.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
Oblarg
-
Posts
873 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Oblarg
-
-
am not certain why you thinks the above quote precludes kreia's desire to end the force.
*shrug*
people see what they want to see. is why drew has no chance to satisfy you all.
HA! Good Fun!
Oh, she'd certainly like to end the force, but the "I know I have to be stopped" makes it quite clear that she does not really intend to do it - rather, she used the threat of it to force the Exile to confront her, so that the exile's past might finally be resolved. That's the entire point of the game, really; Kreia training the exile.
-
a one-dimensional evil villain interp for kreia would be sad, but your personal retconning o' kreia reveals why this drew fellow gots 0 chance to appease fans.
btw, any bets on how long it takes for some schnook to create a darth evil/evyl/e'vl character? yet another reason we wouldn't touch this nonsense with hurlshot's computer much less our own.
HA! Good Fun!
Personal retconning? Nah, my theories are very well-supported (if not outright confirmed) by the dialogue during the final confrontation. Play it again if you don't believe me. Kreia hates the force, yes, but she knew she'd never actually be able to destroy it. She used it as a threat, to draw the Exile to Malachor.
Exile: "The academy here won't last, Kreia. I can activate the mass shadow generator again."
Kreia: "More talk of machines and threats. If you would end Malachor, then do it. But it would not be a victory for you. You may hold Malachor in your grasp, but I hold the answers to your past and future in mine. Would you destroy us both before learning them? If so, then do it - for you have already failed me."
Exile: "If I had to, I would. You have to be stopped."
Kreia: "I know. But there is more than death in this galaxy, and you shall not find it easy. It was difficult to draw you here, but it had to be done. This is your final test."
-
I'm not worried about retconning the Exile, I'm worried about retconning Kreia. The KotOR2 plot summary that they briefly had on their website in the early days seemed to dumb down her motivations in KotOR2 to "evil villain trying to destroy the force," which is an insult to the incredibly nuanced writing that went into her character (personally, I don't think she ever intended to destroy the force at all - she makes it quite clear at the end that all her actions were intended as a sort of "final test" for the Exile).
In other news, I was accepted to the SW:TOR beta, but as I only signed up as a joke and don't have access to my desktop, I'm not even going to bother trying to play it. I gave up all hope in this really early on.
-
Some molecules produces more calories than others (and in this sense can all be thought of as 'calories' themselves), and further the different molecules have different levels of benefit (or hindrance) in the body.
Gosh, didn't take you very long to start saying nonsense, did it?
Even if we were to assume that "benefit" and "hindrance" to the body is even at all defined as a property of food (it's not), we really still have absolutely no way of determining it. As I have mentioned repeatedly (and as you have ignored), the majority of modern nutrition is based almost entirely on worthless correlative studies and not on actual understanding of biochemical mechanisms which would explain your proposed "benefit" and "hindrance."
Humans eat foods, above all else, for calories (and to a lesser extent protein). Not for trace elements (which are already present in most first-world diets - how many cases of scurvy or pellagra have you heard of recently?). For energy, to make the body work. In that respect, the idea of a "good calorie" and a "bad calorie" is laughably absurd. At first glance, one might think it would be less absurd in the context of long-term health effects of various foods, but since we really don't know ****ing anything about that, it's just as nonsensical.
-
We know fairly well the caloric value our body can extract from various foods. We know fairly well how many calories our body burns per day. We know fairly well how much our body needs of protein. Those are the two major things that you have to worry about - largely, if you don't eat too much, you'll be fine. We also know of a few trace substances we need to avoid getting well-known dietary illnesses, and of a very few things which are demonstrably bad due to chemical interactions which we understand.
Past that, modern nutrition is largely bull****.
-
Having a goal of a healthy campfire gives you good and bad cellulose to pick from, having a goal of good health and a strong metabolism gives you good and bad calories to pick from.
This argument would be a lot more convincing if nutritionists actually understood the biochemistry of metabolism that causes the supposed health effects of various foods rather than simply presenting a rapidly shifting array of things which are "good" and "bad" based on the most recent poorly-controlled correlative studies.
I don't put much store in modern nutrition, and for good reasons.
-
Also with the diet information please read and consider Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. Very rigorous researcher and great book.
Protip: There's no such thing as a "good calorie" and a "bad calorie." Energy is energy.
-
As the last episode of the Shepard Trilogy, for them to even waste any dev time at all on this is ridiculous.
All that dev time should have been spent on making the engine, story and other mechanics better. I think I'll cancel my pre-order of Mass Effect III. This is the type of direction they really should not be pursuing. After what they did with DA II, it seems BioWare are really out of touch with themselves...
Wait, you had it pre-ordered in the first place? Pretty much every bit of information about it I've seen makes it seem like a gigantic heap of ****.
-
"is because they can barely take care of themselves much less exert their will upon the world."
That's hilariously naive!
Many under 18s are more mature than many adults. And, you'd ahve to be an absolute moran to think otherwise.
Truly talented troll right here folks. Watch and learn...
-
Not entirely on topic but I thought this was worth discussing. California has banned the use of tanning beds by people under the age of 18. There are a number of harmful activites that minors are not allowed to do like smoking, drinking, etc because the idea is their judgement is not developed enough to appreciate the risks. I guess this could be considered on par with smoking and drinking because excesses of each is indisputably dangerous.
Opinions?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/09/...E7982DJ20111009
I think I'm pretty consistent in arguing that kids don't reason effectively, due to a combination of factors, including susceptibility to peer pressure/advertising as much as raw mental immaturity.
Just wanna point out... that the arbitrary definition of an adult as being 18 is rather rediculous.
Ridiculous, but necessary. Arbitrary cutoffs are an essential, if imperfect, part of legislation.
Also, Volourn, are you intentionally being a moron or does it just come naturally?
-
Not entirely on topic but I thought this was worth discussing. California has banned the use of tanning beds by people under the age of 18. There are a number of harmful activites that minors are not allowed to do like smoking, drinking, etc because the idea is their judgement is not developed enough to appreciate the risks. I guess this could be considered on par with smoking and drinking because excesses of each is indisputably dangerous.
Opinions?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/09/...E7982DJ20111009
Not a bad bit of legislation, as far as I can tell.
-
I eat pretty healthy I guess. I do not eat "fast food". I eat beef only occasionly and then steaks almost exclusively. In fact I've started growing my own food a least a little bit. But these are all choices I've made myself. It strikes me wrong for government entities to presume they have final say over what goes in my mouth. And to tell the truth this is an issue that does not really beg for a solution. Since this thread popped up I've been reading about it and a number of big companies and restraunts are already stopping the use of transfats. Arbys, Whattaburger, White Castle, KFC, Nabisco, Kal-Can, come to mind readily. The truth is, as eople find out what transfat is and what it does to you they will drive the change in the marketplace by buying non-transfat products which will ultimatly complet companies that use transfat to stop.
As far as taxing it using "sin taxes" I guess I have no objection to that. Exorbirant taxes on cigarettes combined with public education has made a hell of a dent in smoking and that is not a bad thing. But banning it going too far.
I'm wondering, though, just how unhealthy/toxic does something have to be to warrant banning its sale as food, in your opinion? Not trying to be aggressive here - I'm not sure banning trans-fats is a smart idea, either. Just curious as to where you'd draw the line.
If it WILL kill/harm the consumer with just small doses in a short to moderate time then ban it. Fen-Fen comes to mind. If it MIGHT kill/harm in large doses over a long time, don't ban but educate on the dangers and benfefits of moderation. Tobacco, trans-fat, etc.
The key point I was trying to get at was the "as food" bit. I don't think something should be sold as food unless it is rigorously safe. That is an absolutely crucial role of government. Tobacco isn't sold under the guise that it is something you can consume to fulfill the most basic need of your body.
Note the term "safe," not "healthy." I do not think caloric content, for instance, is under any circumstance a reasonable motivation for this sort of legislation (or even any taxation at all). As I've mentioned earlier, we don't really have anything that even resembles a functioning definition of "healthy" - a lot of it is just shoddy pseudoscience and anecdote. But if a product is demonstrably harmful to the human body through a mechanism which we rigorously understand, should it really be legal to sell it as if it were something that the body needs to consume daily? I'm not so sure.
-
I eat pretty healthy I guess. I do not eat "fast food". I eat beef only occasionly and then steaks almost exclusively. In fact I've started growing my own food a least a little bit. But these are all choices I've made myself. It strikes me wrong for government entities to presume they have final say over what goes in my mouth. And to tell the truth this is an issue that does not really beg for a solution. Since this thread popped up I've been reading about it and a number of big companies and restraunts are already stopping the use of transfats. Arbys, Whattaburger, White Castle, KFC, Nabisco, Kal-Can, come to mind readily. The truth is, as eople find out what transfat is and what it does to you they will drive the change in the marketplace by buying non-transfat products which will ultimatly complet companies that use transfat to stop.
As far as taxing it using "sin taxes" I guess I have no objection to that. Exorbirant taxes on cigarettes combined with public education has made a hell of a dent in smoking and that is not a bad thing. But banning it going too far.
I'm wondering, though, just how unhealthy/toxic does something have to be to warrant banning its sale as food, in your opinion? Not trying to be aggressive here - I'm not sure banning trans-fats is a smart idea, either. Just curious as to where you'd draw the line.
-
The problem with legislation based on nutrition is that the majority of modern nutrition is, simply put, bull****. There are a few things which we know are demonstrably bad for you for which we understand the biochemistry, and then there's a whole lot of shoddy guesswork based on poorly-conducted correlative studies which isn't really worth anything at all.
-
Yet another new Riot song. This album is looking like it'll be better than Thundersteel, even.
-
Just think what a wonderful world this we be if we all just left each other alone? If somone wants to follow the dictates of their religion and wear burqas, or whatever, who cares. Why is this even a point of contention?
My sentiments exactly.
-
CERN just broke physics.
How long until we have FTL travel? I want to be a space marine!
-
Not to perpetuate a debate doomed to go nowhere, but even the current knowlesge of the evolutionary process does not cover the leap from nothing to single cell orgsnisim and from single cell to complex organisims. I'm not going to throw the whole "God in the Gap" argument at you but perhaps it would be premature to rule anything out. Evolutionary science does a good job explaining how the current state of life came to be but it has nothing to offer on the origin of life.
Just because you don't believe it does not make it impossible. Of course it would be foolish for a religious person to deny that the process of evolution is taking place even now. And it is not a strech to suggest humans an apes have common ancestors, these critters were running around at some point there is no denying that. That does not in any way rule out the existence of God. As for the 6000 year old earth, I don't think I've ever in my lifetime hear anyone assert that to actually be true.
Sure, abiogenesis is something we don't know that much about (though there is quite a bit of work being done on proposing and testing possible ways in which it could have happened), but that does not make "god did it" a viable explanation when there is literally no physical evidence to support that view. If we were to propose "god" as an explanation for every as-yet unexplained area in science, we'd be at an intellectual dead-end. Still, this is beside the point.
If you've never truly encountered a young earth creationist, I envy you. They're the ideological equivalent of brick walls.
I would like you to explain how you know "for certain" that there is a god when by definition his existence cannot be proved through observable evidence?
-
intelligent design.
Hahahahahahahaha.
Hah.
The fact that people think "intelligent design" has any more validity than young earth creationism means that the fundamentalist nuts have truly run a great propaganda campaign.
Intelligent design means exactly what it says. It is a theory that points to an intelligent being behind the creation and evolution of everything. I'm not sure why that is crazy, at least more than any other philosophy out there.
Because it proposes an untestable explanation for observable phenomena, and thus is directly contradictory to observable fact. I'd say anyone willing to ignore proven science in favor of "faith" is hopelessly disconnected from reality, yes - this includes *any* fundamentalist faith.
-
intelligent design.
Hahahahahahahaha.
Hah.
The fact that people think "intelligent design" has any more validity than young earth creationism means that the fundamentalist nuts have truly run a great propaganda campaign.
-
So anyone who believes in God is "hopelessly disconnected from reality" ?I'd say "creationist" goes right past "opposing political viewpoint" and directly into the realm of "hopelessly disconnected from reality."Har har, you're so clever.
I think it's quite clear by "creationist" I was referring to the substantial group in the US who believe in a literal interpretation of the biblical creation myth.
Indeed. So what should be done with these miscreants?Ideally, they simply shouldn't be listened to when they make a big stink about how science curriculum doesn't conform to their laughable worldview. There's obviously nothing can realistically can (or should) be done to remove creationists (and their unfortunate ability to vote) from American society.
-
Well it's pretty clear that the Obama admin and the leftwing media (meaning most of it) has decided the real threat to America is not Al Qaeda. It's the...
1) Tea Pary - Yes.
2) Veterans - No.
3) White people - lol, no.
4) Pro-lifers - Yes.
5) Global warming skeptics - Replace that with Creationists, and you'd be right.
6) Gun owners - No.
7) People who own unapproved of dog breeds - This is an interesting one. If you own a pit bull, Rottweiler, or doberman in a city or county where those breeds are banned, you're probably not the type of person who should own a pit bull, Rottweiler, or doberman.
And anyone who might vote for someone other than Obama - You seem to be forgetting the independent, socialist, and green party candidates.Gotcha. Terrorist = Anyone with an opposing political viewpoint. Well, glad that's all straightened out.
I'd say "creationist" goes right past "opposing political viewpoint" and directly into the realm of "hopelessly disconnected from reality."
-
Blue crab is easily superior to king crab. King crab is tasty, but it's got absolutely nothing on blue crabs steamed with loads of old bay seasoning. Mmmm...
-
Riot rule. This new song is as good as Thundersteel imo.
And anyone who might vote for someone other than Obama - You seem to be forgetting the independent, socialist, and green party candidates.
SW: The Old Republic
in Computer and Console
Posted
"You have to be stopped."
"I know."
It does not get more straightforward than that. Also, you didn't read it very carefully - she says that the exile would have already failed her if he were to destroy Malachor and kill them both before the confrontation which she had engineered as the exile's final test.
I haven't retconned anything, I'm going purely off of what Kreia says.