Garrus would say he was on Omega because he burned his bridges at C-Sec.  However if you recruited him and either persuaded him along Paragon lines, or went the neutral path in the ME1 conversations, he mentions that they offered his job back (the paragon route obviously having him accept the offer while the neutral one didn't).  The only difference between a recruited and unrecruited Garrus is that the recruited Garrus was on the team that saved the Citadel.  This would be seen as a success attributed to the team as a group.  Since Garrus was a part of that team, he was acknowleged as successful regardless of his previous individual history.

Unfortunately, after Shepherd's death the Alliance broke the team up.  The group Garrus identified and equated himself with was gone.  So he eventually made his way to Omega.  Now we know that things turned out badly for him there.  We also know he was rather hard on himself, as its leader, due to the results.  But really it was his team's weak link (Sidonus) that caused it to fail.

But then Shepherd shows back up and "reconstitutes" his/her team.  By Garrus joining the team and doing his part, he is already proving himself (to himself).  And if the team survives the Suicide Mission, he along with all the others are seen as a successful unit.  Add to that the fact that "Turians value knowing one's own limitations more than being ambitious" and I really can't see a reason why Garrus would leave, or even want to.

I do understand the arguement that he might have to leave in order to prove himself as not a failure.  But that's an argument made from a human perspective.  Garrus is not human.


And now it appears that I have made my first wall of text post here. 

Actually, if I remember correctly, an underling's failure is seen as not necessarily his own failure, but the failure of the superior who promoted him or trusted him above the underling's capabilities.  So... Garrus' failure was allowing Sidonis to join at all, by turian reasoning. 

[Cerrydd]

Collider wrote...


I just felt like posting that.

Omg. Collider posting Gaga? What is happening to this world?

Interesting discussions going on! This thread is so awesome. But I'm playing DA:O, maybe I'll come back later and add my 2 cents.

[irene9876]

Sialater wrote...

Actually, if I remember correctly, an underling's failure is seen as not necessarily his own failure, but the failure of the superior who promoted him or trusted him above the underling's capabilities.  So... Garrus' failure was allowing Sidonis to join at all, by turian reasoning. 

Yes, which is why Garrus was so hard on himself.

[Sialater]

irene9876 wrote...

Sialater wrote...

Actually, if I remember correctly, an underling's failure is seen as not necessarily his own failure, but the failure of the superior who promoted him or trusted him above the underling's capabilities.  So... Garrus' failure was allowing Sidonis to join at all, by turian reasoning. 

Yes, which is why Garrus was so hard on himself.

Yeah, it wasn't that he trusted a friend, it's that he thought Sidonis was stronger than he was.  Or didn't think about them being captured at all.

[Xsause]

Collider wrote...

Xsause wrote...
[/img]

For the lulz.

I just felt like posting that.

[Collider]

Okay that one scares me.