archimage_a

The four types of love are: Agape - Unconditional love Philo - Conditional love Eros - Intimate love Storge - Pragmatic love As to a mix between Platonic Love and Sexual Love....If we translate it you are saying "Love is non-sexual love and sexual love'...while mathmatically true, linguistically it is flawed deeply. I would also point out that 'Shakespearean love' is 'Platonic love' with the added proviso that you don't want to see them hurt. I would then point out that 'There are 4 types of love, and that one.' is a really bad argument. Really, I would suggest actually finding out about theory of love before coming up with an all new theory to try to explain it...

Especially where love is less than 1. :geek: 1) Insults are not objectively true. 2) Surely you mean less mature... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9OGfBGOCpk

Ok. So. (Because this argument makes no sense) To summerise: Neferast says "What Mather believes is a socially constructed fiction, based strongly on the profiteering of the capitalist system." Mather says "No, I really do believe it and its not just a socially constructed fiction, its a real thing. Oh, and by the way, I question your validity as a real man because you don't believe in true love." Neferast "If you were a real man then you wouldn't believe all the socially constructed fiction, you would just accept the world as it really is, and if you did that then you would not be Angst-Ridden. As such I question your validity as a real man because you believe in true love." Iey "Some people just want to be in relationships. I don't see him as less, or more, of a real man because of that." Neferast "Yes, but he challanged my validity as a real man because I am not in a relationship so I had to challange his validity as a real man. Also, here is some slander to prove me right." Aside from being a prelude to some sort of manliness contest, the argument serves no purpose. Analytically...Neferast dismisses social constructs far too early on. Money is, for instance, a social construct. This does not invalidate its ability to influence people into certain modes of thinking, or into making certain decisions which they would not otherwise make. IF true love is a societial construct, and not inbuilt to reality, then Mather's belief in the social construct gives the construct substance because, whether it exists or does not exist, the effects of it do exist. IF it is inbuilt into reality, then the idea that it does not exist is a societial construct, possibly spawned from nihilism, which, as Mather correctly argues, would make his life more difficult - since the social construct's effects obscure reality, in much the same way as if true love is the social construct. Personally both theories are inaccurate. What I believe is that all love is inherantly true--- [hide] (Though if you want to seperate it from lust then you could probably make that distinction...though we would then be left with the love between a man and a dog, or between a man and a fine bottle of Bourbon. Thus we then have to seperate it from love of inanimate objects and of animals which are not human, typically further confined to members of the opposite sex. Though this is inherant prejudice since it nominally negates the possibility of same sex true love, or, indeed, true love for animals...Which one could make a very strong argument for given the amount of love some children invest in pet rabbits and what not.) [/hide] ---and love is something that is both fleeting and static, in much the same way as a river. This means that while we may 'love' someone for our whole lives, what 'love' actually means to us changes more or less constantly. We can make the rather simple assessment that even the most besotted couple will, on occassion, think about other things, or will be angry or annoyed with the other person. This, of course, doesn't mean that they do not 'love' the other person for certain durations, it merely means that the 'love' they feel is different. We could couple 'love' with 'regret', for instance, if someone died/left before you had the chance to set things right. While the idea of 'Someone who is forever yours, and will always be thinking about you, and will never be annoyed with you, and you never annoyed with them' is an ideal situation, and certainly something to aspire towards, as opposed to going 'its impossible, we should ignore it', I do thinking that finding someone who you will be able to forgive, and to be able to forget about the things that annoyed you, and to think about them when you have cause to, is doable. In that sense 'True Love' exists. Ultimately, though, no matter which way you look at it there are assumptions made about the fundermental make up of the universe which are built almost exclusively on our own personal experiances and our own personal thought processes. While we can debate and allow the thought processes a chance to reproduce themselves within each other's minds, we should not become annoyed that other people are unable to accept and agree with our assessments of the universe.

I suppose the real question is, if I said 'Quit being a Matherard' would you/other people be offended, even though I just made it up? Mather, being your name, which indicates that it is a personality trait. Retard, meaning to slowing down or to hinder progress or otherwise delay. Obviously I would never call you that because it is offensive and people who are not you may take offense to it, even if you don't personally. It is merely included to demonstate how your 'Its not really a real insult' argument is flawed. Half-wit would be another term I could use, which is English Slang, similar to your 'Internet Term', yet may still cause offence. I would strongly recommend you look at the rules a little more often, since the purpose of them is not to stop you from insulting people, but is to stop other people from being insulted BY you. (And so much other jargon which is rubbish, yet, by using these forums we agree to abide by.)

"I am beyond true love, I am at eternal love." "I am beyond eternal love, I am at ultimate love." Ect. To continue the catagorisation metaphor your argument reads that "I am at 1.001 in the Dewey Decimal Classification Scheme" I would suggest you actually read Maslow's article, but I can only imagine you would claim it was overcomplicated or unneccessarily complex. "Pyramids? Thats two more vertices and one more rays than there needs to be!"

What I find quite entertaining is that you are essentially refuting a system not at all dissimilar from the Dewey Decimal system, more or less on the basis that you have all the books you could ever need, and if you needed more you would write them. The Hierarchy is merely designed to explain why people are motivated to do certain things. For instance, if I am a feudal farmer then I am motivated to farm by my need of food, I am motivated to serve my liege because of my need for safety, I am motivated to help my village because of my need of friendship, I am motivated to be better than others because I want to achieve, I am motivated to become literate because I want to become more knowledgable. However, if I cannot get enough food, then my safety (IE not poaching in my Liege's woods), my village (Stealing from my neighbours) and my need to become better/respected are greatly diminished. Similarly, your situation: You have food, you have safety, you have some degree of belonging, you have a lesser extent of esteem and you generally lack Self-Actualisation. In my approximation of your situation anyway...Based on you talking about food, that you more or less openly flout the law, that you gave impassioned speeches about how vastly important the Tavern is to you, that you are frequently looking for acceptance from other people (Retech and Lei to name but two) and your general creativity/spontanetity/lack of prejudices (most recently shown with the 'I am not running a game with a system') and (Though we will probably argue on this point) your general disinterst in accepting facts, favouring, instead, to reinvent the facts in a way that suits whatever you happen to be arguing. Conversely, I have food, I have a perception of safety, my sense of belonging is more or less secured, my sense of achievement is waning as I am exposed to people who are more skilled than I am, and my self-actualisation is somewhat developed...but is weakening as well. Its not really a 'You are here' kind of thing, it is just a model to demonstrate that our needs are in a hierarchy =P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvO50GYniiI&feature=related I do love this video, its not so down your throat as half of the anti-piracy things usually are. :thumbsup:

Nah, people wear 'Anomaly' like a badge of pride, and then 90% of people refuse to put themselves into the system. I would have to point out that Maslow's Hierarchy does work very well, in that it would be very hard not to say you were in the first stage...Who doesn't need food? And for people who have Heroin, who doesn't need sleep? And for people with Coffee and Heroin, who doesn't need drugs? :grin:

For some reason I keep thinking of Shakespere when we do these double inverted comma bits. Anywho.

Really you are talking about two different needs there. The first 'Need to serve somone' which is stage 1 The second 'Need of hugs', which is stage 3, recieving acceptance/trust/whatever you want to classify hugs as. The need I'm speaking of isn't the basic need to be of assistance, I've already god that base desire covered. And I don't want acceptance or trust either, if I wanted those, I could just get them from wherever the [bleep] I wanted, I have all the traits I need for that. What I need is the good ol' fashion concept of ´true love´. No, not a feeling of "here I belong" or "this is right", just true [bleep]ing nirvana, I know, I've been there before a few times, during traditional pair dances for reasons you probably can guess. I am really at a loss here. Your argument goes 'No I do not need the things that I need, I already have them. What I need is what I haven't got, but I have had it before, but it wasn't what I needed, but at the time it was, because I thought it was, but now I need the thing that was what it was but isn't that which I already had because what I already had wasn't real, so, in summery, I need what I don't know exists.' Really, I think this demonstrates stage 2. You have an extreme fear of actually fitting into a catagory, and so intentionally obstruct the catagory system by use of semantics.

Really you are talking about two different needs there. The first 'Need to serve somone' which is stage 1 The second 'Need of hugs', which is stage 3, recieving acceptance/trust/whatever you want to classify hugs as.

Mather... I think you've got it in reverse. Most of the time, the sum of creation is flipping you the bird. I know, that's why flipping it off right back is entertaining; gloating at the fact that its efforts are futile. :thumbsup: The thing I like about Maslow's Hierarcy of Needs, is the way that it places people who are jerks near the bottom. On a less metaphysical level(not by much), calling reality futile is like calling a fish a dog; fundermentally stupid, inaccurate and, well, generally ridiculous. Assuming reality is 'against you' is self-absorbed and highly unmethodical. Reality is truely impartial because it is an abstract principle we use to define everything that doesn't occur in our minds. Thus, to say that reality is 'against you' is saying that Objectivity is Subjective, while your Subjectivity is Objective. Ergo a Fish is a Dog.

I am mildly worried that, if they do have a better ending in store, then that ending is going to have to be SO MUCH BETTER to justify them having such a bad ending. I am thinking that the three different options spawn three different DLCs, the DLCs lasting six hours each, and all of them spawn a 'State of the Universe at 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, 50 years' epilogue.

:sad: I am sure you will get better before long Earth

Mask, the Reapers/Bioware will assume we have made this analysis and knowing that we know their methods, they will alter them. But, knowing that they know that we know that they know, they might choose to keep them the same. Truely, they are cunning. On a more serious note the total lack of short term stuff would be explained by the 'You didn't actually defeat them, but you defeated their attempts to stop your attempt at stopping their attempt to take harvest the Human Race.'

[spoiler=Spoilerrific] It did have a bit of a point. If you have less than a certain number, it chooses your ending based on your alignment (This is the one I got). Lower than that, and you get the 'bad' ending. I think the short 'epilogue' scene changes a bit as well if you get the 'good' and 'best' endings. Seems like they ran into the same problem as DA2, in that after all was said and done, it didn't feel like your choices actually mattered. Wouldn't have been so disappointing/out of place/etc if they bothered to explain what happened to even just the important people/groups/species you saved. Saying "And then thousands of years in the future, everything was mostly okay" doesn't really address how everyone survived without the relays, for example. Could have done something like the epilogue cards from DA:Origins, for example. Though that might be something that they didn't explain just because I got the 'okay' ending. :razz: 7,000 warscore :grin: Reading through some of the 'Reapers indoctrinated Shepard' theories for why the game has a weak ending is certainly compelling...I am really hoping they release a free DLC, or something, in the next few days to clarify the situation. It would almost certainly go down in history in terms of sheer awesome. I am kinda assuming it won't happen, but it would be good if it did :grin: Oh, also:

Finished the game...I am somewhat annoyed by the ending/s, really I would have prefered a summary of what you had achieved, rather than 'Pick an ending, any card', but different parts of the plot did come out, and were fairly well tied up. The Geth-Quarian epilogue was, for instance, summerised quite well talking to Tali after the quest ends(though hardly a deep epilogue). The Krogan/Main Races epilogues were not really summerised at all, so you are left wondering 'What, if anything, happened to them after the game ended?' I am not sure I have really come to 'It was a good game/it was a bad game' decision. While it would have been nice to have the 1,000 odd variables they pulled from the first two games all work into this big master ending/game, its just not technically feasible...And having minor moments were the former plot came together was nice. Only thing I can certainly say is that the warscore was TOTALLY irrelevant, so it was annoying they made it seem like it would make all that much of a difference.

I think I also decided to 'hold the inquistion', but otherwise I was paragon. But my version was: Mordin: WE NEED TO HURRY Shepard: *Crushed by a leg* Mordin: WE NEED TO HURRY Shepard: Ok, this time I *Crushed by a Leg* Mordin: WE NEED TO HURRY Shepard: BACKROLL! *Crushed by a different Leg* Mordin: WE NEED TO HURRY Shepard: EVERYTHING NEEDS TO DIE!!!!!!!!!!! *Crushed after by a leg after killing everything* Mordin: WE NEED TO HURRY Shepard: AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH *Crushed by a Leg after hitting one of the hammers* Mordin: WE NEED TO HURRY Shepard: *Crushed by a Leg having forgotten to backroll* Mordin: WE NEED TO HURRY Shepard: *Hits both hammers, finally* There may have been more leg crushing action intermixed there. [hide] To me, if Eve was liable to die, then I probably would have done as the Salarians asked. Wrex is just too unstable. [/hide]

Was a fan of Tuchanka, personally. Series of awesome events happening one after the other, even though my choice to get rid of Maelon's data came back to bite me. Hmmmm...My experiance might have been different from yours...The part near the end, where you need to set the two hammers...for me it turned into a nightmare, so tainted my view somewhat. But yes, deleting the data was a bad idea =P Glad I kept mine.

*Screams like a girl* The first mission with the Quarians! (Well, second, but the first one was talking so...) Seriously, mind blowing, and so simple as well...True Fan Service!

I account of me forgetting....I would say no. :oops:

More accurately: Supply and Demand. Mather wants to Supply game X We Demand game Y Either X needs to turn into Y or Y needs to turn into X....or nothing happens. (Or compromise)

Happy Birthday Earth. I am not sure what my opinion of ME3 is... On the one hand I love the system...Really, I don't think they could do much better...They eliminated a lot of the annoying things from ME2 without destroying the good parts of that game....Then they took the good parts of ME1 and somehow combined them for a game that is truely the successor in the ME series. Really the only thing they could have done to make the game better was vechicles (But if it was a choice between the game as it is and the game as it might be + Vechicles, I would keep the game as it is) However...The story doesn't seem to be...Concievable. I mean, ME1 you were out to stop Saren, you went off, did missions, collected information, weapons, stats, ect, ME2 you were out to get through the Omega 4 Relay, you went off, did missions, collected information, weapons, stats, ect... In ME3 you are out to stop the giant masses of the Reaper Fleet, but the task is so impossible that you actually have 2 sub-missions, Keep Earth Alive (Which you don't do anything towards) and Build the Crucible (Which you barely do anything towards.) So you are just to of wandering the Universe, trying to be useful while everyone else is dying...sort of left feeling like 'What am I doing?' Part of it is that you don't really have the 'Mission'-'Collect a team'-'Mission'-'Prove Team'-'Mission' dynamic...You get 4 squad members to start with (Or I did) and then you play through several missions, then, finally, you gain another squad member...and you are 16 hours into the game and you have collected 2/3rds of the required score to try to defeat the Reapers, and you just aren't sure if you are 1 hour away from the end or 32 hours away from the end. Also not sure if I have actually finished the prologue yet, or if the game is just about to start, since they have now started using the red/blue choices in conversations. There is also rather a lack of replayability(Various sequences don't really have more than one way to play out, and, at times, it feels more like a movie than a game), but thats because of the sheer replayability of the first two games and the absolutely monumental task undertaken to get all that and build a game that flows. I think the task is, perhaps, too big though =P I mean, there just isn't a chance that I would play through another full run, from 1 to 3...Talking so many hours of gameplay.

I have somewhat of a problem here... Lets say I have picked up a computer that needs hacking...now, I can get a pencil and paper (or just use my memory) and bruteforce my way into the computer...it will take several years but still... Alternatively I can connect a computer to another computer, which bruteforces its way into the first computer. However connecting said computer to the other computer is a task in and of itself. Added to that the computers are not inherantly compatible, or may use a strange cable which only someone who was especially skilled would think to use/own. I suppose, if I was more skilled, I could break into the computer programming and recover the password/just force it to boot without a password. Though if I had a reasonably advanced computer program I could break into another computer program and recover the password/force it to boot without a password with a far lower skill than the former. Of course the second case still requires that I have some degree of technical awareness because the computer doesn't run itself...It needs me to point it at the file/computer I want broken...It also requires me to know the fundermentals of how to get the program to work. This is, of course, assuming it is not a self-aware computer program, or one of the TV computer programs...Or a computer program that is actually being remote controlled...All of which supposes that other stuff besides what I want are going on. You can say that multiple modifers aren't neccessary...And maybe they aren't, maybe they are...Thats not the point. The point is that using modifers is a roleplaying aid which allows people to play a game without playing their real self by virtue of being unable to do anything else. Thats actually untrue. Coffee stimulates the production of Adrenaline, and injecting Adrenaline produces more Adrenaline. Ergo Adrenaline + Adrenaline = 2 Adrenaline (Which may not double your alertness because of the inherant limits of humanity, but coffee, and its associated effects, last longer than Adrenaline does) Sophism. +20 to your roll = -20 from the required roll. So instead of increasing your stealth, it increases your stealth? I mean suppose we were talking about shoes of sneaking, which, under yourself system increases your stealth skill by an arbitrary number. Someone then takes off the shoes of sneaking, and their stealth skill goes down? Stays the same? Surely this just means you have to remember a different random number... Or, to use your example, a person decides to get a bionic lung, and then decides to get a third lung because they can...All of which just means you have a random number that you don't have recorded coming into play. Ultimately, I guess, it is your game. I would highly recommend not letting myself, Nex, Retech, Wyvern, Earth or Ross play, as we would almost assuredly mess up your game...Since we apparently think in entirely different ways to you. So you just need to get Stork, Alg and Lei to play and your set. And Hex, obviously.

Not sure, she just has that look during character creation. Intimidating... On a semi-related note...I have the feeling that in a few days I will be recounting my first play of ME3 and I will suddenly say: "And so I threw my laptop out of the window" "What? Why?" "I just sort of froze, the awesome overwhelmed me and survival instinct kicked in" :rolleyes: