Xard

To my greatest shame I have to agree with swede here. Manhunt was idiotic game, and it's bad enough that it's sequel saw day light

Yeah, chicks that are fairly normal and not goth

Uhm, I guess studying in universities is still free, but there's no way you can survive without money. And beer is not only reason why.

Taking away sense of morals and ethics would be very big thing for human race, and I certainly would not want that, even if those "systems" would be superfluous. Morals and ethics are such a core parts of human psyche that I'm actually scared what kind of people we would be if "helping others for our species survival" would be inbuilt system in our brains. Too machinery. It's perfectly possible. I have my own dirty relationship with theory of Panspermia by the way.

Sinis? Where does it come from? Shining ****?

I agree that game is never cause, BUT it can be catalyst

I thought killer didn't even have the game? Oh, well... Banning such **** doesn't bother me though. Reasons, however, does

This place ain't Pink Floyd CD, So You Can Stop Writing Like This. What do you mean with "all the other places"? Have you found all the jedi masters yet?

Morals and ethics of real world has nothing to do with those of fairytale Star Wars. There's Good (LS) and there's Evil (DS). It really is simple as that.

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