Pop

Obsidian bought all of the assets for Jefferson. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Are we allowed to hope then?

It wasn't deleted, it was closed so that the thirteen pages of previous discussion (and a poll!) could be counted in the ongoing discussion. Why don't YOU make a Jefferson mod for NwN2? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A Jefferson mod for NWN2 would certainly be something I'd get behind, especially given the upsurge in "episodic" gaming as of late (which would work for a long campaign) but all things considered I'd much prefer an official development not much chance o' that, though.

Depends on what school of abnormal psych you're listening to. Evolutionary psych shirks it off as a natural impulse to spread one's seed. Psychoanalysis identifies it as some reaction to past trauma that one is unable to deal with healthily. Most other accounts paint it as having to do with the desire for domination and control (psychoanalysts might deem rapists as having reverted into the anal stage of development to an extreme degree) That's the one that makes the most sense to me. But you're touching on something interesting, there. If rape is indeed about control and domination, or a need to hurt, this clinical finding doesn't make a lot of sense. This doesn't suggest that exposure to resistance play porn or S/M porn reduces the likelihood of rape, just the access to porn in general. But I wouldn't conclude that rape is a crime of lust, because that's a very slippery slope. If rape is a crime perpetrated out of a desire for the victim, then it stands to reason that the victim could have prevented the rape by becoming less desirable. That's a case for enforced burka-wearing if there ever was one.

Probably clear up some piracy issues. Nobody wants to illegally distribute something that's not the final product. I remain optimistic. Lack of avatar choice in a game is a pet peeve, not a deal breaker. As for the whole nine thing, perhaps we should start using

1 day left. I really hope my computer is truly capable of running this game, because it would be terribly anticlimactic if I can't. 2.21 Ghz (rated at 3.5), 1.5 gigs of RAM, Geforce 6600 OC. I'm curious and a little anxious, given the relative darkness we've been in regarding the story. Tomorrow is going to be a sloooooooooow day.

Actually, Slate is about as good as internet newsmagazines get.

Hmm, yeah, the japanese came to this conclusion years ago. That's why the most confoundingly disturbing pornography that forum trolls ply their trade with are japanese in origin. One wonders why such things exist, it's because of this. Still a hard sell. Porn has always been considered deviant, it's difficult to suggest that it deters deviance.

Not really. One can't really say that sperm and ova are dead, inert matter. I'm talking about taking something not alive and making it alive.

We haven't been able to create life out of inert matter, yet. We can alter already living matter (and arguably living matter, like prions) but we can't create life from scratch.

In retrospect, I should have spammed this clone thread first, seeing how it's the spam forum and all. Sorry about that.

HE'S PATRICK STEWART HE CAN MAKE ANYTHING GOOD

I'm doing what any sensible internets user does in his spare time when he's waiting for the ambien to kick in: I'm stumbling. They just added "adult" categories to their list, and I'm pretty sure it's awesome. Not that I would ever begin to imagine using such things :D No sir.

I was underwhelmed by Patrick Stewart's turn in Oblivion. It was probably the trite high-fantasy nature of the material :'( but come on, he could've done so much better. He was ****in' Picard, man.

And everybody else here is bitter because their preconceptions aren't being met.

Eh, just so long as they don't make every NPC capable of initiating conversation, and write specific dialogue for important NPCs, no one will be able to tell the difference. The Fallout riff-raff had only slightly more to say than TES riff-raff, because you didn't have the opportunity to ask them about everything, and thus they didn't have the opportunity to give stock answers.

An air of pretention, and some comfortable black corduroy pants.

It's hard to argue for an act's selfishness when the act destroys the self. A mother who would donate her kidneys to her sick child, ensuring her own death, is being selfless, not selfish. No matter what good feelings she might be gaining out of doing the right thing for her child, she's losing much, much more. If she's doing so because she's programmed to do it, she's not being selfish, she's being a slave.

You could, but that wouldn't prove that humans are always naturally self-interested. If we accept that premise, when the lifeguard sees a drowning child, his desire is not to save the child, but to avoid a guilty conscience, or get a thrill out of risking his own life. That's counterintuitive. Of course the lifeguard's goal in saving the child is to save the child. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Again, looking at it from the individual level. This will have to wait to tues, as I'm trying to finish two papers for a midnight deadline tonight + class all day tomorrow, however: You could argue that, but that wouldn't prove that humans arn't always naturally self-interested (Remember, Dawkins argues that human intelligence may be able to overcome such gene self-interest). It may be argued that it is counter-intuitive that the life guard risk his own life to safe that of another's (he is being paid btw). So, if that is counter-intuitive, what drives him to do it? Hint: Think genes! Aka Dawkins argue that altruism isn't natural, is cultural. Hence the term "meme". as I said, it's deep, and me rushing through it isn't doing it justice at all. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Still, the statement that "there are no acts of altruism" is proven patently false, which was the original premise. A lot of mothers would argue against altruism being unnatural. Mothers naturally want what's best for their children. Many will risk their own lives for their children. It's preposterous to argue that mothers do this because of some external societal influence. Even if we argue that a mother sacrificing herself for her children is doing so because of natural selection or "to pass on her genes" or whatever, you still can't get around the fact that what she's doing is both unselfish and natural.

You could, but that wouldn't prove that humans are always naturally self-interested. If we accept that premise, when the lifeguard sees a drowning child, his desire is not to save the child, but to avoid a guilty conscience, or get a thrill out of risking his own life. That's counterintuitive. Of course the lifeguard's goal in saving the child is to save the child.

What about a lifeguard who instinctually and reflexively risks his own life for the sake of another, where there is no self-interest and no thought involved? The case is easily made that humans are not naturally selfish.

No reason you shouldn't be You weren't concerned before? I'm downloading all kinds of podcasts, most of which will probably suck.

Dawkins is not credible as a thinker then, if he would argue that there are no altruistic facts. He might have many necessary arguments for his viewpoint, but he would not have sufficient counterpoints against the well-established arguments that altruism, in fact, exists. We went over this with Rand some time ago in the gaming forum. The "Could God make a rock he couldn't lift", prima facae, looks like a good argument against the omnipotence of God. But it isn't. It presumes, fallaciously, that if God can do something, he will do something. If he does create the rock, he is no longer omnipotent. But if he doesn't, he remains omnipotent. For this reason, the "unliftable rock" example fails. Or to put it a little more densely, I found this on a philosophy site (this un):

Counting down the minutes....

I'm kinda curious here, how so? Because, on the surface, it's not evolution if it is "guided" by god (tho I'm prolly getting your meaning wrong). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm somewhat confused as well. I read it as a non-interventionist viewpoint. God is the creator, but he doesn't have any direct influence on the way things happen. He wound it up and let it go.