Censor Menu

Commander Keen wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

If you guys read the updated OE concept on organs, you may understand this better. Basically, you have many different modes of transmission, which can be mixed and matched as your creature evolves.

I have already seen it, I am just trying to show that designing an "original alien", not inspired in any way by Earth life, is near to impossible.

Of course it is, but that's not really relevant.

As for silicon life, we really don't know how it would work, so i'm saying no to that, for now at least.

obviously silicon based lifeforms are not a thing to consider right now. what i was pointing out is that we need a base that works to start with, and then get alien, or else it's like getting to the speed of light; it requires infinite energy.

Commander Keen wrote:

DragonEye4 wrote:

You mean sexual reproduction. There are other methods, such as budding, and splitting, and there may be other ones that are not on earth! We cannot think so earth-centered.

We cannot think so Earth-centered? Excuse me, but I'm a human from Earth and I never met any alien life-forms. How could I know how exactly could aliens reproduce? It's very hard find new original (not just a copy or mix of Earth's) methods for anything, let alone reproduction.

Almost all life on earth does not use sexual reproduction. Billions of bacteria within your body spit in two, while billions of sponges bud within the ocean. There are fungi within your yard which are reproducing by using spores. To imagine all life uses the sperm/ovum method is not only earth-centric, but anthropocentric.

DragonEye4 wrote:

Almost all life on earth does not use sexual reproduction. Billions of bacteria within your body spit in two, while billions of sponges bud within the ocean. There are fungi within your yard which are reproducing by using spores. To imagine all life uses the sperm/ovum method is not only earth-centric, but anthropocentric.

I was reffering specifically to this statement:

Quote :

there may be other ones that are not on earth! We cannot think so earth-centered.

Splitting, pollen, spores, these are all on Earth.

Commander Keen wrote:

DragonEye4 wrote:

Almost all life on earth does not use sexual reproduction. Billions of bacteria within your body spit in two, while billions of sponges bud within the ocean. There are fungi within your yard which are reproducing by using spores. To imagine all life uses the sperm/ovum method is not only earth-centric, but anthropocentric.

I was reffering specifically to this statement:

Quote :

there may be other ones that are not on earth! We cannot think so earth-centered.

Splitting, pollen, spores, these are all on Earth.

How about this? Hermaphrodit species stab a lumb on their back witch is some sort of woom. They stab eich other with a sting or claw covered with a liquid. It fills up the bubble with that liquid and then wait's for fertilisation (slightly earthcentered but alienistic). Or female creatures sray poweder on to the ground in large areas, then male creatures spray a liquid on top of this powder like substance, then waits for fertilisation and formation of eggs.

Or what about a species where the males are a lot smaller than the females, small enough for the females to swallow them whole, and then when they are digesting they release a chemical that causes the female to become pregnant?

DragonEye4 wrote:

Or what about a species where the males are a lot smaller than the females, small enough for the females to swallow them whole, and then when they are digesting they release a chemical that causes the female to become pregnant?

Wow, poor males.

Albalrogue wrote:

DragonEye4 wrote:

Or what about a species where the males are a lot smaller than the females, small enough for the females to swallow them whole, and then when they are digesting they release a chemical that causes the female to become pregnant?

Wow, poor males.

Better than what the angler fish do...

DragonEye4 wrote:

Albalrogue wrote:

DragonEye4 wrote:

Or what about a species where the males are a lot smaller than the females, small enough for the females to swallow them whole, and then when they are digesting they release a chemical that causes the female to become pregnant?

Wow, poor males.

Better than what the angler fish do...

Yeah, anyway there are infinit possibilities of breeding, you just need to think a bit, and you will find that most of you'rs ideas aren't earthbased, if not similar to earth based ways of breading.

So, anyways, I still find it ludicrous that, because our culture has the mentality to find our reproductive process taboo that people are considering censoring cells splitting.

Why not make it when a creature mates, it shows them sniffing the female and then the screen goes black, after that they got babies/eggs.

MrIdeaMan wrote:

Why not make it when a creature mates, it shows them sniffing the female and then the screen goes black, after that they got babies/eggs.

Well this thread is over 3 years old so....

The prudes who get offended by the content can burn in Hell for all I care. To those offended by swearing, as well, I'd like to issue a heartfelt "Belgium you!" A cuss word is just that: a word. It's harmless. In your mind, at least, you'd probably pronounce the Thai city of Phucket as "fuh-kit". The residents will quickly tell you it's pronounced "foo-ket". Likewise, there's a place in New Zealand called Whakapapa (Belgium-a-papa), so neither spelling nor pronunciation make a word profane, so it must lie within the context. For example, "My dog is a Shih-Tzu." is not profane, but "This animal park is a Belgium zoo." is. "I'm going to Whakapapa, because I like skiing." is not the same as "I'm going to Belgium a papa, because I like banging old blokes." I could say that America will grow into a great country, but if I were to say that a vagina-bush will grow into a great Belgium-tree, all of a sudden there's a problem.

(my humblest apologies for bumping an ancient thread)

@jman12351 I don't think it's really right to call someone a "prude" and telling them the F you word just because he or she is offended by swearing or mating content. I personally don't feel offended by swearing nor the latter, but people have different opinions, and you should acknowledge and respect that fact.

The reason I think we currently have censorship is because we must stay professional. Certain people would be offended by swearing, so censorship on the other hand prevents that, while on the other hand, if swearing was censored, I really see no reason why someone who doesn't mind swearing would be offended.

Please, just please, keep politics away from this project. I am not american nor am I a big fan of the US, but calling the US the way you call it is really, really offensive.

Also, this thread is 3 years old, and aside from that, you're completely going OT. This thread is about censoring mating in the game (as far as I can tell), and not about censorship on the forum.

As Tarpy said. Stay on topic and constructive.

Tarpy wrote:

(my humblest apologies for bumping an ancient thread)

@jman12351 I don't think it's really right to call someone a "prude" and telling them the F you word just because he or she is offended by swearing or mating content. I personally don't feel offended by swearing nor the latter, but people have different opinions, and you should acknowledge and respect that fact.

The reason I think we currently have censorship is because we must stay professional. Certain people would be offended by swearing, so censorship on the other hand prevents that, while on the other hand, if swearing was censored, I really see no reason why someone who doesn't mind swearing would be offended.

Please, just please, keep politics away from this project. I am not american nor am I a big fan of the US, but calling the US the way you call it is really, really offensive.

Also, this thread is 3 years old, and aside from that, you're completely going OT. This thread is about censoring mating in the game (as far as I can tell), and not about censorship on the forum.

Neither explicitly nor implicitly did I call America a vagina-bush. I was simply demonstrating how changing the context of a sentence changes an innocent phrase into something dirty. Sorry for necroposting even more.