194 réponses à ce sujet

[Schroing]

TheTrooper1138 wrote...

Schroing wrote...

TheTrooper1138 wrote...

Schroing wrote...

...There's not many ways to interpret you saying that you agree with my actual point.

If by your original point you mean "Pro-life is hardly a right-wing Christian exclusive viewpoint.", then I would have to agree that it's not exclusive, but I would still say that it's mostly Christian and that the Christian part of it is the one that "cries the loudest"... 

Cool.
...So I'm completely correct.

Nope, because the 2nd part of that posting was:

"But there should be some sort of a fuss regardless, as an embryo is -clearly- a living entity on at the very least a cellular level."

you are entirely wrong there. It's a video game, regardless of your views (unless you were being ironic anyways), making a fuss over it would be retarded... maybe you should aply for a job at Fox News... 

That was mostly a joke; I'm not suggesting there should be protests or serious complaints or anything like that. Maybe it'd be nice to have it occasionally pointed out in one of those "scientific inaccuracies" threads.

...Of course, embryos are -clearly- alive. Regardless of your views, yes.

[Schroing]

scyphozoa wrote...

the thing i hate the most about the "intro"

is that SHEP looks back after putting joker into the escape pod. As a highly trained space marine, when your ship is being destroyed and you are escaping to the last available escape pod, YOU KNOW WHAT IS BEHIND YOU AND THAT IT WILL KILL YOU.

you do not need to look over your shoulder and see if the collectors are still destroying your ship.

SHEP really would have jumped into the escape pod, dropped joker and punched the button to shut the door (which assumably there has to be one available inside the pod) thus surviving and escaping to surface of the planet below.

would the collectors have pursued? maybe!

Him looking back is attributable to simple instinct, but him -running outside of the pod to see what's goin' on - is absolutely ridiculous.

[TheTrooper1138]

LOLandStuff wrote...

TheTrooper1138 wrote...

LOLandStuff wrote...

The answer is simple.
It's fiction. Deal with it!

I would, if they would have given us some fictional explanation. They didn't.

He's Shepard, Mass Effect's own Chuck Norris.

well, I guess that's one way of looking at it... 

Schroing wrote...

That was mostly a joke; I'm not suggesting there should be protests or serious complaints or anything like that. Maybe it'd be nice to have it occasionally pointed out in one of those "scientific inaccuracies" threads.

...Of course, embryos are -clearly- alive. Regardless of your views, yes.

considering your postings after that, I'm not so sure it was joke, but OK...
And whether or not embryos are "alive" is still a matter of opinion. To me they're no more alive than a flower (which biologically is alive too), so I have no problem with abortions. Biology is irrelevant in this debate, it's about whether or not one is killing a conscient self-aware being and one is clearly () not. I certainly don't remember anything from before I was born, I doubt you do. 

[CmdrFenix83]

TheTrooper1138 wrote...

Schroing wrote...

TheTrooper1138 wrote...

Schroing wrote...

Pro-life is hardly a right-wing Christian exclusive viewpoint.

yes it is.

Well, I'm done here.

you might haven given some examples to back up your claim, but since you didn't, it seems I'm right... also we have no problems with abortions here in Germany, so that kinda supports my point as well...

I'm not a Christian, and I'm mostly moderate politically.  I believe abortion is murder.  Have I disproved your point now?

[Schroing]

considering your postings after that, I'm not so sure it was joke, but OK...

You were minsinterpreting me, then. My own beliefs about abortion have nothing to do with this discussion.

And whether or not embryos are "alive" is still a matter of opinion. To me they're no more alive than a flower (which biologically is alive too), so I have no problem with abortions. Biology is irrelevant in this debate, it's about whether or not one is killing a conscient self-aware being and one is clearly () not. I certainly don't remember anything from before I was born, I doubt you do. 

To the debate of whether or not abortion is ethical, no, being biologically alive is not relevant (not very relevant, anyway). But to the debate of whether or not it's lulzy for Shepard to go "So it's not alive?" after EDI calls it an embryo, it's very relevant.

[CmdrFenix83]

TheTrooper1138 wrote...

lol, you certainly sound like a right-wing Christian... again making my point stronger...

Really, think about how stupid your reply is. What about rape victims for example? Should they have a rape baby? Or does choosing not to mean they shouldn't have a baby at all, maybe at a later time, from a "real" father? Or teenage pregnancy? Sure, makes a lot of sense to have 14 year-old mothers, who were to stupid to use a condom... there are NO REAL arguments against abortion in cases of unwanted pregnancy except some nutty religious extremist ones!

Rape victim - That's what adoption is for.  If you don't want it, put it up for someone that can't have children of their own.  The only reasonable case you can make is for rape.  Otherwise, risk of pregnancy is just a consequence to you, or anyone, being a ****.  If you're stupid enough to open your legs voluntarily, you should damned
well live with the consequences.  Don't want the kid after that, then there are people out there that do. 

And again, I believe religion is a load of BS in general.  Your belief that religion is required to believe murder is wrong is completely baseless.

[thegreateski]

Abortion debates - if you do not have a Uterus then please GTFO.

[Schroing]

thegreateski wrote...

Abortion debates - if you do not have a Uterus then please GTFO.

Abortion debates hinge on the rights of the growth developing in the woman's stomach, not the woman herself.

[CmdrFenix83]

TheTrooper1138 wrote...

LOLandStuff wrote...

The answer is simple.
It's fiction. Deal with it!

I would, if they would have given us some fictional explanation. They didn't.

A fictional explanation why made up religions aren't addressed from a purely scientific proceedure?  Really?  By stating an explanation at all, there would be so many religions angry that BioWare decided to state that one specific one was indeed the true religion.  Your body died, it was resusitated, just like if your heart stopped and you were clinically dead before a defibrulator shocked your heart back to life.  Why on earth does this need philosophical explanation?

[thegreateski]

Schroing wrote...

thegreateski wrote...

Abortion debates - if you do not have a Uterus then please GTFO.

Abortion debates hinge on the rights of the growth developing in the woman's stomach, not the woman herself.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why we can't have nice things.

[CmdrFenix83]

thegreateski wrote...

Abortion debates - if you do not have a Uterus then please GTFO.

Takes two to make a child.  Just cause the woman carries it doesn't mean she has the right to deprive the father of the child.

[Pacifien]

And.... /thread!

[Schroing]

thegreateski wrote...

Schroing wrote...

thegreateski wrote...

Abortion debates - if you do not have a Uterus then please GTFO.

Abortion debates hinge on the rights of the growth developing in the woman's stomach, not the woman herself.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why we can't have nice things.

It's a simple fact. If the growth has the rights of a human being, then its equal (if not superior, being a child) right to life would prevent the woman from getting an abortion. If the growth doesn't, the woman would have every right to get the abortion. Please don't misunderstand me. It's not that women don't deserve equal rights; of course they do. It's whether or not the developing child also deserves them.

Modifié par Schroing, 20 mars 2010 - 04:05 .

[thegreateski]

Schroing wrote...

thegreateski wrote...

Schroing wrote...

thegreateski wrote...

Abortion debates - if you do not have a Uterus then please GTFO.

Abortion debates hinge on the rights of the growth developing in the woman's stomach, not the woman herself.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why we can't have nice things.

It's a simple fact. If the growth has the rights of a human being, then its equal (if not superior, being a child) right to life would prevent the woman from getting an abortion. If the growth doesn't, the woman would have every right to get the abortion. Please don't misunderstand me. It's not that women don't deserve equal rights; of course they do. It's whether or not the developing child also deserves them.

It would be so nice if they were debateing this in our country and not "Women can/can't have abortions!"

[SimonTheFrog]

thegreateski wrote...

Schroing wrote...

thegreateski wrote...

Schroing wrote...

thegreateski wrote...

Abortion debates - if you do not have a Uterus then please GTFO.

Abortion debates hinge on the rights of the growth developing in the woman's stomach, not the woman herself.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why we can't have nice things.

It's a simple fact. If the growth has the rights of a human being, then its equal (if not superior, being a child) right to life would prevent the woman from getting an abortion. If the growth doesn't, the woman would have every right to get the abortion. Please don't misunderstand me. It's not that women don't deserve equal rights; of course they do. It's whether or not the developing child also deserves them.

It would be so nice if they were debateing this in our country and not "Women can/can't have abortions!"

Wow, this is very OT...

But anyway just one thing... it's not really appropriate to call it a "child"... it's not a child, it's usually pretty much a cell cluster (by usually i mean at the time when the abortion is conducted). I'm not taking a stance here (no uterus!), that's just something that is usually used by the anti-movement to provoke emotions not by facts but by blurring the facts. There are other "tools" as well that i often saw. You got to be aware about those. 

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Terraneaux wrote...

What are you trying to say here?  That it makes sense that the Council acknowledged the Reaper threat at the end of ME1 and that the fact that all signs point to the Council's opinion being retconned to force the main character to work for Cerberus in a manner so clumsy as to ruin the characterization of the main character, the established history of many NPC's, and the veresimilitude of the game world, is a-ok?  Because it damn well isn't.  

No, I'm saying you have very little understanding of how politics works. This is what we call a cover up. You know, that little thing where politicians try to hide events or embarassing situations from the world? Believe it or not, it can happen. It does happen. It did happen after Shepard died. They decided there was no Reaper threat to preserve Galactic Harmony. And there was no evidence to contradict them, besides everything Shepard says who is now dead. This is not retconning. Please do not use words you don't understand.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 20 mars 2010 - 05:14 .

[Schroing]

SimonTheFrog wrote...

thegreateski wrote...

Schroing wrote...

thegreateski wrote...

Schroing wrote...

thegreateski wrote...

Abortion debates - if you do not have a Uterus then please GTFO.

Abortion debates hinge on the rights of the growth developing in the woman's stomach, not the woman herself.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why we can't have nice things.

It's a simple fact. If the growth has the rights of a human being, then its equal (if not superior, being a child) right to life would prevent the woman from getting an abortion. If the growth doesn't, the woman would have every right to get the abortion. Please don't misunderstand me. It's not that women don't deserve equal rights; of course they do. It's whether or not the developing child also deserves them.

It would be so nice if they were debateing this in our country and not "Women can/can't have abortions!"

Wow, this is very OT...

But anyway just one thing... it's not really appropriate to call it a "child"... it's not a child, it's usually pretty much a cell cluster (by usually i mean at the time when the abortion is conducted). I'm not taking a stance here (no uterus!), that's just something that is usually used by the anti-movement to provoke emotions not by facts but by blurring the facts. There are other "tools" as well that i often saw. You got to be aware about those. 

I didn't call it a child; I called it a developing child.
It is developing into a child, isn't it? If it goes uninterrupted by miscarriage or abortion or whatnot, it will become one, yes?
You might call a male teenager nearing adulthood a "young man," as a similar example.
It's not perfect nomenclature, of course, but I would hardly call it propaganda.

[Sharn01]

Well, this thread is destined for a lock if the abortion and religious descussion's continue.



I find it ironic though that the debate taking place on abortion seem to mirror many ME2 discussion's where you have people who can't accept the idea that there could be anything wrong with their precious game and that anyone who think's otherwise is an idiot being debated by people who have nothing good to say about the game and think that anyone who does is an idiot.



In the meantime all the moderate's either do not make comment's or have their thread's shoved to the back pages and have their post's completley ignored.

[Pacifien]

So yeah, about Shepard being brought back to life, I'm reminded of the discussion with the Quarians on Freedom's Progress. Shepard mentions being rebuilt, and instead of complete disbelief in the possibility that such technology exists, Prazza disbelieves anyone would spend the credits. Makes me think someone had demonstrated the concept before.

[Terraneaux]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Terraneaux wrote...

What are you trying to say here?  That it makes sense that the Council acknowledged the Reaper threat at the end of ME1 and that the fact that all signs point to the Council's opinion being retconned to force the main character to work for Cerberus in a manner so clumsy as to ruin the characterization of the main character, the established history of many NPC's, and the veresimilitude of the game world, is a-ok?  Because it damn well isn't.  

No, I'm saying you have very little understanding of how politics works. This is what we call a cover up. You know, that little thing where politicians try to hide events or embarassing situations from the world? Believe it or not, it can happen. It does happen. It did happen after Shepard died. They decided there was no Reaper threat to preserve Galactic Harmony. And there was no evidence to contradict them, besides everything Shepard says who is now dead. This is not retconning. Please do not use words you don't understand.

It's a fact that the council believed that the Reapers were coming at the end of ME1.  If they say otherwise in ME2, they were lying, or their opinion was retconned.  If they were lying, then they understand the threat of the Reapers but don't want it to be public, so they would throw resources Shepard's way to, I don't know, save all life in the galaxy from destruction.  What you're claiming is happening is akin to the United States not allowing information about the attack on Pearl Harbor to get out, and instead of joining wwII, to purposefully hinder the efforts of their military to combat this threat.  Sound like a realistic attitude for the people in power?  No, it's not.  

[JMA22TB]

lol Terraneux you crack me up



Your Pearl Harbor example just further proves how far you are from grasping the matter.



If you want great examples of how politicians only wait until absolutely necessary to let the truth get out, watch the TV series 24.

[CmdrFenix83]

Terraneaux wrote...

It's a fact that the council believed that the Reapers were coming at the end of ME1.  If they say otherwise in ME2, they were lying, or their opinion was retconned.  If they were lying, then they understand the threat of the Reapers but don't want it to be public, so they would throw resources Shepard's way to, I don't know, save all life in the galaxy from destruction.  What you're claiming is happening is akin to the United States not allowing information about the attack on Pearl Harbor to get out, and instead of joining wwII, to purposefully hinder the efforts of their military to combat this threat.  Sound like a realistic attitude for the people in power?  No, it's not.  

They never said that.  Only Anderson/Udina make a speach about this.  The Council themselves just thank you and humanity for saving them and the Citadel from Saren and the Geth.  Anderson believes you.  The rest of the Council does not.  This is why they sent you on Geth cleanup missions, to shut your insane, apocalypse-prophetic mouth.

[correnne]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

thegreateski wrote...

Abortion debates - if you do not have a Uterus then please GTFO.

Takes two to make a child.  Just cause the woman carries it doesn't mean she has the right to deprive the father of the child.

THIS REPLY IS ENTITLED "WHY I SHALL NEVER HAVE CHILDREN":

Well if the father wants to carry the damn thing for 9 months, all the while going through mood swings, morning sickness, uncontrollable urges to eat THE MOST DISGUSTING COMBINATIONS OF FOOD IMAGINABLE and lower back problems and then birth it out of a hole approximately 1/5 the child's size afterwards then I say I suppose you can have it. If not and I decide I want it gone, it's gone.