Xard

Rammstein - Benzin Brauch keinen Freund, kein Kokain Brauch weder Arzt noch Medizin Brauch keine Frau, nur Vaselin etwas Nitroglyzerin Ich brauche Geld f

Ahahahahahha! The best ****ing amv since Engel. Pooh and Rammstein = insta-win

MalacHor 5

I woke up hour ago. Immeadiately after it I came here to see certain topics. Kinda worrying

Aww, man. It couldn't be that cryptic :sad: Moral = ethical views, assessments and behaviour rules of community and individual Ethics = "chastity study" aka studying morals Amoral = "Amorality is the quality of having no concept of right or wrong. 'Amorality' or 'amoralism' may also refer to knowing of right and wrong but lacking a belief in the absolute existence of any moral laws."* Thus, I think it's right to call science "amoral", which in this case means "Therefore science is irrelevant to morality". Also, possible morality or amorality (amoral scientist must be very rare case) of scientists has nothing to do with amorality of science itself. [A] There is a more theoretical example that shows the contradiction: If one knows all, then the knowledge that comes from his knowing everything, is already known to him as if it wasn't he wouldn't know everything. But furthermore, even probabilities have laws. If I know the probabilities of things to happen, and I know that these facts are true, then I know the laws that govern the world. Nobody said that to understand the world you have to know what is to happen. If the latest theories about physics are correct we actually know for certain that we are not capable of knowing what is to come, with certainty. And that is by itself a law of the universe as it provides us with a certain knowledge of how the universe works. [A] I fail to see what it has to do with current object of conversation here, although that it is in its own way interesting idea. True, that's why I said "just semantics". And it's true propabilities have laws too. What you say here is correct. However, knowing all also includes knowing more than just laws of propabilitie. Knowing of all would also require eliminating propabilites, since propabilities are kind of antithesis for omniscience. Also, laws of propabilities are still laws for propabilities, and outcomes of propabilities are not carved in stone. Laws of propabilities is not "It's more propable A happens instead B, thus A always happens". Loke, fundamentally we agree here (or that was the picture I got from your post). Science can never be omniscientic. Science answers how things are, what things are (well, to certain extent) and when things are (e.g. science answers when deposition happens under certain conditions) etc.. However, science can never answer how things SHOULD BE, WHY things are, WHAT individual should do etc. These belongs in playground of religions and certain branches of philosophy (although religions are philosophy too when approached from philosophical, not theological, standpoint). Between these two I put how things will be. But that's more in area of fighting between free will and determination. Kinda off-topic: I think there's such thing as free will, although many things goes like determinists say. However, all is not subject of determination. But I'm not going to talk about that matter more, it should belong in philosophy topic instead of this. And I'm lazy writer. * Explanation of amoral is from wiki

I think there is another perspective that is (or at least I believe it is) more accurate than this one. Say that in fact we understand the laws that govern our universe. I love it when people read my posts too Atheists have moral. It's ridiculous to say that just because person is atheist, he is amoral person. Heck, I've been atheist too and I know many atheists. However, science is amoral. That's hard fact. You can't argue your morals, ethics etc. based on science. Basically "I've seen empirically how people feel good" is not valid argument. There's no reason why people should "feel good" or why to make other people feel good. What matters is your own survival in world and that's it. When people argue that making as large amount of people as possible feel good, that steps outside of hard science and goes under worldview category, which ethical and moral areas cannot be determined as some sorts of "facts" by science. Although "ethics" goes under soft science and human sciences, it's still just researching ethics and morals of people.

I love it when people read post just above their own

Now that's assuring

^ LA denied Obz making "content patch" too My ending for K2? No K2 at all

I will never sneeze again. Never.

After being moral relativist as long as I can remember, I have suddenly realized that I have some trails of Moral absolutism in my worldview, although mainly I'm still relativist

^ Seconded There has been other mantras. Nationalism, tribalism (which is responsible for IMHO worst atrocity since WWII, Stalin and Mao, Rwandan Genocide), economy, political ideologies, science (Unit 731 as mere example) etc. and to be all honest, I would not call religion even "winner" here. "Achievements" by Stalin or Mao beats those of Hitler and Pope Alexander II by mile. Also, "Positive Christianity" was NOT big factor in Nazi Ideology

We will eventually, if we don't kill ourselves off or have a mass extinction level accident, be able to learn all the answers through science. Of course that is assuming that we rid ourselves the shackles of religion that is holding us back. Damn you meta, you already brought Heisenberg in this It's kinda funny how quantum physics collapsed whola basis of materialistic worldview. Ironic, actually. Anyway, do you know Sand that "Laws of nature" are nowadays "high propabilities" (or whatever the official english term is). It's really just semantics since highest propabilities tend to happen "quite often", but nonetheless, they're still propabilities

That's always what comes in mind when talking about strenght of humanity and comparing it to strenght of e.g. animals

Pfft. Everyone knows true Asuka would pwn anyone. That must be some sort of Dummy Plug. Oh wait, wrong topic Only FPS I still play actively is Finnwars, mod of BG 1942

I would completely and totally agree with this if and only if Fallout 1 and 2 did this from the beginning, but they did not. The designers decided to use the PnP model and so, being a sequel to Fallout 1 and 2 so should Fallout 3. Now if this was an original IP with no relation to Fallout you would have a strong case and I would agree with it, but Fallout 3 is not an original IP. It is a sequel to an established series. I still don't find anything particularly pnpish in Fallouts :/

Only in Sweden I say

Science isn't and will never be omnipotent nor it will give all the answers.

The better objection is that any SP CRPG imitation of PnP is destined to fail because it doesn't include the one thing that makes PnP worthwhile: other people and good gamemastering. Without these elements, the pretense of imitating PnP gameplay is nothing more than an artificial limitation on the CRPG maker's creativity. Sure, it inspires some nostalgia for people with memories of fun PnP experiences, but that's not worth crippling the experience for everyone else. It's better by far when game developers adapt their approach to what works best in a SP CRPG environment instead of importing the limitations of the table-top game. Thanks Enoch, that's what I was thinking about ("sometimes" my communicating sucks). Trying to emulate PnP feeling should never be main goal for CRPG. I never felt Fallout being much like pnp gaming anyway. SPECIAL, Turn-based combat etc... none of it screamed about pen & paper more than any other random crpg like BG2. Well, maybe TB combat did. Most "pnpish" games I can come up with are old Gold Box games and Temple of Elemental Evil.

I never understand why some people want perfect emulations of PnP. That's what PnP is for

Koreans

Restoration Project of course

She's goth

Beethoven - Missa Solemnis Op. 123 in D Major

I can't Anyway, that's plain stupid.