Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - BoredVirulence

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 43
1
General Discussion / Re: Will humans homogenize?
« on: June 25, 2015, 02:41:36 pm »
What? I only saw an "anti-forced miscegenation" sentiments.
... I'm against "strongarming" cultures into destroying their own ethnic makeup, I'm against programs meant to force everyone to abandon Romance and blanda up because someone else told you to. That shit is fucking creepy...

Pretty much my belief right there.

I also believe that the idea that mixing races can do anything to mitigate mistrust or improve understanding among others is misguided. You're (Bohandas) assuming this has anything to do with genetics, genetics are just an excuse for a natural, although possibly misguided, human trait to try and understand the world. Its not genes that make a people, its culture, and you're talking about the obliteration of nearly everyone's culture. We'd be left with an odd amalgamation of Chinese and Indian culture, with the occasional blue eyed person popping up rarely. If you aren't a member of one of those ethnic groups which make up the vast majority of the worlds population, you can bet anything from your culture you enjoy will be gone. Your music, food, family values, most likely none of it will survive unless it conforms to one of those ethnic group's preexisting culture.

I'm also against the idea of forcing anyone to do something in the name of "the greater good." Forcing people not to attack each other is defending the victims rights. Forcing people to procreate with others against their will is a gross violation of both parties rights. Doing so because we might (but most likely not) get a less hateful world isn't worth it. The past few centuries have been a great improvement in human rights. Your solution is at least on par with the holocaust. Sure, less agonizing torture and death, but far, far, more human rights violations (You know, at least one on every human being for a couple of generations) and the destruction of nearly all different ethnic groups.



2
This sort of thing only really works for people who don't move around much...
And for people who have a Facebook account. I would have liked to represent my city, but alas.
Facebook accounts are free. And they're actually pretty handy sometimes.

My Facebook exists purely so that my girlfriend can list me as "in a relationship with ---"
Otherwise I prefer to avoid social media.

Edit:
You don't need a facebook to post on that.
This. I'm on.
Also, I am breaking the chronology of the forums here. I really didn't feel like replying just to say "This"

3
The group being? And I don't count "Man Circle Gangsters" or other inner city gangs as quite the same thing.

Then you're counting wrong. Any gang that considers race important is racially motivated. Many "inner city" gangs are large organizations.
Many white supremacist groups are essentially gangs. They worry about "territory" and drug money just as much as their political agenda.

Quote
You are saying that black people, for some mysterious reason that you wont disclose, simply are not as racially violent, or prone to forming assiciations based around racial violence.

I say they're less likely because:

a) They've formed fewer groups historically.
b) Their groups have not waged organized campaigns of intimidation and violence in their areas. (Unless you're saying street crime is now a organized, racially and politically motivated group, which is moving the goal posts quite far.)
c) Their groups have not lasted nearly as long as the longest running white hate groups.
d) They've got less of a vested stake in America as is versus white people, because they economically disadvantaged, less educated and socially marginalized. Protecting the status quo is not a motivation for them. There's nothing mysterious about it.
A) You're cherry picking your groups. Historically, whites could get away with it and not blacks. Thats not the case anymore. It doesn't help that you're ignoring a lot of other sources because you deem them a lesser class of criminal.
B) No, it really isn't moving the goal posts. You really should consider what most gangs are, organized criminal organizations. And those often fall along racial lines, and target others of an opposing race. Irish and Italian mobs are a good example.
C) Because white groups had the ability to exist before black groups. You're choosing history over the modern trends. Things change.
D) Lets assume you're analysis is right, whites control the world and the blacks are disadvantaged in every way. Thats motivation. The average white person in this instance doesn't need to maintain anything, they have the advantage. They gain nothing with violence.

Even if your analysis was sound, which I don't consider it, you haven't provided any proof. You're using some vague definition you concocted, you aren't arguing with data. Wierd is. Even if his math was wrong, which I would like to see the math and sources for this:
On the face of it, it looks like there is more race hatred from whites than from blacks, by about double. However, when you factor in the racial majority of whites over blacks (Lets provide numbers here, so we can actually write out the formula.), the statistical prevalence actually swings the other way. It means black people are more than twice as likely to engage in a violent hate crime as white people are.
At least he's at least using data.

4
DF Dwarf Mode Discussion / Re: Do hunters hunt in caverns?
« on: June 23, 2015, 12:20:29 pm »
Bah, I say let them freely hunt in the caverns. Once they gain enough skill, put them in a marksdwarf squad. Sure, you will loose some. But its natural selection.

5
Has nobody in this thread realized that if a population of humans which sleeps naked under fruit trees exists, then it follows the climate is exceedingly mild, food is perpetually at hand, and the only thing worth inventing is musical instruments, wine and soap?
You say "humans" but all I hear is "elves".

You've still got to worry about predators and times of scarcity.

In all fairness, with a pointy stick a human can keep most predators at bay. Some of it is a learned fear of humans, but still. If you can manage to keep the stick sharp, in one piece, and pointed at the predator, not much will happen. Things the size of or larger of a bear might take multiple people carrying sticks, but that's really all the defense you need.

6
Has nobody in this thread realized that if a population of humans which sleeps naked under fruit trees exists, then it follows the climate is exceedingly mild, food is perpetually at hand, and the only thing worth inventing is musical instruments, wine and soap?

Firstly, this is Bay12. Saying that something isn't worth inventing is reason enough to invent it.

Second, who said there is a population of humans sleeping naked under fruit trees? This would make an excellent starting scenario for the Bay12-population-rule-the-Earth scenario. More time to get the centrifuges working!

7
DF Suggestions / Re: Painting Industry
« on: June 23, 2015, 09:00:42 am »
I just want to say, there is no reason why we can't store paint in barrels or pots. If its egg based, it might spoil, thats a possibility. Other than that though I see no limitation in storage.

8
DF Suggestions / Re: Volume
« on: June 23, 2015, 08:57:29 am »
Every open tile has no volume and is essentially a pocket dimension, capable of holding an infinite amount of objects and creatures, regardless of apparent size. Forgotten beast corpses, boulders, clothes, ingots, bags, barrels, bins, whatever, a single tile can hold all of them without a problem.

However, according to dwarven physics, two creatures, regardless of size, cannot stand up at the same time while occupying the same tile. One creature will be standing atop all other creatures within that tile. Dwarves themselves cannot seem to comprehend these tiles as infinite pockets of space (unless it's a Garbage Dump zone), and will only ever place one item inside a square with a stockpile designation. Bins/Barrels/Bags fall into the same category, as they are a single item simply holding many at a time.

Can we just stop and marvel the visual depiction of this. I'm imagining walking as a series of dimensional phases. And each tile has its own occupier. Its beautiful really.

The stockpile thing is more an artifact of not comprehending the concept of stacking until much later in development.

The walking is actually a decent approximation, even if the game has yet to really properly handle creatures that have wildly differing sizes.  A tile is 3m tall, and something like 2.5 m wide, and all but the largest creatures fit in it, although a cat obviously takes far less than a full tile, and could easily walk inside the same space as a dwarf.  (Although considering my history with cats, they will cause the dwarf to stumble and not move at full speed because they keep wanting to brush your leg while you are in full swing...)

Either way, they enforce an important concept of Interface, which is that only one thing can be shown per tile, so the rules of crawling encourage players to make wider hallways.

In games where you don't have such rules, for example, Gnomoria or Towns, especially, you can have whole armies of hundreds of creatures fighting every citizen of your town, all of whom are crammed onto two tiles in a giant pair of stacks that constantly mash into each other until one side runs out of critters.

You aren't marveling it properly. Imagine, you're a dwarf. You don't walk, you don't run, you poof from existence into another dimension. Now make every tile the picture of a pocket dimension. Make it dark, and boundless, without stars or sky, just a boundless black across everything other than a floor. The world is filled with an eerie glow that originates from nothing, that is if the tile is exposed to light. Otherwise its dark.

Imagine the way they can see enemies in nearby tiles. Its like a 6th sense, they can feel their presence in nearby worlds, just a poof away.

I think I prefer the game this way.



We can now continue trying to make it more accurate. I just wanted to think about the implications and imagery of a world where its a series of pocket dimensions.

9
DF Suggestions / Re: new weapons
« on: June 23, 2015, 08:49:40 am »
The "eventually" falling to Earth thing is going to be a long time. Weeks, months, maybe even years depending on the particulars of the orbit and how it was released. If it was mechanically released with no force, it may stay in orbit indefinitely, or for several years. If it has a small rocket booster to nudge it, weeks or months. There really is no accuracy, or speed. An ICBM with a tungsten rod would do much better, except, you know, propellant. But if we're gonna bother getting it in orbit, we can throw it on an ICBM, get it to an unstable low earth orbit, and let gravity do the trick much faster than from a satellite.

Good thing the Navy is working on rail guns. So I can have peace about my orbital bombardment mega-weapons of the future. Sorry to derail the thread, but this has always been a subject that has intensely bothered me. I'm glad to know I can always go to Bay12 to talk about how to correct other peoples malformed mega-weapons.

10
I really don't see the argument that exponential population growth is going to happen while we're still struggling to feed them. I see the argument that a stable agriculture system specifically bread for producing high yields and being resistant disease, drought, frost, etc, would take time. I see the argument that without pressure population would increase exponentially. I don't see how a lack of food is not a pressure on the population. It also helps that many of us would come from a country with a stable population, we're used to and don't typically want a million kids at once.

I like to think that laws aren't needed here. If you barely have enough food for yourself and your children, why would you have another. I do think there is a need for contraceptives of some form, which is easily acquired as intestines, simply because our society isn't used to the idea of sex always meaning kids.

I don't see the problem. It looks fairly self correcting to me. If anything our population has a bottleneck in the beginning because of we likely have many more men than women. If anything we have a small enough population to be supported by foraging and hunting while we work on a massive irrigation system in a river valley. Maybe we don't have the right crops, but sheer bulk along with a lot of hunting should suffice while we do it. It doesn't take long for farmers to artificially select the best crops, maybe 100 years. Considering the bottleneck our population would have, I think we'd be fine.

Dammit, reading all of this stuff just makes me want to go out and try doing some of this stuff by hand. Sadly, I'd probably kill myself somehow in the process.

I bought large pieces of obsidian a few years ago to practice flintknapping. They're so sharp I've always been afraid to try.

11
DF Suggestions / Re: new weapons
« on: June 22, 2015, 03:48:55 pm »
Not to mention the energy required to get it out of orbit.

Yeah forgot about that. It really bothers me, thank you for making it even less realistic and bother me more.

12
DF Modding / Re: Sea world sucks
« on: June 22, 2015, 03:44:02 pm »
Ocean lag is real and intense.

I modded an aquatic civilization. They build cities in the ocean. What does that mean? Is it floating on the surface? Underwater? No idea, I couldn't get to them. Lag. I no of no solution. I just gave up and consider it a question I'll never know, like the state of the universe before the big bang...

13
General Discussion / Re: Will humans homogenize?
« on: June 22, 2015, 03:26:51 pm »
If whites only have kids with boacks and blacks only have kids with whites that doesn't result in an all white generation, it results in an all mulatto generation
That wasn't really a retort to BoredVirulence, as that would just result in the destruction of a few dozen races to produce 1
In addition to Loud Whisper's fine comment, you're assuming equal proportions. Its never equal proportions. Hence why we use terms such as minority and majority (actually, do we ever talk about the majority? Or do we just universally call them white?).

You're assuming that its the destruction of all that currently exist to create something new. I'm saying that the majority will be slightly modified culturally, but mostly intact where the minorities are gone. "Little Mexico" and "Chinatown" regions exist not because people are racist, but out of cultural pride. Its like saying we assimilate Mexican people, culture and country, into the US and getting US with Taco Bell. Of course it would swing based on population, so we'd all just be Chinese and America would not exist, nor Mexico, Africa, or the various cultures of Europe.

Edit:
While I like my dramatic imagery of exploding people to point out that the conservation of people doesn't make it less of a crime, I think Loud Whisper's comment does a better job of explaining how mixing diversity and assimilation can be a destruction. Worth repeating.
But the group isn't any more destroyed than sugar is destroyed when it is dissolved in water
Mix all the colours in paint together and you get a grey, colourless mass.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Dissolve crystals in water and you've destroyed the crystals

14
DF Suggestions / Re: new weapons
« on: June 22, 2015, 03:20:46 pm »
... A satellite that drops tungsten telephone poles?...

This is totally not the place, but the tungsten poles of doom theory has always bothered me. If it releases the same amount of energy as X explosion on impact, its going to require the same amount of energy to get it in orbit, actually more! The cost just isn't worth it until we have space elevators and can not waste energy on lifting the propellant...

Not an attack on you AceSV. I just needed to let that out...

15
General Discussion / Re: Will humans homogenize?
« on: June 22, 2015, 03:09:37 pm »
But the group isn't any more destroyed than sugar is destroyed when it is dissolved in water

If I attach a bomb to a person and it explodes, it probably kills the person. But why? His matter is conserved.

You're suggesting we destroy all peoples of the world except whoever the majority is, but its not a crime because people were conserved. It seems pretty similar to feeding all of the people to a single person and claiming it not a crime because the matter is conserved.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 43