Geneaux486

I've never played a Sentinel, but from what I've heard that's a good choice for an insanity playthrough, I hear that kinetic armor they have can take a lot of damage.

I wanna see Civil Protection Babies.

Too bad about the whole Valve sueing you thing. You should sell DVDs of Freeman's Mind and Civil Protection to cover the legal fees.

All I really know about speedruns is Mike "TSA" has the record for fastest Ocarina of Time playthrough, and that they look tedious to do. Hey, if you can get through a game that long in five hours or something, hats off to ya. Requires an impressive amount of dexterity.

Some people start as early as a week in advance. Sometimes they need a longer buildup.

Watch Machinima.com doesn't upload it until next week.

In most cases like this the game would be in the public domain at that point, and it wouldn't be illegal to download it. If my sources are right, of course.

It is worth playing through the first game, BTG, as you can carry over your completed game file to the second game, and the choices you made in the first game affect the second game in noticeable ways, and the choices from both these games will have even farther reaching consequences in Mass Effect 3. Definetely. What I really liked was how much mythology is behind the series even in the first game. You've got all these different alien species with their own histories, cultures, personality traits, it's all very thoroughly written. Same here. Think I'll pick up that triple pack thing.

My view is basically if someone creates something that one deems desireable, the creator of that product deserves to be compensated for it. A pirated game is a lost sale no matter what. If the pirated version did not exist a person would either not play it, or break down and buy it. If one obtains the work of another by means other than lawful transaction, it is a lost sale.

I did like the way the weapons worked better in ME than ME2, but I like the powers and cooldown better in ME2, allows for a more noticeable difference in each class. And I love biotic charge. No doubt. The first time I ever spoke to him was one of the most (and one of the only) chilling video game experiences I've had. Maybe it's been too long since I last played GoW, but I thought it also did the sort of 2nd person view whenever you aimed.

And yet I did justify my view of rights. What a mentally healthy human being would find to be in its best interests, living, eating, etc. is deserved by everyone who would benefit from any such thing unless there is a discernable difference between them. There is no ignoring reality in this line of reasoning. On the contrary, it focuses completely on reality. Furthermore, you claim that I simply believe in rights as though you are doing something different. You're not, hoss. Your perception of rights is no more factual than mine.

And again, this is only valid if one adopts your view of rights. Where your argument falls apart is your labeling of my views as statism. I see the alternative, the process of aborting the baby, as forcing the developing life out of its natural environment to die. The difference is perspective, yours and mine. Again I say, your argument is only valid if one adopts your views on rights, which are not factual. You’re right, my bad. I should have said “So you decided to respond with a rebuttal that actually was absurd”. Again, a response that is only valid if one accepts your view of rights and who deserves them. The outcome of most pregnancies is the survival of both the mother and child. Your argument does not hold in light of this. Of course you’re twisting it. I advocate both lives, not just one. You call that advocating one life over another, and proceed to call it evil. You’re interpreting one thing I say as something else entirely. That is what twisting is. That is what you have been doing. I don’t believe this is true. It’s not contrary to what I’ve been saying at all. Think of instances with Siamese twins. If the two share one or more vital organs and have to be separated, one must live and the other must die. The same is true for cases where the pregnancy/childbirth puts the mother in mortal danger. Only one can live. It’s a terrible choice, but the fact remains that it is a choice that must be made. Someone has to make that choice, and either choice ends with only one survivor. You cannot possibly be this naïve. In fact, I’m pretty sure I’m misunderstanding you here. I assume by “life is in danger” you mean the fetus threatens the mothers right to live as she pleases, not something as dramatic as her actual death. Again, this goes back to perception of rights, yours and mine. And yet our biological instincts can also compel us to protect our offspring at any cost. Your argument here is based on one instinct we can have, but it is not the only instinct we can have. Again, twisting what I’ve said to make it seem evil when it is not. I do not support abortion. I also do not think it’s okay for a person who cares about the issue to limit their involvement to simply condemning the woman who finds herself in such a predicament if they’re in a position to help. Semantics. I should have said “The fetus will become a fully grown person, as opposed to the developing human being it already is." And your interpretation of the effect is, I believe, twisted and detached from what is actually going on, as I’ve said already. With your own organs you are making the choice on behalf of only yourself. There is still only one life involved, yours, therefore I still do not see how it is relevant to a situation where there are two lives involved. The woman’s right to not get raped, if you want to get very specific. The fetus did not violate the right, the rapist did, hence why I said “as a result of the violation”. I can certainly see where it would be more convenient had I said anything of the sort. Never did I say “abort the fetus if it’s the result of a rape”. I said that I believe the situation requires a great deal of understanding and care. There are other ways to administer these things without terminating the pregnancy. The reason we care about this issue is because we care about the well being of others, it is important to respond to varying situations in a way that continues this. You say I should have stuck with what I had? That is all I have done, and that is what I will continue to do. The government initiating its own programs to take care of those that cannot take care of themselves does not force anyone to do so against their will or sacrifice individual liberty. They would be using their own funds, while employing people who want to work at the jobs to do them. It seems like when you say we have to focus on right now, you mean we shouldn’t care about the future at all with the above point. Please correct me if I am wrong. And as you know, I disagree with you. I believe a human being at any stage has the right to live, grow, and develop naturally. The parasitic existence is unavoidable and therefore irrelevant in determining whether or not the right of the fetus to live are valid. It doesn’t matter whether or not they get away with it, crooked businessmen have been sent to prison, and the thousands of people whose lives they’ve ruined are still ruined. Their personal interest is not in feeding you, it is in making money. Feeding you is a necessary action to make that money, but the moment they can no longer make money from it, their interest is no longer relevant to you at all. Various corporations continue to employ child labor in third world countries to produce their products as cheaply as possible because they know that they can exploit limited employment opportunities in various areas. Corporations do not act like individual people. The primary motive is to make as much money as possible. The more control they have, the more dangerous that becomes. At least in the government’s case their motive is theoretically greater than simply making money. Ideally the goal is to make money to take care of the citizens, not to make a profit for themselves. With corporations you cannot say the same thing. Hell, in the US, corporations were originally chartered by governments to carry out specific functions then disband. It was not until existing corporations took advantage of laws aimed at protecting the rights of minorities that lawyers were able to secure similar rights for individual corporations. I believe a government’s job is to secure and protect at least the most basic of rights, and should be run by individuals elected by the general public. In theory, this is how the United States is. In practice, well, as you said, there are corrupt politicians just as there are corrupt businessmen. However, in a world where neither side could get away with it, I’d prefer a government run by the people alongside independent businesses providing for our most basic needs as opposed to a corporation which has limited liability and a singular goal of turning profit at the lowest possible cost.

It's very different from GoW though. You rely on class-based abilities as much as you do weaponry, for starters. It's also far more immersive. Frightengly immersive for a TPS.

RPG/third person shooter. Graphics are pretty good, amazing story, gameplay... is a lot better in the second, but the first is worth playing to. All in all it's a sci-fi game that rivals most sci-fi movies I've seen, I'd highly recommend it.

Meh, it's something to do.

You were basically asking "Why post anywhere on a forum ever". Nine times out of ten the answer is going to be "Just because".

A thread for the Mass Effect games. Anyone here play Arrival yet? It was cool, yeah?

DLCs pretty hit or miss for me. Mass Effect 2 did an outstanding job utilizing it, giving us everything from cool new gear to entire story expansions that lead us into Mass Effect 3, all of which are very well done and fun to play. On the other end of the spectrum you've got Fable 3. The first few bits of DLC they put out included an extra dye pack, some new outfits, and the "Understone" quest pack. They released these gradually over the month or two after the game's release. Why was that a problem? They accidentally put it all on the XBL marketplace an hour before the game officially went on sale, then hurridely took it down a little later. Whoops.

Subject is something I have an opinion on, so I post in the relevant thread for as long as I feel I can contribute to the discussion about it. That's all.

And what do you need to grow stuff? Other stuff. Want to grow crops? Use seeds. Want seeds? Get them from other plants. Who deserves access to the intial plants? Who deserves a fair shot at the naturally occuring raw materials that are not grown or engineered by others? Everyone. An argument that is only valid if one adopts your perception of rights, which I believe is twisted and incomplete. So you saw fit to respond with a rebuttal just as absurd? An abstract thought is not a stage of a human life, it is an abstract thought. If you really can't see why I would differentiate an abstract thought from a tangible, growing organism, you and I aren't likely to reach an understanding any time soon. Does the fetus get the rights of a fully thinking rational adult? You know my stance on rights, so you probably already know that my answer is a "no" with a "but". It is living, and it has the capacity to continue to develope into a fully functioning person. Ergo, it follows that it's basic right to survive and grow should be protected by a government that claims to value human life. You can keep twisting it to make it sound illogical or evil, but that's just going to create further back and forth with me responding "that's not true and here's why". You noticed it and read way too deeply into it. By "most" I meant "except for the people who are into that sort of thing". Nothing more. The rest of my initial description more than covers the rest of my stance. This is a scenario I haven't really touched on, and there's a reason for that: I really don't know where I stand on it when the mother's life is truly in danger. If she was definetely going to die as a result of the pregnancy, and an abortion were the only possible way to save her. It's a terrible situation and an ugly choice. One that I think the mother would have to make herself, with as much support and guidance from others as she wants. I don't pretend the choice of whether or not to get an abortion is a simple one for the majority of women, and I believe it isn't. I also believe it is on us to do more for the woman than simply wag our fingers and say "You shouldn't do that" when said woman finds herself in such a position. I have no patience for that sort of behavior. Agreed. And skin cells still don't become people. And developing fetuses still do. That is what is, right now. And your alternative is still not objective or factual. What you've suggesed could be a possible outcome, but it does not follow that this is their motive. You think their intent is malevolent when I think it isn't. Am I saying you're wrong? No, I have no idea whether or not in their heart of hearts they secretly do want to destroy society. Neither do you. To say that they're necesarry for life is not an argument, it is a fact. I don't understand why this is relevant. Neither is a developing person. They are components. And that still leaves the question as to where to draw the line in regards to when it is acceptable to get an abortion. By your logic the mother could say on the day of birth "On second thought, I'd rather avoid the pain. Go ahead and abort it." We do not have to murder a person at some point in our lives to continue our existence. This is where that analogy fails. No, I'm not. I'm saying rape is a unique case in which the fetus itself exists as the result of a violation of the woman's rights. This does not mean I would support an abortion in such a circumstance, merely acknowleging that it is a horrible situation for everyone. So your answer to my question is basically that it's right to live is not forfeit, and the government which values human life will undertake the task of providing care. In our adult years the same is done via welfare. Not everything is renewable. Fossil fuels certainly aren't. Furthermore, we do not all renew and reuse our resources. A C-section differs drastically from an abortion in predicted outcome, intent, and statistical outcome. One is expected to result in the survival of the mother and child, the other regards the survival of the child as happenstance. Furthermore, going by your logic, wouldn't the fetus' newly aquired rights upon separation from the mother make the entire process morally wrong? As for the abortion survivors, well, I would bring up infanticide, but you seem to be opposed to that. There are plenty of people who believe that the abortion survivor should be left to die, I'm glad to see you are not one of them. And I don't believe the solution is to put the responsibility in the hands of those who only seek to make money for themselves. As corrupt as businessmen can get, I think it would be a disaster. Heh, just as much my fault as it is yours.

I cannot prove that they have rights, I can only explain why I believe they have rights. This is the same thing I said in the abortion thread. Though this might be a slippery slope, I'm going to post it here as well: Here I am refering to rights from a purely moral standpoint. The universe does not revolve around any single one of us, so theoretically none of us deserves more or less than anyone else. As individuals we know what we find desirable, and what we find painful. In a way, it boils down to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Most of us would wish to be spared undue pain. It follows that we should also spare undue pain to any living creature that can feel and discern pain, as there is no discernable difference between our basic sense of pain, and the basic sense of pain of anything else that can feel and register it. This is what I base my argument that rights extend to the capacity of any given living thing upon.

A valid point that does not take into account the raw materials that can sustain life. Fruit, vegetation, animals provide nourishment, for instance. My point is that one human being has just as much right to that sustanance as anyone else. Conciously taking goods, services, and resources from another against their will is a crime, and giving them freely is charity. None of it constitutes slavery. Yes, and as I said, from my perspective, the argument is for the fetus' right to survive. There is only one manner in which it can do so, there is only one way any of us have done so. Pregnancy and childbirth are biological necesities and unavoidable. The fetus cannot change that, nor can anyone else without terminating the fetus' life. My reasoning is that the life line is drawn at conception. Not before, and not after. I agree with this for the most part. Rights are secured by a government, or in more unfortunate cases, ignored by a government, but they exist independently. A government that honestly claims to value human life, as I said, will take human life at all stages into account. It will not necesarilly force others to feed and clothe them, I believe this would be counter productive. It can, however, create programs that focus on aiding those who cannot feed and clothe themselves as well as offer tax benefits to those who choose to do so themselves. I have said why, though it was very indirect. Here I am refering to rights from a purely moral standpoint. The universe does not revolve around any single one of us, so theoretically none of us deserves more or less than anyone else. As individuals we know what we find desirable, and what we find painful. In a way, it boils down to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Most of us would wish to be spared undue pain. It follows that we should also spare undue pain to any living creature that can feel and discern pain, as there is no discernable difference between our basic sense of pain, and the basic sense of pain of anything else that can feel and register it. This is what I base my argument that rights extend to the capacity of any given living thing upon. Life gets rights according to it's capacity was my argument. Skin cells do not have the capacity to become individual human beings, therefore they do not get the rights of human beings. But that's just it, it isn't like her kidneys or liver. Neither of those things are growing and developing into fully functioning human beings. A fetus is. This is why I disagree with the regard for a fetus as simply a thing. "Being" implies existence, nothing more. Birth is not a transformation, it is a change of location. The fetus does not immediately transform into a baby at birth. I'm sure you're well aware of this, of course, but I bother pointing it out to show why I do not see it or any other stage of developement as a "transformation". I suppose by the logic that the fetus has no right to live as a parasite, that abortion should be a viable option at any stage of pregnancy as well, yes? I am saying it is not moral to abort a fetus because of the circumstances under which it must survive, as those circumstances are unavoidable. But this is based on a perception of their actions that is not factual, nor is it objective. You go further into detail here, about why you claim they opposte the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but again, this is a reinterpretation of their motives that is not likely to be provable. Your perspective and view of what a fetus is and what it deserves has no bearing on their motives and their agenda. Their perspective will obviously differ from yours. Granted, I cannot argue that either perspective is correct any more than I could honestly say I think my perspective is correct. This is, however, irrelevant when discussing their motives. Their motives are for them to decide. It's there and it already exists, regardless of whether or not it was wanted. In my opinion, the time to prevent an unwanted "parasite" when discussing a fetus is before it exists, not after. Again, the case of rape is a somewhat different (and horrible) matter. It doesn't end physically either. Regardless of who claims guardianship, a baby is still going to need someone to physically devote their time and energy to caring for it. Do you think it follows that if a guardian cannot be found, the baby's right to live is forfeit? Relying on corporations to feed the world is a very scary thought. I believe the responsibility falls on organized governments who collect our tax money anyway. Guess that's off topic here though, so I'll leave it at that. The drain is more visible when focusing on the raw materials and on a grander scale. To create one thing, we have to use something else. Our resources are finite and will eventually run out. That is a drain. My point is that being a "drain" is not really a bad thing, simply something that we cannot avoid. I did not say otherwise. I said that we were physically dependent when we were fetuses, all of us, and we were born. Many have been born in a time before abortion was legal, or even before it was practiced. What makes us so special that we deserve to live while those that come after us may not?

Rights by definition are moral, legal, and ethical. My train of thought is basically that rights extend to anything that has perspective, conciousness, and is capable of feeling. As I've said before, I believe rights are dynamic, not static, fluctuating relative to the capacity any given living organism has. I believe, for instance, that it is morally wrong to cause an animal undue pain, because the animal can register this pain and react to it. It follows that this is because the animal has a right to be spared undue pain. Whether or not we choose to honor that right is a different matter, but what we choose to do does not effect what we ought to do. It does not change how we ought to treat the animal, or any other living thing relative to its capacities. I touched on it a bit by bringing up the hypothetical comatose person. Pretty sure it was in the other thread though. Seems like we're getting closer and closer to arguing the same basic thing in both threads, which could get a little confusing, so please bear with me

First off, you're basically describing taxes. Secondly, claiming one's right to resources needed to survive is not slavery. In fact, it supports my earlier point about rights infringing on other rights. There is a right to live for something that is alive and developing into a full grown human being. This is where we disagree. And from a moral standpoint that person has the right to stay alive. You are not legally obligated to take the person in, but from a moral standpoint, it would be wrong to condemn a person to death in that way when you are capable of sustaining them. Rights extend to a being that can reason, to be sure, but that is not where they stop. I believe that rights exist relative to the capacity of any given living thing, as I've said. A skin cell will not develope into a human being on its own. That is where this comparison fails. It is absolutely not a matter of semantics. A fetus is not a potential life. It is a developing life. It already exists, it's already developing, it's already growing. It is not akin to an acorn that has not been planted. If you want to compare a stage of life to the acorn, it would be the sperm and the egg. Those two elements make up a potential life. At the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg it is not longer a potential life, but an existing, developing one. And I disagree. A developing human being is absolutely an actual human being. At no point does it transform from one thing to another, it is a slow growth process. The developing life has the right to survive, regardless of what stage of developement it is in. The fetus having to exist as parasite is an unfortunate necesity in the continuing existence of our species. Basic biological aspects of all human beings come with suffering that cannot be avoided. The same applies to you. However, as you are trying to claim they have an alterior motive to the one they claim to have, burden of proof is on you. As I said, it is a difficult argument to make. Can try, of course, but success is limited. And the parasitic stage is not something it can conciously avoid. It's a stage we all had to go through. As I said, this unavoidable stage in developement does not invalidate the developing human being's life. And I argue that though a pregnant woman has the right to many different methods of easing and assisting her during a pregancy, the option to end the life itself is not one of them, as it infringes on the developing person's right to life. The "parasitic" type of relationship does not end after birth. We continue to be a drain on the parents' time and resources. Even into adulthood, we still consume the world's limited resources. We are always a drain on something, and often we can't even give something back without consuming something else. Seeing as how there is no discernable difference between us when we were in the fetal stage and those who are in that stage now, and the fact that no matter what stage of life we are in, we are a drain on something, it does not hold that this invalidates the right of one life relative to all the others.

Rights from a moral perspective exist for all living things, just in different capacities. Rights are not reliant on reason to exist, protecting reason from force is one of many kinds of rights. You and I disagree on the basic definition. Like I said, we are at an impass. Factors that determine rights can be moral, legal, or ethical. You seem focused on the legal aspect while ignoring the other two aspects, making it an incomplete definition.