James

[font=franklin gothic medium]Drix, I think your post is probably one of the best I've ever seen on OB. I'm thoroughly impressed. I could never have hoped to do such a great job. I say this not so much because I agree with you, but because you've effectively drawn out every misconception or misrepresentation and put forward a clear case based on entirely on legal merit (and just plain logical merit, I'd say). I should make one important point for CS here though. There's only been one long-term study of gay divorces. It covered a 15 year period and looked at Scandinavian countries. Here is a quick summary: [quote]Internationally, the most comprehensive study to date on the effect of same-sex marriage / partnership on heterosexual marriage and divorce rates was conducted looking at over 15 years of data from the Scandinavian countries. The study (later part of a book), by researcher Darren Spedale, found that, 15 years after Denmark had granted same-sex couples the rights of marriage, rates of heterosexual marriage in those countries had gone up, and rates of heterosexual divorce had gone down - contradicting the concept that same-sex marriage would have a negative effect on traditional marriage.[/quote] Here's a link to the report: [url]http://www.svgla.org/index.php?module=documents&JAS_DocumentManager_op=downloadFile&JAS_File_id=5&2f8d38d14523aa8f4042065cde1a5216=964e204e9824d505541efa48eb2208b5[/url] There is a newer study out of Sweden, which is short-term and shows higher divorce rates among homosexual couples versus heterosexual couples, but this seems to be tied more to overall changing trends in Swedish lifestyle and a general de-emphasis on marriage in that country. Anyway I really don't have anything too substantive to add to this. Drix really covered all my basis [i]and[/i] included a picture! 110% effort there, lol. :catgirl:[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Speaking of presidential qualities, I highly recommend [url="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24572802-7583,00.html"]this article[/url] in The Australian. It's called "Big-ideas men not the best leaders" and it's written by Daniel Finkelstein. It's a really interesting piece about what is called the "availability error" and how big speeches, reforms, wars, etc... rate far more highly for most people than the quiet achievers who manage government through consensus and negotiation. It also covers the idea of a decision and an outcome not being inter-related at all times. Very interesting read, especially related to some of the phenomena we've been seeing in this election campaign.[/font]

[quote]If only I shared that sentiment. BUT! Some of that comes from living here and seeing the utterly awful disaster we've had to face the past couple of years and most sharply in the past few months. It's hard to not see it as a lesser of two evils to be honest. However, that won't stop me from going out and voting... and then hoping the one I voted for actually wins. If only I didn't live in what's considered a Red state. I'd love it if my vote actually mattered. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I assume by disaster you're referring to the financial crisis? I'd only say that Obama and McCain really have nothing to do with that anyway, so it's not really something that colours my view of them as candidates. Both men at different times have stood for improvements to transparency and accountability in different fields, too. I mean compared to George W. Bush and John Kerry...this election is so different. The election between Bush and Kerry was, in my view, about the lesser of two evils. Whereas I think this election is about the better of two men.[/font] [quote]I have to agree with you about the candidates this year neither one of them is a bad guy- I just don't happen to agree with most of McCain's policies. It's not that he's evil or vindictive- I just don't want him to be president. His International policies scare the crap out of me and he wants to ban abortion. That in itsself is enough to turn me away.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I still have to read the detail from that site I linked to earlier, but I think it's a bit alarmist to say that McCain's foreign policy "scares the crap" out of you. I mean, McCain is actually extremely well-versed in foreign relations. The reason I say this is to point out that I doubt he'd make any suddenly rash decisions that make no sense. As I mentioned in another thread, it was partly McCain's thorough criticism of the Bush Administration that led to major changes in tactics within Iraq (which have unquestionably stopped the situation getting far worse). Also it's worth saying that McCain is generally very well liked overseas, particularly within Asia. Even Europe - which is generally pro-Obama - would be far happier with McCain than Bush. This is because McCain has a better grasp of the nuances of foreign policy and because his foot isn't constantly on the gas pedal. I'd happily spend more time defending Obama, but there are so few against him here that I haven't had that chance, haha. But I do like to try to dig deeper and learn about what's under the surface. [/font]

[quote name='Korey'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]I'm not a fan of McCain or his policies. He has almost unamiously supported any War on Terror Legislation or stance George W. Bush. Stay the Course isn't in my agenda.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Not to re-tread too much old ground, but it's worth pointing out that McCain and Bush are very different people. In fact, McCain can't stand Bush at all, lol. Not only did McCain reject at least one of Bush's budgets, but he frequently campaigned to change the strategy in Iraq because the previous strategy was failing. The largely successful troop surge was heavily influenced by McCain's constant badgering of Bush as well as his harsh criticisms of Donald Rumsfeld. If you have seen the Senate hearings where Rumsfeld was being questioned, McCain was probably the most aggressive critic and demanded answers. So just for the sake of fairness - since there seems to be a perception that McCain and Bush are one in the same generally - I thought I'd point that out. This is partially why a [i]lot[/i] of conservatives have been anti-McCain. He's never really been considered a "real Republican" by the right wing of the party.[/font] [quote] But it seems we'd rather not vote for someone based on the merit of the character, but the color of their skin.[/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, I think Hillary had a similar issue but related to gender. I think it's a shame that so much is placed on personality or image, as opposed to actual positions/results. I guess personality is relevant, but image? Hm. It's probably not as relevant as what the candidate actually believes or what positions they take. I mean I'd rather have a national leader who I may not [i]personally[/i] like, but who is intelligent and runs the country well...versus someone I really like personally, but who has no idea what they are doing.[/font]

[quote]though a great man said "He's only Half-Black America. Just vote for the white-half."[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]A great man? Hm. That quote is probably one of the more idiotic things I've read, to be honest. lol I mean really, shouldn't the quote be "you're voting for a man and his ideas, not the colour of his skin"? Anyway, my feeling about this is pretty simple. I think that there are still a few parts of America where biggotry is deeply-rooted even today. [i]Most[/i] people will probably just express their views with a vote and with words...but there are obviously a very small few who are extremists and who will try to take things further. Unfortunately I think that Obama still faces a lot of opposition due to silly things like race, or his name, or the fact that he grew up in Indonesia. All ridiculous of course, but still prevalent in many minds. This is why I do not think that it's guaranteed Obama will win. The polls are closing again now. Yes, he's very popular in the polls and has been consistently. But let's not forget that a [i]lot[/i] of voters will be making the call on election day itself. And I wouldn't be surprised if many sat on the side of caution and voted for McCain, simply because he isn't black. So I do think that racism still plays an ever-present role when it shouldn't. As for assassinations in general...if Obama is elected I'm sure he's at higher risk than, say, McCain. But still, progress is progress - Obama is a worthy candidate and I'm sure he'd be a good president. He will (and has) been able to demonstrate that race shouldn't be an issue.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Mhm, yup, makes total sense. Thanks for that. :catgirl:[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I've seen parts of this documentary so I'm vaguely familiar with this situation. I actually like the idea of starting (or spending significant time) in a city, because I really like the idea of seeing towers with no windows where each floor is a different ecosystem almost (I remember seeing this really weird idea that the interior of a tower could become a jungle and feral cats/dogs might live in there, as well as all sorts of birds...I think that'd be so weird). I imagine that rather than use an elevator you'd either go up the stairs (very treacherous) or you'd try to climb up vines and branches that are protruding from the windowless sides. *shrug* [i]Anyway[/i], I guess my only question is... do we have to try to explain how all the characters end up starting in the same location? I'm not sure how that'd work. In any case I'm definitely interested in this one. I just have to think of a good character. Hm...[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I saw half of a documentary last night which looked at the histories of Obama and McCain (with a lot of interviews and behind-the-scenes footage). I have to finish watching it tonight. But I must say, in this election America is lucky. Rather than choosing the lesser of two evils, you're able to choose the better of two great candidates. Despite the individual disagreements people have with one candidate or another, it must be said that both McCain and Obama are incredibly talented and I think both make strong candidates. I'll have to double-check the name of the documentary; it's well worth watching and it seems quite un-biased.[/font]

[quote name='Kaimaster']Bible have Incest, Have Joacb had lots of sons from other women than Rachel. I thought that freedom of speech. Is was allow on this site. I guess I was wrong. YOU JUST DON'T LIKE ME. DO YOU?[/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]Hey now, chill out. Okay? First of all, you can't be surprised at the reaction to this piece. It contains no real story and doesn't make a great deal of sense - every second line is "kissing on the lips". My gut feeling is that this is an age-related thing more than anything else. I don't know how old you are, but if you're very young...then the limitations of this writing make sense. Either that, or English isn't your first language. Secondly - and in all seriousness - everyone here has attempted to offer you [i]advice[/i] on your work. Even if people don't like it, they're giving you the courtesy of critiquing and letting you know how you can improve. So you'd do well to listen to that genuine advice. This is clearly not an explicit story (far from it), but one of the problems is that it's entirely based on sex. If you're going to involve mature subjects in a story, it's a good idea to have a core story where these ideas are involved - rather than shoehorning a "story" into an entirely sexual situation. As far as free speech goes...you've been able to post this thread. Nobody has closed or deleted it. Nobody is censoring you. You're simply being offered advice on how to improve. This story will be of little interest to anyone while it remains almost entirely centered on "kissing".[/font] :catgirl: [quote]For the record incest typically is defined as oral/vaginal/etc sex between blood related individuals. So kissing your sister isn't incest. Screwing her over a table is.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I nearly spat my water out when I read this. People must be wondering what the hell I'm laughing at...[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]The gay argument really needs to stop. I mean, most of the evidence so far points to a genetic link (the latest stuff I've read suggests it's related to an additional X chromosome). But whether it's nature or nurture, people need to get over it. People are the way they are and unless they're infringing upon your rights, leave 'em alone. That's my piece on that, anyway. As far as gender roles go, I tend to think that much of this is related to society. I always find it kind of funny that despite female liberation in western society, it's the Muslim world that seems to have had the most female presidents/prime ministers! Very interesting, haha. I haven't known any transvestites/transsexuals personally I must admit. But I do have some friends who have friends that are transsexual (one in particular comes to mind - she's incredibly nice; probably one of the nicest and most interesting people I've ever met actually). I really have no issues there. I don't really think it's my right to judge unless something horrifically harmful is happening (and it really isn't). As far as the world being dominated by men or women... well, I think there's still quite a lot of inequality for women. I always hear this phrase "post-feminist world", but I wonder what that really means. Much of the descrimination against women today is far more subtle (although there are overt cases, like women earning less wages for the same jobs as men - that should be totally and utterly illegal if it isn't already - I think it's illegal in Australia but not sure about the U.S. or elsewhere). I often think about Hillary Clinton and what she's been through and I think so much of it relates to her being a woman. I mean, sure, I think she should be criticized as much as any man. Yet so much of that criticism seemed based on her being a "heartless, cold woman". I feel like a lot of these features would be considered assets on a man (efficiency, logic, pragmatism etc).[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Still a very good post, Sabrina. Thanks much. I can imagine how freaky it'd be if the ship started moving around like that when people are just in a regular room. I shall be very interested to see what happens with Samantha. ~_^[/font]

[quote]The burden of proof is on you now (SunfallE, James, Indi, ect). Either provide proof of your claims, or accept the evidence that I have provided and abandon this idea of complete unrelated individuality of rape incidences somehow makes things O.K. due to a fear of "generalizing".[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]This is going to be my last comment in this "debate". I will leave this to those who have the energy and interest to continue the debate. Let me just address the above quote though. First of all, the burden of proof is just as much on you as it is on anyone else. Your personal opinion is regularly presented as some kind of objective fact, when it is anything but. Furthermore you haven't provided a single shred of worthwhile evidence in this thread. The "evidence" you refer to is either highly-biased, non-medical [i]or[/i] you've simply conjured it from your own mind. Several other members have linked to medical information or, at least, far more thorough and accurate sets of data. You've completely swept this aside and ignored it. We have spent so much time going over largely semantic arguments as well. You don't seem to grasp the simple idea that even in a purely legal sense, individual circumstances matter. You embrace a philosophy or idea when it suits you, then you abandon it when it contradicts your view. As I've said before, the view that abortion should never be legal is a legitimate view. I don't object to anyone holding that view. What I object to is the armchair psychiatry you've been peddaling in this thread. Not only is it totally unrealistic, but it actually doesn't serve your own cause - it only discredits you to everybody else. It's in your interest to find some real data that can lend weight to your view - or to simply accept that the data doesn't agree with your view, but that you hold the view for personal reasons anyway. There's certainly nothing wrong with that. Also, CS, one final thought:[/font] [quote]You are arguing from ignorance again.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Try to pull yourself out of that "I'm always right" bubble, please. As I've said, people here are respecting you by taking the time to respond to your comments. You often ask for information and then it's given to you...but you then ask others to summarize it for you. If you aren't going to attempt to understand other people's views (as they are trying to grasp yours), then there is no point continuing to debate in this thread. We've often had to wade through your massive links/posts in an effort to understand your point of view. And then when we do grasp that view and find issues with it on which we disagree... we are all somehow ignorant and wrong. That's really rude and disrespectful - if you're going to aggressively criticize people's sources or views (despite the fact that you haven't attempted to read those sources and understand them), you can't then turn around and complain when people find regular faults with your sources and views as well. And please keep the arrogance to a minimum. You have a view, so do others. You're no more an authority on these matters than anyone else. As far as I know, nobody in this thread is some kind of medical expert. So please keep those things in mind.[/font]

[quote]Anyway, the statement that I have heard is that "cases are different". This, although an obvious given, has very little bearing on the issue. If you go into personal instances, you opt out of logical statements and rights, and then go toward personal feelings on the issue.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]This is why various Government programs have a thing called "means testing". There are many cases where individual circumstances must be assessed in order to reach a determination. By suggesting that the individual circumstances surrounding each case of rape are irrelevant, you are implying that the specifics of each case are unimportant. You may be against abortion in all circumstances and as I've repeatedly said, this is fine. That's your opinion and you're most welcome to it. However, it is blatantly unrealistic to suggest or imply that individual circumstances don't matter in general. Of course they do; if they didn't, victims of rape would all receive identical treatment from medical professionals. Obviously each case is very different and each person is unique. Understanding that is necessary to begin making any progress with victims.[/font] [quote]The slippery slope is a fallacy. A cannot = B and = C and = D at the same time. You have misunderstood my post: I said "That right" to her own body. Not "rights in general". There is a difference, particularly that the right of abortion is the right in question of this thread. We can't assume this right if we are going to debate it.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]The slippery slope is a fallacy? But you yourself are arguing on this basis. On the one hand, you're saying that there's a key difference between "the right to abortion" and "rights in general". At the same time you're applying blanket armchair psychology to all rape victims, without regard to exceptions or unique cases. So you are essentially operating on two sets of logic simultaneously, both of which are self-contradictory. Of course, this allows you to make one set of rules on one issue and then to disregard those principles on other issues. I think this is why so many people here are finding your justifications inconsistent - it's not that you're "wrong" to be pro-life, it's that your frequent blanket assertions about entire groups of people are highly inappropriate.[/font] [quote]Raised from nowhere? Do you not realize that the emotional aspect sympathizing with rape victims is almost the entire argument for maintaining the legality of abortions in those instances?[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Yes, raised from nowhere. I don't think the case has been made so far that it's about a raw emotional issue - it's really about medical recovery. Recovering from trauma is a medical issue bit it's also certainly emotional. I would argue that the two are intertwined. You can't summarily reject emotion from the discussion anyway. Besides, much of your position is based on personal value judgments! That's no different from someone else having a personal emotional point of view. Your view is no more relevant and no more acceptable than anyone else's.[/font] [quote]Again, I am fighting against shadows. Please tell me where I have done this.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]You're not fighting against shadows, you are either ignoring people's comments or you're glossing over them. There have been numerous, exhaustive examples of where you've done this throughout the discussion. If you aren't going to bother to pay attention to what people are saying, then don't expect everyone else to provide a roadmap to your own comments.[/font] [quote]Yes, it does. Otherwise, the statement would be completely unrelated to the topic at hand, unsubstantiated in your own mind, and serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever in its presence. Since you have made such a statement, you imply a claim. That is all there is to it.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Ugh. Do I really have to go through a basic English lesson here? As I said, a child being an ever-present reminder of an event doesn't mean that if the child didn't exist, the victim would "forget" the incident. The victim would simply not be constantly reminded of it - that doesn't mean they'd forget it in the first place. I hope this makes sense. Clearly, others in this thread have understood it. It's not rocket science. [/font] [quote]Anyway, the emotional aspect becomes irrelevant in regards to law, because otherwise you wouldn't have any order. You could claim that because someone broke your television, that it is worthy of the death penalty because you loved your television so much, and that it affected you so much that they should be killed for it under the same grounds that you claim that a woman who was raped should be allowed to abort the baby only because she feels that way about it.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I know what you're saying, but what I'm telling you is that your attitude towards rape is entirely flippant and dismissive. I mean, you're trying to create an analogy between rape (a horrific crime that has a permanent negative impact on victims) to the theft of a possession (which isn't even comparable by any measure - even in a strictly legal sense). And this is the core problem I have with what has been said so far. You can argue on a completely legal basis, sure. But if you're going to do that, don't start making comparisons that aren't even legally comparable.[/font] [quote]The emotional appeal is ultimately arbitrary. You have to go off of the legal standard if you want to maintain the system. Whether or not someone minds something is irrelevant to whether or not a law is broken, or a right exists.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, that's fine. Instead of dismissing rape and putting it in general terms as you did earlier, you would have been better off to make this simple statement and leave it at that. This makes a lot more sense and sounds a lot more reasonable. However, I would personally argue that emotion matters, especially as it relates to a victim's ability to recover after an attack. For example, let's look at a situation where someone was assaulted in the street. The victim may want revenge against the assailant and may wish to see the harshest penalty possible, for no other reason than that they are angry. The judge, however, has to make a [i]legal[/i] decision - what are the attacker's prior charges? Are there any? If this is a first offense, the judge may impose a lighter sentence. And the judge will only impose a sentence allowed by sentencing guidelines anyway. So on the surface, yes, the "emotion" of the victim doesn't matter. [i]However[/i], that isn't all there is to it. Let's say the assailant simply pushed someone in the street, but when that person fell over, they hit their head on the sidewalk and died immediately. On the surface, the assailant's attack is minimal - legally speaking it may not even require jail time. The assailant didn't intend to kill the victim. However, because a minor attack resulted in death, the assailant may be convicted of manslaughter rather than regular assault. And this would bring with it very different penalties. Do you see what I'm saying? You can make the blanket case that "anyone who pushes someone else in the street should get a warning and a fine". And that sounds great. But what you don't take into account are the many different circumstances and results of that action. The law must (and does) reflect these important variances. If it didn't, we'd have mandatory sentencing for every single crime, regardless of circumstances. So you're telling me that individual circumstances don't matter. I'm telling you that they do and that they shouldn't be dismissed. Whether this justifies abortion or not is [i]not[/i] what I'm debating with you. That's now almost a side-issue. I'm getting at what I perceive as the core flaws in the logic you are applying to your view.[/font] [quote]It isn't oversimplified. It is exactly how it is, and it cannot be any other way, due to the laws of thought. This system is binary: either the right exists or it doesn't exist. Either A = A, or A = B. You cannot have A = A sometimes, or A = B sometimes.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Unfortunately, CS, the world isn't that black and white. Refer to my previous comment about sentencing as an illustration of this.[/font] [quote]Claiming a shadow that "it might exist" or "it is too simple" doesn't accomplish anything. Can you please tell me how it is that abortions are somehow O.K. in one rape case but not another due to the emotional impact that the mother has? Can you tell me how it is that endorsing abortions in instances of rape doesn't say that the child doesn't have a right to exist in contrast to endorsing any other method to resolve the personal issues? Is this based in logic at all, or is this just out of personal feeling?[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I'm not sure how else I can continue to exhaustively talk this out, CS. You seem to be drawing conclusions that I'm simply not making. I am not telling you that abortion is or isn't justified in different rape cases. I have a personal view on that and I don't intend to debate it with you. Others will debate that and I'm happy for them to do so. My point is simply - and was always - that your armchair psychology is painfully simplistic and fails to acknowledge the depth of the problem (regarding rape). Your vacuous assertions about which aspects of giving birth are worse for the mother are also horribly naive and they make assumptions based on absolutely no objective evidence. If you want to know what aspects of childbirth are most difficult for rape victims, then you should either talk to a range of women about birth...or actually speak to people [i]in addition[/i] to your mother. What you will see is that there are a range of views and experiences out there - far more than you can imagine.[/font] [quote]I, myself, am not hesitant to tell people how they should recover. If I find that a rape victim has decided to go into cutting herself and torturing animals in order to deal with emotional scars, for example, am I supposed to just keep my mouth shut about this behavior because of the way she feels?[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]So you're going to take it upon yourself to council someone in horrible pain and emotional trauma when you are completely unqualified to do so? That's really generous of you. Perhaps, instead of making these infinitely wise declarations about what people should or shouldn't do, you could show some compassion and maybe even suggest that the person seeks professional support. I am simply not insensitive enough to walk up to a rape victim and try to tell them that I know best. I couldn't even begin to imagine their state of mind and I'm certainly not a doctor. [/font] [quote]My mother and I have the same position. If you are debating against me, you are vicariously debating with my mother; a rape victim who has much more "credibility" than me on the issue.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]No, CS! To use your logic, I'm [i]only[/i] debating with A or B - you or your mother. There's no in between! :catgirl: See what I mean? Life isn't quite that simple. Your views are obviously inherited from your mother. That's fine. But I'm not debating with her, I'm debating with you. Just because you agree on an issue doesn't mean that you shouldn't have your own reasons for having a position. You are accountable for the things you say and so am I. If you are debating with me, you are debating with me - I do not speak for anyone else and nobody else speaks for me.[/font] [quote]Individual cases of personal feelings have little bearing on the right. Because someone is unhappy with something isn't justification for change. Either the right exists, or it does not exist.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Right - and that's fine. That is your opinion. My only suggestion is that when voicing your opinion, you try not to trivialize serious issues like rape. That's all I would say about it.[/font] [quote]I am getting an argument from ignorance: Saying that I am somehow incorrect because "I don't know" and there are cases where it would somehow be allowed. This has little to do with my question on the fact (should the emotional suffering of the woman justify the abortion?), which is a question that doesn't require the particular instances.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]You aren't getting an argument from ignorance - at least no more than what you're putting out there. You continually make value judgments that apparently come from nowhere other than your own mind. It's one thing to have a view (as we all do), but it's another thing to try to pass of laughably simplistic medical analysis as some kind of empirical fact. This point never seems to be addressed. Besides, people are answering your question - clearly there are people here who think that abortion is justified in some cases. But when they assert that view, you're then trying to tell them that they're either a) wrong, b) ignorant or c) "just don't know". So you are doing to others what you're accusing them of doing to you. It's hypocritical at best and it doesn't help the debate at all.[/font] [quote]"Oh, normally murder isn't lawful, but since my nephew was robbed and he REALLY liked his videogames, he has a right to kill that other individual. How dare you try to tell him what solution is best! You can never understand what it is like to have your favorite possession taken away from you!"[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Again, CS, you're making a totally ridiculous comparison here. Your frequent analogy of [i]sexual violence[/i] to [i]theft of a possession[/i] is absolutely inappropriate. Yes, you're making a basic logical argument. But in doing so, you're demonstrating your ignorance about the absolute seriousness of sexual violence. You're also contradicting your own argument; you say that this should all be based on a simple legal formula that something is right or wrong. But you either ignore or aren't aware of the fact that the law itself recognizes individual cases and "shades of gray". This is precisely why there are different degrees of murder for example. It's also why we have a thing called "mitigating circumstances". So if you want to argue your point on a pure legal basis, you also need to understand the way law works and the fact that punishments are often intrinsically tied to personal circumstance. That is why there are trials in the first place - not just to determine whether someone is guilty or innocent - but to allow a court to make a determination based on all of the evidence and any mitigating factors that are involved. As I said earlier, if all crimes were just a "yes/no" situation, there wouldn't be any need to have varying guidelines or mitigating factors - because in your world, there are no mitigating factors, no relevant individual circumstances and every crime or act is comparable on a completely equal basis.[/font] [quote]Anyway, I am not one of those extremes. Though I do not condone abortions in cases of rape, I am more than happy to condone abortions in cases of various medical reasons (horrible deformity and inability to survive of the child, toxic/ectopic pregnancies, that kind of stuff). Then, you are not talking about personal comfort through choice. You are talking about serious medical conditions, in which an abortion is the "lesser of two evils". Incest I am undecided on.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Right, so, maybe this should be the final word on the debate then, lol. After all you've been telling us about how it's a yes/no, black/white situation and that individual circumstances are irrelevant... you're now telling us that there are some exceptions. Thank you. You've just made the point that almost everyone here has been trying to make. When discussing rape, nobody here is talking about "personal comfort" as you so quaintly put it. We are talking about serious physical and psychological factors that are not irrelevant. Many of these would certainly fall under the medical category.[/font] [quote]If you plead the case of someone who has a psychological condition, then is it not that condition which legalizes the abortion, and not the rape itself? If it is a pregnancy from an uncle, then is this not about incest? If it is a pregnancy in a woman who would be unable to carry a child (such as an adolescent herself), then would this not be a case of medical conditions?[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Right, exactly. You don't seem to be making the connection here, CS. What you're doing here is talking semantics. Yes, it's a psychological condition that legalizes the abortion - [i]but the psychological condition is caused by the rape![/i] Everyone here has been trying to make this point to you.[/font] [quote]What you have "given" is the fact that not a single question that I ask on this issue is answered. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]That's just rude. People are regularly answering your questions and responding to you. If you're going to summarily dismiss everybody's responses (as you've dismissed almost anything you disagree with as a "fallacy"), then you simply should not be debating this topic or any other. I suggest you keep that in mind. People are showing you respect by taking the time to respond to you like this, even though they probably have better things to do. You should show a little respect in return by acknowledging this and not complaining that nobody is answering your questions.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Welcome, welcome! :catgirl: LoLoLaLoco, you have a cool name. :D I hope you guys enjoy the place.[/font]

[quote]I have made my best attempts to remain behind the thought processes and arguments behind these cases, and not the actual emotional appeal (though the topic somehow shifted toward this). If you are avoiding an argument, there is very little to discuss at this point. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I'm not sure where the emotional aspect even comes in. Again, that's something you've raised from apparently nowhere. I was always talking about the justifications behind your thought process. I just finished explaining my view on your sources and how you've made certain assertions that you are passing off as some kind of empirical fact, when they are largely personal opinions. So you've quoted me but you haven't really responded to what I said. I am obviously debating with you, but this debate stems from your earlier flippant attitude towards rape and its effects on victims. [/font] [quote]Though you are avoiding an argument, you are making a claim then: That some individual circumstances involved in rape will justify the abortion. I would need a much greater elaboration to make any comment on this, other than the following statement: The fundamental argument for allowing a woman to abort the fetus because it was conceived in rape isn't substantial enough.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]No, I'm not making that argument. My argument is that your justification for a blanket ban on any kind of abortion (including in rape cases) is based on these vague generalizations that don't recognize the complexity involved or the variations with different unique cases. It's fine to be against any form of abortion whatsoever, but making these matter-of-fact assertions about victims of rape is not a good way to justify your position. [/font] [quote]Allow me to show you how I pick up these notions. For example, in the phrase "That child is unfortunately going to become an ever-present reminder of a traumatic experience.", the key word is "reminder", which implies that an incident would have been forgotten or gotten over. In the particular instances, it implies that the incident would have been forgotten or gotten over had the child been aborted. Chances are, you have just worded the phrase incorrectly, and thus have caused an inaccurate implication by contrast. Or, you had not seriously thought about the actual circumstances behind rape, and had placed a plastic "if only" view onto the issue like most political parties.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]You've simply misinterpreted me. Suggesting that in some cases the child may be an ever-present reminder of the incident [i]does not[/i] imply that if the child were not there, the victim would suddenly forget they'd been raped. You are drawing an incredibly long bow with my comments. SunfallE's response earlier indicates that what I had said was pretty clear, I think.[/font] [quote]Also of interesting notes are my past articles about what inspires the fear of the dark, the presence of hardwired factors culminating into absolute morality, and probability being mistaken as the "Math God".[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]What? This reminds me of when Sarah Palin tried to explain the bailout to Katie Couric. I have no idea what you're saying here - but it comes across as an attempt to be verbose in the absence of any noteworthy comment. It just confuses the discussion. [/font] [quote]I obtained my degree through 21 years of hard life and oppression, and receive expert opinions in the places where I am lacking . I'm sorry, but "credo" is of little value to me. Anyway, my stance on the issue is that the emotional appeals are not nearly as important as the logical conclusions behind the actions to be taken. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]The first paragraph just doesn't make sense. I don't know if you're actually serious or trying to be sarcastic. As for the second part...it's easy to dismiss credo (assuming you are referring to professional doctors) when real scientific data may actually contradict your point of view. Or at the very least, when the psychology behind rape and rape victims proves to be far more complex than some limited, black-and-white assessment. Again, this comes back to fitting everything into a pre-determined prism - and damn the reality, darn it! You may find the emotional argument irrelevant, but I think there are a couple of obvious points to make about that. First of all, I don't think anyone here has actually made an emotional argument (at least not recently). I am certainly talking logic here, in trying to reflect the complexity of the problem. And secondly, it's actually probably not a good idea to dismiss emotion anyway. After all, a person's emotional state has great bearing on their overall mental health - this is certainly true for rape victims. My cousin, who I've been close to since we were both toddlers, was visciously raped a couple of years ago (she is also mentally ill). I can tell you that the emotional argument is certainly relevant for her, because it often dominates the way she thinks to this day.[/font] [quote]When you take a stance on this issue, you have to do something uncomfortable. You either have to tell a rape victim to their face that they do not have that right over their own body, or you have to tell an individual conceived in rape to their face that their life is not worth living. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Those are the only options? This is a perfect example of what I've been saying all along. You are dramatically oversimplifying the issue. It's either option A or B and that's the extent of your thinking. You are certainly advocating option A. But who is advocating option B? Where did that option even come from anyway? Nobody has ever said, suggested or implied that a child who is the product of a rape should be told that their life is not worth living. And nobody's even remotely suggested that their life is not worthy. My only comment was that if a woman who is raped gives birth to her rapist's baby, there may be a chance (if she keeps the baby) that this child will forever be a reminder of what happened to her (and that there would be several negative consequences as a result of this). This is certainly not an uncommon problem, but I'm also not suggesting that it is the case for every situation like this. This comment underlines the idea that all rape cases are not the same and that it is incredibly difficult (likely impossible) to understand the mentality of a rape victim unless you yourself have been one. This is why I am hesitant to tell a rape victim what they should do or how they should recover and deal with their feelings. Apart from the fact that I'm not a professional who deals with these issues, my inability to truly understand the experience and feelings of a rape victim makes me unqualified - especially considering that I'm only offering a lay opinion in the first place.[/font] [quote]And if it helps, my mother is also against abortions that were conceived in rape.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]What difference does that make? I'm not debating with your mother. It is great that your mother has the strength and ability to overcome abuse. But in the real world, there are many different abuse cases involving many different people. Some people recover, some do not. Some have life-long consequences that make it almost impossible to live a normal life, while others are able to find some semblance of normality after such horrors. The bottom line is that all people are not the same and all cases are not the same. [/font]

[quote]Generalization indeed. This examples implies by contrast that a woman cannot go through life after being raped if she keeps the child. Even if this were true (very little evidence to say it so), how does this even make an abortion more acceptable somehow? Are people really so pathetic that they have absolutely no control over their mental state due to a single experience despite all of the evidence showing otherwise? Are you pleading the case for only personal feelings, which is one that is ultimately embraces illogical and untenable justification? [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I'm not making a generalization, I am simply saying that your complete dismissal of the long-lasting effects of rape on the rape victim only serves to nullify your original point. It's one thing to start from a position of being against all abortions and then trying to make sure all evidence fits into that prism. It's another thing to accept that all cases are not the same and that individual choices will vary for many different reasons. I'm not making the argument that abortions should or shouldn't be done in certain circumstances. I am saying that your analysis of the effects of rape on victims is highly simplistic and does not take into account factors that contradict your point of view.[/font] [quote]Lets not prattle on about generalizations and exceptions and inability to define any actual moments or psychology, because that is somewhat irrelevant to the issue of philosophy. When you say something like that above, you make a claim: The emotional scars that women endure are enough to allow abortion. This isn't a "yeah, well sometimes but there are exceptions" statement. It is a logical conclusion of circumstance and justification. Either it is true, or it is not true.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here - this look suspiciously like prattle to me! Haha. :catgirl: Seriously though, I think you're missing an important point here. I have just finished pointing out that I'm not arguing for or against an abortion in the case of rape. I have a personal view on that matter and I'm not debating that with you here. My point was simply that nobody can suggest that all cases of rape are the same. If you try to say "abortion should not be legal in the case of rape", you are saying that the individual circumstances involved in each case do not matter. I'm saying that they do. It's as simple as that.[/font] [quote]Much like how my mother got through her traumatic life (ritualistically molested by one of her stepfathers), you need to climb these mental hills personally, and no amount of personal vengeance toward an issue is ever going to make you forget an incident. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I'll say this one more time. Read this carefully: [i]nobody is saying that an abortion would cause a rape victim to forget being raped[/i]. I'm not sure how you glean this from my statements or the statements of others.[/font] [quote]what about the sight of the child being a reminder suddenly makes it so horrible?[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]This question (and the way it was flippantly asked) is not even worth a serious response. It's worth me responding simply to point that out.[/font] [quote]The conclusion I came to is that it is not the actual birth that affects the mother the most, but the pregnancy in its own. If a pregnancy occurs, that will have a profound effect on the mother, whether she keeps the child or not. Though the birthing is painful, this is of little consequence psychologically when compared to rape, and in time passes very shortly. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]This almost sounds like it comes from a text book! Thank you, Dr. Crimson Spider. Where did you get your degree is psychiatry and pediatrics? In all seriousness, reaching a personal conclusion is one thing. But don't pass that off as some kind of empirical final word. It is ironic that a male would sit here and make generalizations about the experiences that a woman has. My underlying point all along was that I'm in no position to arbitrarily decide what "degree" of suffering for a woman is acceptable or how she "should" react to that. It's incredibly arrogant to do so - and if I were a woman, I certainly wouldn't want that directed at me.[/font]

[quote]There is one problem with that argument: The emotional scars are not deepened. I referenced another site in my first post:[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]The problem here is that the site you've referenced is highly biased. I don't view it as an objective source of information. The fact that it calls pro-choice people "pro-abortionists" is a good indication of that. Unfortunately neither you or I are psychiatrists, but we should not presume this blanket argument that giving birth to a child as a result of rape [i]never[/i] deepens the psychological scars of a woman. You just can't make that statement, because you're assuming that every woman reacts to every rape the same way (your'e also assuming that all rapes are inherently the same as well). My point here is not about abortion, so much as it is about your misunderstanding of the potential effects of rape on a victim. [/font] [quote]So, no, the woman would go through more emotional problems if she aborted the baby because she would have to deal with the fact that she killed something on top of the fact that she was raped. It would be easier on her just to give the baby up for adoption and just deal with her other problems. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]That's all fine and good, but if you haven't experienced sexual abuse, it's all too easy to say. In theory this sounds fine, but in practice it can be very different. The core problem with a lot of these arguments is the "one size fits all" approach, which isn't reflective of reality.[/font] [quote]You cannot just make a woman forget that she was raped by aborting the baby. The world just doesn't work like that. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Well, let's be clear, nobody is even making this argument in the first place. The world is also not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. Being able to deal with abortion effectively involves a deeper understanding of the complexities involved in every case. Making generalizations doesn't help anyone, it only deepens divisions between people, especially when one group simply doesn't understand another.[/font]

[quote]If you are going to plead for the emotional appeal on the woman's part, wouldn't it make more sense to further the punishment for the rapist instead of aborting the fetus? Put the blame squarely where it should go.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]The fundamental problem with this analysis is that it's far too simplistic. Rape is a very serious attack that can leave traumatic scars on a woman for the rest of her life. Obviously the rapist should be punished severely, but the ongoing issue relates to the mental stability and happiness of the victim and their ability to live a relatively normal life. If a woman who has been raped gives birth to the rapist's baby, I imagine her emotional scars are deepened further. Every time she looks at that child throughout its life, what is her first thought going to be? That child is unfortunately going to become an ever-present reminder of a traumatic experience. And god-forbid that the child actually [i]resembles[/i] the man who raped her! I can't even begin to imagine the mental torment involved with that. Not only is there great unfairness placed on the mother, but also on the child - what kind of life is that, to know that you are the product of your mother's rape? How terrible for the child, especially if it has long term consequences for their relationship with the mother. Now, having said that, I'm not suggesting that a baby born as the result of rape "should" be aborted. I personally believe that abortion is a private decision. However I wouldn't want to outlaw it in every rape case for the above reasons. I almost think it'd be cruel and unusual punishment to force a woman to give birth to the baby of her rapist. I can not imagine the horror involved with that. But yeah, as I said, without getting into the back-and-forth on abortion itself... I wanted to make the point that it's very easy for someone (a man especially) to sit back and dictate these kinds of rules on a woman. But that man has absolutely no idea what a rape victim goes through for the rest of their lives. I personally can not fathom the idea of telling a rape victim what they "must" do in these circumstances. I would not dare try to impose an ideological belief on someone who is genuinely suffering.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]This reminds me a bit of the mature Pokemon RPG that Shy and I wanted to create - although this concept is fairly different so far when it comes to the details. Interesting, nonetheless. I liked this, I think you're a talented writer. It's just a shame that we don't generally see too much from you. This first entry was pretty solid and I think the concept behind it is sound. I don't know a great deal about Pokemon these days, but I like the fact that you've incorporated Pokemon lore so thoroughly already. And from my limited understanding it certainly seems plausible too. So great stuff so far. It'll be interesting to see where this goes, if there's another post. I think this is a good example of how to take an existing franchise and put a clever twist on it.[/font]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]I think this sounds interesting; at least, I don't think we've seen an RPG quite like this before. My only concern/advice would be that this concept seems heavily based on real life situations. People who know little about these subjects or their histories may have difficulty getting into the idea. So if you want to make an RPG based on real organizations and events, it may be a good idea to link to some resources about them (Wikipedia maybe). This could be why the more fantasy-based RPGs do well; players may feel that they have more flexibility and they don't have to know as much info going in. I would tend to try and keep it simple and provide some info/summaries to give writers a feel for the world you are creating. :catgirl: [/FONT]

[quote name='Boo'][size=1]~_^[/size][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]Oh my, Boo. ~_^ Ahem, anyway, I think the point is that this thread is very much tongue in cheek. Although I'm sure some of these match-ups would probably occur if given half a chance, haha.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Who would I do? ... ...I'm sure they know who they are. ~_^[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]No worries! I've just posted...[i]finally[/i]. Sorry for the length, guys. I've tried to put in a lot more information this time. This post reveals a lot more than some of the previous posts, but if you guys have any questions about what's unfolded here... just let me know and I'll explain all. I can even put together a bullet point list of what's happening thus far if you want, just let me know. And I hope I've portrayed other characters properly! Please let me know if anything is inaccurate. :catgirl:[/font]

[center][img]http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/9978/vboavatarey3.jpg[/img] [img]http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/Arichan16/arthur.jpg[/img][/center] A strange calm seemed to come across the ship. As Zahir and Arthur made their way toward the nearest elevator, they momentarily looked back and noticed that dozens of people were still strolling casually through the manicured lawns at the base of the synthetic mountain. Few people seemed genuinely concerned, despite the frightening vivid red glow that now covered everything on the deck. The elevator doors whooshed open. A familiar, friendly face appeared and smiled broadly at them. The face did not talk as the elevator descended toward the main lobby. Zahir found himself transfixed on the A.I. woman's large, blue eyes. As they stared at each other, he felt a chill run down his spine. Zahir held his stomach. He felt sick. The panic and terror of being stranded on an outpost somewhere in space was enough, but now there seemed a real prospect that the Von Braun was in serious trouble. What did it mean? What was the planet they were headed to? Surely [i]someone[/i] would be able to stop this madness and put things right. Finally, the elevator doors opened. Zahir took a deep breath. The lobby was flooded with people. So much so that it looked extremely cramped and difficult to move. [i]Why move everyone here?[/i] he thought. As they stepped out into the crowd, Zahir noticed several familiar faces, including some of the young men who worked at his bar. Above the crowd were several dozen monitors, which all displayed the same image of the ship's trajectory. Arthur squeezed Zahir's hand. 'Keep following me,' he said above the din of the crowd. 'We aren't staying here just now.' 'Where are we going?' Zahir had trouble hearing over the noise of the passengers and staff, most of whom were now starting to panic aloud as rumors began to spread among them. 'We're going down to the Shuttle Dock,' said Arthur. 'It's our best chance if this thing crashes.' 'But there are enough shuttles for everyone!' cried Zahir. 'It might be dangerous if we try to leave on our own!' Arthur paused for a moment and looked at Zahir earnestly. 'Are you sure about that?' Memories of the Outpost filtered back into his mind. He shook his head slowly. 'Then let's go!' cried Arthur. He pulled Zahir's arm and led him through the crowd, out to the other side of the lobby. The crowd was so concerned with its own discussion and argument that nobody seemed to pay any attention to Arthur and Zahir as they exited through a hallway marked "SECURITY STAFF ONLY" [center][img]http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h167/Desbreko_Fanclub/VBO/avatar1_crew.gif[/img] [img]http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h167/Desbreko_Fanclub/VBO/maul.jpg[/img][/center] Jedidiah Pennback's face glowed an eerie green hue. He had been sitting in front of computer monitors for hours. He jumped when he felt a hand on his shoulder. When he turned around, he saw Lazar Sorokov. 'Have you found anything yet, Chief?' Pennback removed his glasses and wiped the lenses with his shirt. 'Kind of,' he said tentatively. 'There are several anomalies with the authorization records, Sir. Have a look at this,' he pointed to the screen and opened a folder. There were several files inside. 'There are all what we call "Authorization Keys". Every time a senior staff member or security personnel authorize a particular action, one of these keys is produced. Each key is assigned to the individual staff member. We use these keys to determine who is authorizing what actions around the ship at any given time.' Sorokov nodded thoughtfully. 'Yes, I'm well aware of this system. Is there a problem?' Pennback sighed and opened one of the files. Sorokov pushed his glasses up his nose and squinted. He saw what looked like a large spreadsheet. There were several noticeable gaps. 'What's this?' 'These,' said Pennback, 'are deleted keys. And look at where they have occurred. A couple of authorization keys were processed from the ship but related to the NARSIA Outpost before we even arrived! And then there were several authorizations processed after we left. There were also modifications made to passenger records and several fail safe systems were deactivated.' Sorokov stared at the screen. 'Why didn't we notice these anomalies before?' 'Well, I suppose nobody really checks these files, Captain. There are literally thousands of them produced every day, because all kinds of authorizations take place. It's impossible to [i]change[/i] the I.D. related to any of these authorizations. And we had thought it was impossible to outright delete records, too...' 'Yes, I thought the system prevented that kind of tampering. This was installed by NARA wasn't it? It had nothing to do with the ship's manufacturer?' Pennback nodded. 'Yes, this is a Government system.' 'So it follows,' said Sorokov slowly, 'that only a senior Government employee would have the permissions to remove entries. Is that accurate?' 'I think that's a fair statement,' said Pennback. 'Did this also affect our trajectory?' asked Sorokov. Pennback scanned through the files. 'No, Captain. In fact, look at this. There are several deleted entries under the manual navigation system. It looks like someone has actually tried to fix our course without success.' 'So the same person who tampered with systems on the Outpost, as well as passenger data [i]also[/i] tried to get the Von Braun back on course? It doesn't make sense.' Pennback rubbed his forehead. The Captain was right. If someone had tried to sabotage the Outpost or put the lives of passengers in danger, why would they try to avoid a disastrous crash? 'All I want to know, Chief, is who would have this kind of access,' said Sorokov finally. 'The Von Braun is dangerously off-course. Your team of engineers have our lives in your hands. I want to make sure that I do everything in my power to avoid any more nasty surprises so that you can focus on keeping this ship safely on course.' For a moment, Pennback seemed to be considering the Captain's demand. He reached over his desk and produced a cigarette from a thin metal case. As he lit a match and took a deep breath, he looked up at the Captain. 'Those Outpost commands originated from this ship,' he said as smoke billowed into the air. 'And the Outpost's security systems can only be influenced by one person on the Von Braun. Unless there are any other NARSIA staff here, then I think we both know who I'm talking about.' Sorokov's stomach sank. He felt foolish. The answer should have been obvious from the beginning, but he had allowed himself to be charmed into a false sense of security. 'You need not say any more. I will summon all security who are not involved with the evacuation procedures and send them to arrest her immediately.' [center][img]http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/9978/vboavatarey3.jpg[/img] [img]http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/Arichan16/arthur.jpg[/img] [img]http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/8936/avatar21crewxq4.gif[/img] [img]http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h167/Desbreko_Fanclub/VBO/indiavi.jpg[/img] [img]http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/2357/kathykf5.jpg[/img] [/center] The long, dark corridor stretched out before them. They could hear only their footsteps at first, but as they rounded several deserted corners, voices became audible. Arthur slowed down. 'What is it?' whispered Zahir. Arthur put his finger to his lips and glanced back at Zahir. He seemed worried. As they moved further down the hallway, Zahir noticed that the alarm sound had stopped. Red lights continued to flash along the corridors. There were few doorways leading in or out of where they were now, but there were several signs pointing to the Shuttle Dock. This corridor had seemed so welcoming only hours ago, when Zahir and the others had returned from the Outpost. Now it took on an entirely different feel. It was dark and cold. The voices grew louder. Zahir could clearly hear two women and, occasionally, a man. One voice he recognized. It was Natalia. They were very close now. Zahir felt his breathing grow shallow. Arthur stopped as they came to the end of the hall; it took a sharp ninety degree turn. The Shuttle Dock was just beyond. Arthur reached down to his hip. He placed his hand on the top of a shiny object that sat on his hip. As the red lights swirled overhead, Zahir couldn't quite see what it was. The Shuttle Dock doors opened with a quiet [i]swoosh[/i]. Zahir had forgotten how large the dock actually was. When the Outpost survivors had returned to the Von Braun, it had been necessary to move quickly and quietly back to the passenger decks. There had been no time to look around and admire the place. The entire dock unfolded before them. The center of the dock contained a large open space where shuttles arrived and departed. Once a shuttle landed, it would taxi along pre-determined channels that ran along the expansive floor, until it arrived at an open space to dock. The sides of the Shuttle Dock contained what looked like hundreds of honeycomb-shaped cells that sat on top of one another. Each contained a shuttle. It looked like the inside of a giant bee hive. Several shuttles sat in a row within the open central space. Zahir counted four of them. All of the hundreds of shuttles in the dock had darkened windows, but the shuttle on the end of the row before them was lit up. And there were people standing nearby, engaged in what appeared to be an increasingly-heated discussion. Both Arthur and Zahir approached cautiously. As they walked, they kept their bodies hidden in shadow as much as possible – Arthur seemed very eager to hear what was going on without being discovered. They went quiet. Zahir could decipher three distinct voices; two women and a man. He immediately recognized the first voice: it was Natalia. What was she doing down here? The other voices were harder to discern. The woman’s voice was smooth, collected and yet firm. The man interjected occasionally, apparently questioning the other woman. And then, it clicked; [i]Samantha Wells[/i]. It was clearly her. Zahir remembered her voice from when they landed on the Outpost. He had read about her in the Von Braun’s brochure, but very little detail was provided. All he knew was that she was from NARSIA and was therefore very senior on the ship. Zahir did not know who the man was, but he assumed that he was her second in command or perhaps her bodyguard. Zahir strained his ears to listen in on the conversation. It was somewhat difficult because of the echoing effect within the dock. ‘I came down here because I [i]thought[/i] that it was my job to arrange shuttles for casino employees,’ said Natalia. She spoke in a frustrated tone. ‘You need not have worried about that,’ said Samantha calmly. ‘We would rather that you make sure people evacuate from the casino – security can handle the rest. Now, if you’ll just follow me...’ Zahir heard a slight rustling sound and a pause. Samantha must have been trying to lead Natalia along. [i]Big mistake,[/i] thought Zahir. ‘Where on Earth are you leading me anyway? You just said I should be at the casino. That’s precisely where I intend to go.’ ‘No, I think you’d be safer if you just come with us.’ Samantha’s voice was slightly sharper. Her cool demeanour was being challenged. Zahir moved forward slightly and squinted. He and Arthur were standing in the shadow of a large sign near the dock’s entrance. Zahir tried to position himself to get a better look. He could now see Natalia, Samantha and the other man standing near the lit-up shuttle. Natalia had her hands on her hips. ‘Are you not responsible for security on the entire ship?’ snapped Natalia. ‘Why are you so concerned about me? There are thousands of people up there. Perhaps [i]you[/i] should be doing [i]your[/i] job!’ Samantha didn’t move. She seemed to be temporarily stunned, as if someone had flashed a bright light in her eyes. Zahir imagined nobody had ever spoken to her like that before. She then looked over at the man standing next to her, who was remaining quiet. ‘Jeff, I think this woman is hysterical. We are in an emergency situation and we do not have time to waste arguing. She will only make it more difficult for us to assist the other passengers. Please restrain her and seat her in this shuttle. It is already active and I’m sure she’ll be quite comfortable. If an evacuation is ordered, we will use this shuttle for the PPS.’ Samantha smiled broadly. Jeff acknowledged her, but seemed uncomfortable. Natalia raised an eyebrow. ‘PPS? What are you talking about now? And no, I’m not hysterical, I’m [i]annoyed[/i]. I am a manager on board this ship and I expect to be treated with dignity. The Captain will hear about this.’ Samantha spun around and glared at Natalia. ‘PPS: Potential Problem Source,’ she said flatly. Zahir thought this must be some kind of NARSIA jargon. At first, Natalia balked. She clearly thought the whole situation was utterly ridiculous. She was among the highest-paid and most-respected staff members on the Von Braun and here she was, being patronized by someone younger and less experienced than herself. Her expression changed when Jeff produced a small set of plastic handcuffs. He took a step towards her and then paused and looked back at Samantha. ‘Ms. Wells, [i]really[/i]…I don’t think this woman is hysterical. This was all just a misunderstanding. Why don’t we just go back and speak to Captain Sorokov about the evacuation plan?’ ‘Jeff, I believe I gave you an order. You don’t want to be like Major Sijan do you? I’m sure there will be a write-up or two about her submitted to NARSIA upon our return. That certainly won’t help her career.’ Samantha smiled. As she spoke to Jeff, she almost sounded like a disappointed mother. Natalia’s hands were now balled into fists. ‘Ridiculous!’ she shouted, her voice echoing throughout the Shuttle Dock. ‘Don’t now threaten his job because he won’t carry out your inappropriate orders! Since when is this ship your personal playground?’ Samantha cocked her head to one side. She looked at Jeff. ‘Jeff? Do I need to ask you a second time? Surely not.’ Jeff gripped the cuffs in his hands. He seemed to be torn. Carry out the orders, as much as he disagreed, or disobey a senior officer? The latter could end his career. But the former felt like a cynical abuse of power. Natalia put her arms out and stared at Samantha. ‘Why don’t you do it yourself? Clearly you didn’t count on your subordinate having a conscience!’ ‘It’s for your own safety,’ replied Samantha softly. ‘That is my primary concern.’ Natalia laughed. ‘Oh really? So where were you when a dozen of us got left behind on the Outpost back there? Or didn’t you notice that we were even gone? It boggles the mind to think that such a qualified senior NARSIA officer can be so lax on security!’ At this, Samantha went quiet again. Jeff seemed surprised. ‘What? Left behind? What are you talking about?’ ‘I told you she was hysterical,’ muttered Samantha smugly. ‘I’m not hysterical and you know it!’ Natalia pointed at Samantha. ‘We were left behind,’ she turned her attention to Jeff. ‘Nobody wanted to say anything because we were afraid of a reaction just like this. Well, I’ve had enough and I’m not going to stay quiet about it. And if you’re going to arrest me anyway, I don’t see any point in keeping quiet about it.’ Jeff glanced at Samantha. He had trusted her as his superior. Surely she wasn’t lying. How could she possibly have known about people being left behind on a NARSIA station without saying anything? She pre-empted his question. ‘You are my personal security, Jeff. It just isn’t necessary for you to know everything. This is classified NARSIA information. Besides, this woman is obviously suffering from some kind of mental breakdown right now; I wouldn’t believe a word she said.’ Samantha stepped forward. ‘Now, as much as I’m enjoying our little chat, we need to secure this dock. Jeff, arrest her like I ordered, please. She must be restrained for her own protection and the protection of other passengers.’ Natalia stepped backwards toward the shuttle. Jeff still seemed hesitant. ‘No,’ he said finally. ‘I’m not going to arrest her. I’m sorry, Ms. Wells, but you’ll have to do it yourself. I disagree with your order.’ He dropped the plastic cuffs on the ground. Zahir’s eyes were peeled. His heart began racing as he watched. ‘Fine,’ said Samantha calmly. She reached underneath her jacket and produced a shiny object. Zahir heard Natalia’s gasp echo past them. Zahir squinted to try to get a better look and then he saw it. [i]Oh my god, she’s holding a gun! What the hell is she doing?[/i] Samantha grinned and trained the gun on her targets. ‘What are you doing?!’ cried Jeff. He stepped in front of Natalia. ‘This is illegal! You can’t threaten us like this!’ Samantha kept her gun aimed squarely at the pair. She moved sideways, towards the next shuttle, which was still darkened inside. A small panel protruded from one side, near the door. With her free hand, Samantha typed a code into the panel – she did not avert her eyes from Natalia and Jeff the whole time. With a soft whir, the shuttle came to life. Its interior lights glowed warmly. ‘Listen to me carefully,’ said Samantha in a quiet, deliberate tone. ‘Both of you will board that shuttle. I will board this one. I don’t want either of you mentioning this little incident to anyone on this ship. If you disobey me this time, I will shoot both of you and [i]drag[/i] your bodies aboard.’ Natalia put her hand on Jeff’s shoulder. He could feel it shaking. ‘Don’t think you’ll get away with this,’ said Jeff. ‘Where are you going in the shuttle anyway?’ He was trying to buy some time. [i]Hopefully when we haven’t been heard from in a while, the security staff will come looking for us. Maybe Major Sijan will come back,[/i] he thought. Surprisingly, Samantha took the bait. ‘I’m going as far away from here as possible! This ship is going to go down and I’m not going to be here when it does.’ ‘Wait,’ said Jeff as he put his hands in the air, indicating that he was no threat. ‘You knew this was going to happen?’ Samantha’s eyes darted back and forth between them. ‘Of course not! Why would I want to crash the Von Braun? The mission is going to fail and they’ll blame me. I’m not staying around for that!’ As she spoke, her gun began to shake slightly. Natalia peered out from behind Jeff. ‘Mission? This is just a hotel ship! Our only mission should be to return to Earth safely!’ Samantha laughed shrilly. ‘Do you really think they’d put someone like [i]me[/i] on a regular hotel ship? Don’t you remember what you saw in that laboratory? Oh yes, I know you were there. And I know what you saw. We even have audio records of your conversation. If only you knew about the company you keep!’ Zahir looked up at Arthur. His hand was on his waist, his fingers sitting on the top of that silver object. Up close, Zahir could see its outline. His heart began to race even faster; Arthur had a gun of his own! What reason could he possibly have to hold a gun? ‘What are you doing?’ whispered Zahir. ‘If she knows we’re here she’ll kill us!’ ‘Don’t worry,’ replied Arthur, ‘she’s unravelling herself anyway. I may not need to do anything after all.’ ‘Do what? What are you talking about?’ Arthur pressed his fingers to his lips. ‘Sshh, I don’t want them to hear us. Listen, it’s a lot to explain right now, but you trust me don’t you?’ Zahir nodded. He did not need to think about it. ‘Good,’ whispered Arthur. ‘Samantha Wells is a very dangerous woman, Zee. She has to be stopped one way or another. She’s planning something horrible, we just don’t know what.’ ‘We?’ Before Arthur could respond, Natalia spoke. ‘The company I keep can’t be any worse than this,’ she said, looking Samantha up and down. ‘You’re supposed to be here for our protection! What mission are you talking about anyway? What’s going on?’ ‘The Shirota Strain,’ replied Samantha with a grin. ‘Don’t tell me you’ve never heard of it. Your little friend Arthur told you all about the origins of the Great Disaster, didn’t he? All you have to do is put two-and-two together! You’re an intelligent woman – at least, I [i]thought[/i] you were.’ ‘I have no idea what you’re talking about,’ said Natalia. ‘Doesn’t matter,’ said Samantha. ‘When this ship crashes, everybody on board will die. Those who know about the strain won’t live to tell anybody on Earth about it. This mission may have failed, but we’ll be more successful the second time!’ She gestured towards the shuttle with her gun. ‘Now, go.’ Jeff looked down at Natalia. ‘It’ll be okay,’ he whispered, ‘the shuttle will keep us safe. Come on, we’d better get in before she feels too cornered.’ Natalia nodded. She looked distressed, but remained calm. Just as they boarded the shuttle and the door closed behind them, Samantha aimed her gun at one of the shuttle’s engines. ‘Oh god,’ whispered Zahir, ‘if she damages the engine they’ll never get back!’ Without warning, Arthur dived out from behind the sign, his gun drawn. ‘Samantha, stop!’ Samantha wheeled around and fired her gun in Arthur’s direction. Just as she did so, the ground beneath them shook violently. Arthur fell sideways and slid along the ground, hitting a pile of storage crates nearby. Samantha fell backwards into the shuttle she was standing near. Zahir heard the thud of her gun as it fell from her hand. A voice came over the Von Braun’s loudspeakers: [center][b][i]WARNING, COLLISION IMMINENT. IF SEATED, USE THE BRACE POSITION. ENSURE ALL HATCHES ARE LOCKED AND SECURE. DO NOT STAND UP. DO NOT LEAVE YOUR ROOM. COLLISION IMMINENT. BRACE FOR IMPACT.[/center][/b][/i] The ship lurched sideways and what was once a flat floor suddenly dipped on a steep angle. Zahir began sliding uncontrollably toward the other side of the dock. As he looked up, he saw Arthur sliding close by. He reached out to grab Arthur’s hand, but they were only just too far apart. The shuttles that were all docked on the high side of the room were being held inside their honeycomb cells by some kind of electronic restraint system. Zahir could see them leaning forward, dangerously close to the edge as the room tilted further. If the power failed at all, dozens of shuttles would come toppling out of the cells right on top of them. He looked back toward the group of shuttles that had been sitting in the middle of the dock. They were sliding along the floor, sparking with the friction. He couldn’t see Natalia or Jeff; they must have been lying on the floor. Zahir tried as much as possible to keep from hitting any obstacles as he slid, but as the ship tilted further and further, he slid faster and faster. A sudden flash of pain hit him as his arm caught the edge of a reception desk on the way past. Finally, he hit the opposite wall of the dock with a heavy thud. Arthur fell just beside him. 'Arthur!' Zahir grabbed Arthur's shoulders and shook him. His eyes were closed and his nose was bleeding. 'Come on! Wake up!' A thunderous crash sounded on the other side of the dock. Zahir instinctively looked up and saw that one shuttle had come loose from its rails and had fallen several meters to the ground. One side of the dock contained an extensive reinforced clear panel, where Zahir could see the outside world. He noticed that instead of the star field he was used to, he saw what looked like flames lapping up against the ship. It was the burning of entry to an atmosphere. Any moment, the impact would happen. He held Arthur and curled up with his head down. He prayed that they would live. Landmark 04: Shipwrecked on the Red Giant[font=arial][size=2][color=#202020][center][/center] [i]"Early reports suggest that NARA has lost contact with the Von Braun, only days after its maiden voyage commenced. NARA scientists say that this is normal and expected, given the ship's present location. Scientists expect communications to resume sometime tomorrow morning." Washington Prime News Network (WPNN)[/i] [size=1][B]Important notes:[/B] The Von Braun has crashed on the planet [b]Artenas[/b]. You may post at any time period (i.e. you can talk about what your character was doing when the ship crashed or prior to it) or you can post at the present (i.e. after the ship has crashed). The Von Braun is [b]extensively damaged[/b]. In some decks, survivors will be able to see the Artenas skyline through gaps in the hull. The holographic interiors are no longer functioning, so survivors will see the raw metal interior rather than the lush forest/nature animations. [b]Most passengers are now dead[/b]. Those who haven't posted in this RPG (or who only have one post early on) can assume that their characters are among the dead (or presumed dead) - at least unless they post in future. Although there are holes in the ship, [b]the atmosphere on Artenas is breathable[/b] and the pressure is similar to Earth. Artenas contains several major [b]mines[/b], presumed to be operated by [b]Species 167A[/b].[/size][/font][/size][/color]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Just letting everyone know that my next post is almost finished. I will hopefully get the last little bit done tonight. It's turning out to be slightly bigger than normal because there are a couple of revelations in this one. :catgirl: Edit: Okay, so maybe not quite tonight. Hopefully shortly though. I'm nearly there and I'm trying to make sure I get the other characters right. [/font]