Ce sujet est fermé
Only animal able to be capable of great good? Seeing as humans are also the animal capable of the most evil I would say that's only balancing itself out.
Majority (not all) of humanity's "good" deeds are developed for survival for themselves or greed.
Only if you think you are responsible for the actions of others, which you shouldn't be.Ryzaki wrote...
Collider wrote...
Why not? We've done great things. It's true that humans are capable of great evil, but we're also capable of great good as well. The only animal able to, in fact.Ryzaki wrote...
Collider wrote...
I eagerly await the day - then again I'll be dead by then - where humans will have learned to master themselves.
There's a good chance that day won't happen until the day after a major tragedy.
I don't have too much faith in the human race as a whole anymore. <_<
I'm a cynic can't help it.
Only animal able to be capable of great good? Seeing as humans are also the animal capable of the most evil I would say that's only balancing itself out.
Every organism is selfish. Thankfully, humans are able to steer the farthest away from that.Majority (not all) of humanity's "good" deeds are developed for survival for themselves or greed.
Mimaiselphenai wrote...
Only animal able to be capable of great good? Seeing as humans are also the animal capable of the most evil I would say that's only balancing itself out.
Majority (not all) of humanity's "good" deeds are developed for survival for themselves or greed.
Or to counter evil deeds.
Ryzaki wrote...
Which 9/10 are for survival, to make themselves look better than the other. I'm not saying that humans don't do good, self-sacrificing deeds but its no where near as common as the reverse is.
There's nothing wrong with acting out of need for survival. This is what animals do all the time yet they don't get flak for it. It would be selfish to expect people to act selflessly all the time, IMO.Ryzaki wrote...
Mimaiselphenai wrote...
Only animal able to be capable of great good? Seeing as humans are also the animal capable of the most evil I would say that's only balancing itself out.
Majority (not all) of humanity's "good" deeds are developed for survival for themselves or greed.
Or to counter evil deeds.
Which 9/10 are for survival, to make themselves look better than the other. I'm not saying that humans don't do good, self-sacrificing deeds but its no where near as common as the reverse is.
Modifié par Collider, 24 mars 2010 - 02:26 .
Collider wrote...
Only if you think you are responsible for the actions of others, which you shouldn't be.
Every organism is selfish. Thankfully, humans are able to steer the farthest away from that.
Mimaiselphenai wrote...
Ryzaki wrote...
Which
9/10 are for survival, to make themselves look better than the other.
I'm not saying that humans don't do good, self-sacrificing deeds but its
no where near as common as the reverse is.
That's
proooobably a common opinion.
Modifié par Ryzaki, 24 mars 2010 - 02:28 .
Guest_mrfoo1_*
I know this is off topic but i have to say it, "The true saint is the one hates being saintly but still does it anyway"Ryzaki wrote...
Collider wrote...
Why not? We've done great things. It's true that humans are capable of great evil, but we're also capable of great good as well. The only animal able to, in fact.Ryzaki wrote...
Collider wrote...
I eagerly await the day - then again I'll be dead by then - where humans will have learned to master themselves.
There's a good chance that day won't happen until the day after a major tragedy.
I don't have too much faith in the human race as a whole anymore. <_<
I'm a cynic can't help it.
Only animal able to be capable of great good? Seeing as humans are also the animal capable of the most evil I would say that's only balancing itself out.
Majority (not all) of humanity's "good" deeds are developed for survival for themselves or greed. Or for that warm fuzzy feeling you get for helping someone. There's not too many people willing to help others at sacrifice to themselves.
Collider wrote...
There's nothing wrong with acting out of need for survival. This is what animals do all the time yet they don't get flak for it. It would be selfish to expect people to act selflessly all the time, IMO.Ryzaki wrote...
Mimaiselphenai wrote...
Only animal able to be capable of great good? Seeing as humans are also the animal capable of the most evil I would say that's only balancing itself out.
Majority (not all) of humanity's "good" deeds are developed for survival for themselves or greed.
Or to counter evil deeds.
Which 9/10 are for survival, to make themselves look better than the other. I'm not saying that humans don't do good, self-sacrificing deeds but its no where near as common as the reverse is.
Modifié par Ryzaki, 24 mars 2010 - 02:29 .
You sure about that? I'd wager that most people are pretty decent. It's only those in power who ruin it for everyone else. Of course there are criminals, but these are few and far between as far as the general populace goes.Ryzaki wrote...
Collider wrote...
Only if you think you are responsible for the actions of others, which you shouldn't be.
Thus the balancing act. We're talking about humanity as a whole. I never said there weren't people who were self sacrificing for others. There are. But most aren't. That's just the truth.
Ryzaki wrote...
Collider wrote...
It's not going to happen, thankfully. Wasting resources there to make a new romance just for players whoRyzaki wrote...
Collider wrote...
Let's not begin posting what the thread thinks is attractive in men.
Aw.You stealth my funz.
Anyways. MShep x Kaidan could be handled really well in ME3.
a) Had Kaidan survive.Are male.
c) Are into it.
By default, male Shepards virmired Kaidan. So you can't have your gay friend only play ME3 for gay kaidan love.
I thought Hendel already had a boyfriend. Just make new characters that are gay or bisexual, best route. Joker could be bisexual. Not gay, unless he is a gay man taking scholarly interest in hardcore asari porn.
Meh Hendel's boyfriend could always meet with an....unfortunate accident.
But yeah Kaidan's not likely.
Joker...actually Joker would make a lot of sense. And if he's made into a LI for FemSheps would take a lot less work than Kaidan.
Hm...I did read a good MShep x Joker fic with Joker having feelings for MShep but not acting on them until the final game time period. It was really good actually.
But yeah any male same sex LI would be Bi. I doubt they'd ever be just gay.
Though Joker x Shep (both genders) has a lot of potential.
Heck he's the last of Shep's main companions not to be romanceable!
Modifié par FataliTensei, 24 mars 2010 - 02:30 .
Guest_JohnnyDollar_*
Collider wrote...
You sure about that? I'd wager that most people are pretty decent. It's only those in power who ruin it for everyone else. Of course there are criminals, but these are few and far between as far as the general populace goes.Ryzaki wrote...
Collider wrote...
Only if you think you are responsible for the actions of others, which you shouldn't be.
Thus the balancing act. We're talking about humanity as a whole. I never said there weren't people who were self sacrificing for others. There are. But most aren't. That's just the truth.
Modifié par Ryzaki, 24 mars 2010 - 02:33 .
JohnnyDollar wrote...
@Blackveldt
That was interesting, but not surprising. Reading what you provided, tends to narrow the possibility of s/s romance in ME3 in reality IMO.
Ryzaki wrote...
What
you're saying its not true? (The stat is made
up true but the amount of self-sacrificing people are vastly
outnumbered by those who aren't.)
I'm sorry you've seen these things. But generally, I see society and humanity becoming more and more generous. It's certainly better than the mongols running around raping and pillaging.Ryzaki wrote...
The fact that homosexual men are well, homosexual. Not attracted to females. And probably would not have sex with females if they can get help it. Although I share some of your sentiment.brzozowski4 wrote...
I am still confused as to why the majority of the community sees homosexuals as lacking the ability to reproduce. I don't think it has ever been set in stone that any person must bear children with his or her lover (or whatever you want to call it). Creating offspring involves a fertile man's sperm and a fertile woman's egg, not a fertile heterosexual man's sperm and a fertile heterosexual woman's egg. Just because it has always been tradition that people in a relationship reproduce together, does not limit reproduction to that situation.
Collider wrote...
I'm sorry you've seen these things. But generally, I see society and humanity becoming more and more generous. It's certainly better than the mongols running around raping and pillaging.Ryzaki wrote...
Collider wrote...
I'm sorry you've seen these things. But generally, I see society and humanity becoming more and more generous. It's certainly better than the mongols running around raping and pillaging.Ryzaki wrote...
Modifié par Ryzaki, 24 mars 2010 - 02:38 .
mrfoo1 wrote...
Much appreciated Blackveldt. Is that the same article from a few years(2006 I believe it was) ago or is it more recent?
Guest_JohnnyDollar_*
I think people are either corrupt or not. I don't think power or money corrupts them. They may not have appeared corrupt before they had money or power, but gave in to themselves so to speak once they have the money/power.Mimaiselphenai wrote...
Ryzaki wrote...
What
you're saying its not true? (The stat is made
up true but the amount of self-sacrificing people are vastly
outnumbered by those who aren't.)
Oh, no. It's true on at least some level. I'm just saying that most people with half a brain can recognize it without being told. I think it's pretty obvious that evil outweighs good. Or maybe power outweighs lack of power, and evil people have all the power. Or maybe power corrupts, so in essence, power is evil. Or maybe power is just money, and money is the root of all evil. But who created the concept of currency? Humans. Therefore, humans are inherently evil, because we planted the root of all evil. Unless evil aliens landed on Earth and gave primitive humans the concept of currency inplace of barter, in which case we're simply foolish victims. Nah, we're evil. Humans are definitely evil.
Guest_mrfoo1_*
brzozowski4 wrote...
I am still confused as to why the majority of the community sees homosexuals as lacking the ability to reproduce. I don't think it has ever been set in stone that any person must bear children with his or her lover (or whatever you want to call it). Creating offspring involves a fertile man's sperm and a fertile woman's egg, not a fertile heterosexual man's sperm and a fertile heterosexual woman's egg. Just because it has always been tradition that people in a relationship reproduce together, does not limit reproduction to that situation.
Mimaiselphenai wrote...
Oh, no. It's true on at least some level. I'm just saying that most people with half a brain can recognize it without being told. I think it's pretty obvious that evil outweighs good. Or maybe power outweighs lack of power, and evil people have all the power. Or maybe power corrupts, so in essence, power is evil. Or maybe power is just money, and money is the root of all evil. But who created the concept of currency? Humans. Therefore, humans are inherently evil, because we planted the root of all evil. Unless evil aliens landed on Earth and gave primitive humans the concept of currency inplace of barter, in which case we're simply foolish victims. Nah, we're evil. Humans are definitely evil.
Modifié par Ryzaki, 24 mars 2010 - 02:41 .
We have policing.Mimaiselphenai wrote...
Collider wrote...
I'm sorry you've seen these things. But generally, I see society and humanity becoming more and more generous. It's certainly better than the mongols running around raping and pillaging.Ryzaki wrote...
Raping and pillaging still takes place in modern society. Just in more subtle forms. =P
Retour en haut
