What makes NPCs and party members "human"?

Even that follow up is just too hilarious to me. I need to stop watching the news. Currently, the irrational emotional party is doing nothing but disagreeing with the cold hard numbers.

Did you know in florida, officials have been banned from using the phrase 'climate change'? There's a very amusing clip of people trying to get them to say it but they never do xD Ah, just gotta love the trampling of the first amendment and the denial of a 93% consensus among climate scientists.

It's just... no. If that scenario were put into a video game, say like the mayor in majora's mask who insists on having a festival despite the moon about to destroy the whole state, it would be better for everyone to assassinate the mayor and evacuate the people.

 

Im British myself, and we certainly have our problems with Political correctness, to a huge degree. I wont drag religion into this, thats a whole other can of worms, but politically, banning someone from saying something because it might offend people, it seems ludicrous to me. I vote UKIP myself, so Im preparing to be called a racist 50 times over on the forums now.

 

Haha oh google, what would we do without you?

Spoiler: UKIP racist quote

“Well, I reckon dogs are more intelligent, better company and certainly better behaved than most Muslims.”

I'm sure you have your reasons, and as a comedian I appreciate the quote I selected from the huge list available a la google. And well, y'know, never seen man's best friend decapitate someone or burn another alive, haha. A lot of the quotes seem to be reactionary referring to the kind of person who is committing these very specific acts, so it's more like statistics than racism.

But hey, isn't it always? Racism has to come from something. The problem is that racism removes variables like location and upbringing. If you include those, it's pretty much spot on.

 

I hate to totally go off topic, but do you know where the 93% figure actually comes from? As far as I am aware, that 93% number is actually from a study that looked at research papers and tallied whether they gave an opinion in the conclusion about climate change. Turns out it's not actually 93% of all climate scientists, rather it's 93% of climate scientists who stated an opinion on the matter. Of scientist who stated an opinion, that figure is actually about 30%, so in fact most of the published scientists didn't actually state anything for or against.

It's not logic vs. emotion. I have a set of "facts," you have your own "facts," and when our "facts" differ we think the other is full of S***. If you aren't looking at data and forming your own opinion, then you are being propagandized by a machine that will re-affirm, further instantiate, and subtly mutate your already accepted beliefs. Cheers mate.

 

@RockoDyne you mean like this?

So the breakdown is 70% uncertain / refused to say something, 29.1% yes, 0.9% no. The numbers are still leading toward yes at a pretty high rate where ever there is an opinion amongst scientists actually studying the matter.

This site, as silly as the title of it is, sounds like a collection of what I've heard others say about it (on big think and whatever else from web surfing). Is our species competent enough to accurately measure CO2 in the atmosphere? Is our species competent enough to keep accurate records? Is our species correct about what effects CO2 has in the atmosphere? Then based on the records, what is the opinion part? Whether or not it's our fault? Whether or not we're going to miss florida when it's under water?

My cyst surgeon said climate change is happening, but that it's good because it gave us more farm land on land that was previously frozen. And if climate change can also eliminate florida, then I agree that it's a good thing

 

No.