Jump to content
Aveyond Studios Community


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About chimera

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 10/12/1993

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. @bastian: When I try to drink from the pool in Serenity Garden, I get this message and then the game shuts down. "Unable to find file Graphics/Pictures/face038." Thought you ought to know.
  2. Here's my new set. The picture is from the Portuguese cover of Sabriel which is the first book in Garth Nix's Old Kingdom Trilogy. The quote is from the same book.
  3. @chimera: Response to your argument: Source. I wasn't talking about cannibalism surrounding extreme circumstances; I meant the Hannibal Lector kind of cannibalism, the way eating humans in normal conditions is illegal and taboo in most societies. My point exactly! Why the double standards? My problem is that vegetarianism is looked upon as a personal choice while cannibalism is not. But what's the difference? Is it of looks? Then why not allow people to eat people of different races/those who are physically deformed. Is it of intelligence/brain/emotional/mental capacity? Then why not allow normal people/people with superior intelligence to eat mentally challenged/less intelligent/mentally unstable/institutionalised people? Is it of the fact that humans care about each other and that the people close to the person who is killed for consumption would go through extreme emotional trauma? Then why not allow those people who have no friends/relatives/have no relationship with anyone and nobody cares about to be consumed? Is it because animal meat is considered nutritious and healthy? Then why is human meat not an option? It could be very healthy or have a lot of nutritional value. Is it because of the 'one species consuming members of its own kind' argument? But this happens throughout the animal kingdom. Aren't humans animals and life is a jungle in which everything depends upon survival of the fittest? We don't have anything to distinguish ourselves from nonhuman species, no reasoning ability, no ability to think logically, no ability to distinguish and judge between right and wrong/ethics, no emotional capacity and empathy, no ability to distinguish between what we are eating, we are slaves of our bodies and instincts, our bodies are completely dependent upon eating others. I don't see how we can be any different from any 'animal' and the 'animal kingdom' is the greatest standard we can hold ourselves to and emulate blindly, after all we don't have any ability to think for ourselves and form our own opinions or rather have no ability to judge and think at all. Heck I don't even understand how we can be and became the ruling species on this planet, how we have 'advanced' so far, in fact this description makes it look to me that we are far less advanced and intelligent than a lot of 'animals'. Heck it looks to me that they should be ruling us not the other way around![/sarcasm] Is it because of the 'animals are going to suffer/die anyway' argument used by so many people? Then why not allow humans to eat those who are terminally ill/in a vegetable state/dying already/suffering anyway? It is going to happen after all, we can do nothing to combat the suffering, everybody has to die someday, and we might as well take what we can and enjoy ourselves, because what can one person achieve by denying himself/herself what millions of others are already having/doing.[/sarcasm] What a convenient way not to bother or trouble about the matters yourself, not to get your hands dirty and keep blaming the others! Either allow cannibalism/human exploitation too or ban eating animals/animal exploitation too, IMO. But since this realistically isn't possible the best thing we can do is convert as many people as we can, which is what we are trying to do. Actually there are several opinions on abortion within the Animal Rights movement too. I'm pro-choice and believe in animal rights because my logic is that the fetus is inside your body, using it as a host. If an animal was using it the same way I certainly wouldn't object if you wished to remove it from your body, it is after all your body and you should have complete control over it. But when have you heard of an animal doing that? I can only think of lice and some parasites and in those cases some loss of life is inevitable but the vast majority of animals and insects do not do that and I see no reason to harm them unnecessarily. Most of your arguments above have been addressed in the PETA FAQ and this is precisely why I suggested reading it. You may not like/agree with their methods but that doesn't negate their logic on each and every issue. The points below should help you get some idea of how far the slope goes and what we are aiming for, exactly, I think. I wouldn't say that everything they claim is authentic but I agree with their logic. There are more questions in their FAQ and I still suggest that you read them. I wasn't using personification in my argument nor was I applying so-called 'human' emotions to animals, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. First of all, emotions and feelings aren't exclusively human traits, a lot of animals and most mammals experience them in various ways, on various levels and to various extents. A lot of these are in response to their environment and what is happening around them. A lot of external as well as internal behaviour and actions can be instinctive response to situations channelled by emotions. For example, fear can be the brain's way of sensing and warning of danger and initiating the flight or flight reaction which can present itself in various ways: the quickening of the heartbeat when the heart starts pumping more blood etc. So it can be argued that all animals that are fighting for their lives instinctively are experiencing some degree of emotion, which is what I meant when saying that a fly struggles not to die. It can be argued that why would a fly struggle to live, to survive, if it did not have the will to, if it did not know what was happening, if did not experience discomfort (which can be called an emotion similar to pain), if it was not experiencing emotion to some extent? Even if it is called an 'instinctive response' and that all animals are machines engineered that way and that it is a defence mechanism activated by the body then aren't emotions some form of instinct too (don't people instinctively feel sad or happy?) and aren't all emotions activated by the body in response to the surroundings and events and that they are a part of the body mechanism of any living being that struggles or shows resistance in the above manner. Which can be counted as an unwillingness to die and since something doesn't wish to die doesn't it have the right to live? Isn't that one of the primary reasons life and the right to live is valued so much? There are situations when some loss of life is inevitable but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to prevent as much loss as we can and as far as possible. Re: Human milk: With this article I get the feeling that they did that more to make a point than to actually expect Ben & Jerry's to listen. Re: Clooney: Okay, that really was funny! Re: Fishes: I don't support fishing either; if I'm going to apply the animal rights logic to one species then shouldn't that logic be applied to all species whenever their interests are the same? As for PETA calling fishes 'sea kittens' I suppose they are doing that to apply the same feeling humans have been conditioned to apply to cute, furry animals to not so cute animals too, specially by trying to appeal to kids (which also explains the sea kittens website). Re: Music bands: I guess they are trying to influence popular culture through any means they can. Re: Hypocrisy: I can't really defend those killings and don't want to, they are indeed hypocritical and horrific. Re: Terrorism: I can't defend its affiliation with terrorist groups either but here's what they had to say about it and the ALF in their FAQ: I agree that sometimes Peta do go overboard but I suppose they do that to try and reach as many people as they can in any way they can and influence popular culture as much as they can and I think that if it helps convert even one person then it is worth it. Whatever it takes man. (Not that I'm advocating the use of violence, force or harrassment). Anyway PETA isn't the only organisation working for animals and doesn't have to be the standard for activists to align themselves with or for anyone judge the whole movement. I don't really get your point; I never said that what you mentioned above isn't happening; I was just discussing the power question ideologically. After all the whole point of Animal Rights is humans abusing power and 'effectively controlling others'. I agree that human society and the power equation is far from perfect but it is better in a lot of places than what it was throughout history, and at least people are considered equal on paper in a lot of respects even if not in practice, which wasn't the case before and which IMO is a good sign. Regarding the animals will still die in the wild part: The difference is that when animals hunt/kill each other it is usually necessary for their survival/their bodies are built in a way that requires doing that and they cannot think rationally/distinguish/ and/or choose between vegetarian/non-vegetarian, right or wrong, whereas humans have none of those problems and their ability to reason and choose is one of the defining characteristics that sets humans apart from nonhuman animals. Just because it happens in the wild/and or they would die anyway doesn't mean we should do that too. Are you saying that humans are no more intelligent than nonhuman animals? Everyone has to die someday but saying that wouldn't justify my killing you. This is like saying that just because a murdered child was going to die anyway we should focus on something else that someone else considers more important than addressing murder/child abuse. Regarding the why don't we focus on humans part: I've already addressed this in my post above: One of PETA's FAQs addresses this question too: There is another website which focuses on feminism but they've addressed this point there and I think it applies to Animal Rights too, just put 'animal rights' in place of 'feminism': Ugh another huge post!
  4. Hmm... Yes, I agree, not everyone does it that way, and I never saw PETA claiming that everyone does. But the thing is that a lot of corporations/farms/dairies etc. are doing it that way and from a profit-making point of view I don't see why anyone who's running those corporations would sustain losses or bother to be ethical, if it is helping business and drawing in the customers. For example, if I am able to keep and sell 50 chickens unethically at the maintenance cost of 25 ethically kept chickens why in the world would I bother to maintain and sell 25 chickens at the same price? It's all about business and producing the maximum profit at the least expenditure. And as long as humans keep using animal products this sort of abuse would keep taking place, IMO. The best way to combat this is to reduce the demand and at least have customers demand ethically obtained animal products even if they do not wish to give up animal products altogether. This can only be done by creating awareness among the public, which is exactly what PETA is trying to do, I think. If you don't like it you don't have to watch/listen to it, nobody is forcing you to. I'm not so sure about the 'usually wrong' part. It seems to me that you are stating your opinion as fact; do you have any reliable evidence of that? I'm having a very hard time believing that too; do you have any reliable sources/proof etc. confirming that PETA suggested that Ben & Jerry's use breast milk in their ice-cream? Would you show me the same courtesy if I sat there eating human meat/bones/limbs/organs? I'm saying this just to make a point. One of PETA's FAQ questions puts what I'm trying to say in a very straightforward manner: I highly recommend reading the whole FAQ. Personally I believe not much awareness can be created if the person you are trying to educate about the issues feels harassed or isn't really listening or isn't interested in listening but it does get hard to contain myself whenever I see someone doing what, I believe, is murder and at par with cannibalism. Yes, I am vegetarian, aiming to become vegan and one of those 'weird' Animal Rights activists as I'm sure you've figured by now. Using your logic anyone who is simply powerful and advanced enough is entitled to use that power and technology in any manner he/she sees fit on any lesser being. So the US which is one of the most technically advanced and powerful countries in the world is simply entitled to and should take over other countries which are not as advanced/powerful. Any person who is more powerful than another person is simply entitled to and should physically abuse/assault/turn the other person into a slave because she/he has power and she/he should make use of that. In fact, it looks to me as if this logic is suggesting that far from being advanced humans haven't even evolved from being primitive cave-dwellers when might was right and sheer brute strength ruled! I believe that simply having power does not entitle you to use it without any thought of the consequences or of the manner in which it affects others. The greater power you have the greater your responsibility becomes to ensure that you or anyone else does not abuse it, otherwise you are not fit to have that power, IMO. Otherwise we'd have no order and structure in our society. Actually giving up on wearing animal products and using any other products obtained from animals in any way (not just in your diet) is a part of veganism. So if someone is asking you to become vegan he/she is automatically asking you to give up leather too. PETA's websites have a lot of stuff about the leather industry too. http://www.petasearch.org/texis/search....=Go&query=leather http://www.petasearch.org/texis/search...y=0&submit=Go These are extremely broad generalisations; you guys are simply blaming PETA and all animal rights activists for what only a couple of psychos did. Just because some Islamist fundamentalists bomb buildings doesn't mean that all Muslims are like that, or preach that or Islam preaches doing that. Just like Mopiece said that 'you need to keep in mind that not every farmer does it that way' you need to keep in mind that not all Animal Rights activists do that or advocate that. Just because some so-called feminists are man-haters you cannot hold the whole feminist movement responsible for their actions or consider the whole movement anti-men or man-hating. The same logic applies to the Animal Rights movement too: just because some people harass others or use extremist methods and happen to do that in the name of 'PETA' or 'Animal Rights' or are PETA members does not mean that PETA or the Animal Rights movement or activists are responsible for their actions or advocate/support them or use them. I am not ready to believe that PETA members bombed the building and/or PETA supported the act, without sufficient evidence. And for the record nowhere on PETA's websites have I seen that they advocate or engage in violent activities or harassment. Their activism guidelines clearly state that all demonstrations/protests etc. should be done legally. I suggest that you guys read their FAQ page to get a clearer view of where they stand on Animal Rights issues. Their FAQs also address a lot of questions frequently aimed at Animal Rights activists and I highly recommend reading all the sections. FAQ FAQ 2 Activism Website Activism Guides 2 Demonstration Guidelines And what exactly is wrong with defending insects? If I defend one animal then it logically applies that I should defend others too without discriminating on the basis of species as long as their interests are the same. In this issue a dog's and a fly's interests are the same: the right to live. Just because they are small and not very furry and cute doesn't mean that the same principal of right to life doesn't apply to them. Just because humans have a very short life-span compared to some other species and have already over-populated the planet (to the breaking point, I might add) doesn't give any species that live longer than us the right to kill us. We have the right to defend ourselves and the right to life because we feel pain, we do not want to die, we resist it. In the same way any fly or insect doesn't want to die, it resists just like any dog or human. Its life-span is insignificant; just like a human who is destined to die the next day but killing him/her is still considered a crime and a violation of rights. Oh yeah so just because I and a lot of other people feel that you are insignificant and don't care about you I have the right to kill you? I think not. What other people think/don't think is insignificant, what matters is what the fly feels. And is the manner in which it struggles not to die not enough indication that it doesn't want to die, it is feeling? Insects actually do a lot of good to the ecosystem and are necessary for the environment and human survival. There lives are quite fascinating and their various social structures and methods of work are very advanced, similar to humans on several levels and have been very important to scientists studying nature. For more info a rough guide can be found at Wikipedia. This is as absurd as saying to a Homosexual Rights activist that instead of focusing their activism on Homosexuality they should work against racism or that they do not consider heterosexual people as human beings. What difference does recognising humans as animals make? And which activist ever deny that humans are animals too? And who said that in order to promote Animal Rights you need to deny humans their rights? Who said that humans have to compromise their safety to promote animal rights? Who said that animal rights activists cannot be humanists too? Just because my work focuses on one aspect of society doesn't mean that I don't consider others just as important or that I need to work in other areas and promote human rights too in order to justify my work or have it considered just as important as other movements. Edit: Sorry about the novel, I just had to say all that.
  5. No problem, glad I didn't miss a party interaction or something!
  6. Okay, why is the word 'Stella' written inside Cavern 1 on the Ice Caverns Map? I've tried going inside and coming out, changing the leader to Stella, walking around pressing the spacebar in all the places, several times, but nothing happened. Am I missing something or is the event supposed to happen in Chapter 2? Istir Forest Map Ice Caverns Map
  7. All the above ideas sound interesting, I'd really like to meet some of the old characters again... I also like nocturnal-dance's Transfigerines idea.
  8. Wow that was quite a surprise! I'm not sure if I like it though, I prefer leaving things to my imagination, but I'll judge after playing the game and seeing how it feels then. The tracks are beautiful Aaron!
  9. chimera

    Avvies and Siggies

    @aisling: I didn't remember Stardale Glen until you mentioned it but now I indeed realize that I probably was subconsciously thinking of that while making it he he. @Stardale: Thanks Asiunia1008, sana, MoonPrincess and wolfie_girl! @LaraCroft21: Nice set! Both the siggie and avvie are cute in their own way.
  10. chimera

    Avvies and Siggies

    @Stardale: Thanks! @Aisling: Yes: Stelliger: Latin for starry. Illunis: Latin for moonless. Glen: English. So it translates as 'starry moonless glen'. I was feeling rather braindead while adding the text and couldn't think of anything better to add. I'm also not sure if it is grammatically correct...
  11. chimera

    Avvies and Siggies

    @MoonPrincess: Cute set! @KTC & Aisling: He he I was taken in... Here's my new set; the first one I've made completely on my own. It's not as good as I'd like it to be, guess I need more practice...
  12. @iPink & Rage: I don't know about fashion shows and card games but having a few more mini-games (like the Crpyt Maze in Aveyond 1) would sure be great... @Mizzou: It's good to be around again!
  13. Here are my suggestions: 1) A system in which the party members could battle each other; something like a fighters' pit... I'd love to see Galahad beaten to a pulp by Te'ijal! 2) More magical/mythological creatures would be great. Definitely want the militant squirrels, fairies and dwarfs to make a comeback. 3) Other means of transport than just a dragon and boats/ships. Maybe something that would require us to build it first (in the form of a sidequest) and then enable us to access more places, eg: would love the submarine and underwater city mentioned by someone. 4) Definitely want a city that is built in an unusual place, like a city in clouds or an underwater city. 5) The sort of tournament we had in Aveyond 2 with Emma. 6) I liked the way in Aveyond 2 you had to do a few things in order to get the characters to do something, eg: to turn nicholas into a nice guy you had to do somethings, same for making emma and rye fall in love etc. 7) The option of escaping from battles but losing something (usually money) in the process, eg: by bribing the attackers or flinging down your bags and running. 8 ) As for which battle system, I think the ability to choose the type of battle system (turn based/real time) in the game, if possible, would be great, otherwise I prefer the turn-based system.
  • Create New...