Deadly_Nightshade

According to the rules of the language. What sort of group would you not want to get the benefits? For example, I would not wish Fundamentalist Christians to gain any more power in the U.S., even result would benefit the majority of people - for I, myself, as an atheist, would likely see my rights severely curbed, as would other people who are not of their faith.

Are there any games other then Shadowrun where both 360 owners and PC gamers can play on the same servers?

Earthworm Jim, right?

Because the Puzzle, while it is one thing comprised of smaller parts, has been labeled as an independent object. It depends on who is getting the benefits and how much I am affected.

Ok, I misunderstood your meaning - thank you for the clarification.

For the same reason we say Eucaryotic Cell and not Eucaryotic Cells when dealing with only one of them, even though they are clearly made of several differing organelles. A Piece of a puzzle is singular, as is the greater puzzle. I would disagree, for what might be helpful for the majority might not benefit myself, and thus might not be "good" in my opinion. Morality is a personal judgement, so your judgement of morality is irrelevant to my ideas. That said, I recognize the need for social morals, but I do not not preserve them as infallible.

So I guess build your own, or buying a powerful, yet also rare-ish, PC, that would have no problems handling Vista, would not be a good idea.

Check out the new j-10. Some of the MIGs were decent fighters, but I don't know about the j-10 - if it was designed to face the F-16 and F-18, I wonder how it would do against something like the F-22.

I agree with Walsingham, the topic should not discussed at length in this topic - although I would willingly do so in a different one.

While it did seem shorter than its predecessor, I believe the The Sith Lords was a better game.

But they are labels with set, absolute definitions, something that "good" nor "evil" has. I cannot define "good," as "good" is an ever shifting idea. What is "good" for myself may not be "good" for you, and thus I could only give a personal definition -something that is useless when determining the inherent morality of an action. Why is this relevant? But, anyways, among other things, I use my own understanding of the rights of human females and the scientific evidence, or lack there of, of when conciseness begins, and weigh that against my own understanding of the rights of fetuses. Of course, every case is also unique - so what is right in one instance might not be held to be true in the next.

I just did - moral and amoral are labels, nothing more and nothing less. And I said that it matters not, for, even if the entire human race lauded something as "good," it would still not be an absolute "good" concept or act. My own, but in general I do not disagree with any elective abortions other than the extremely-late-term - but yet, even then, I would still not call late-term abortions amoral.

But what about acts that infringe on some individual rights for the greater good -what exactly that might be is debatable-? Your system seems to lack a mechanism for dealing with situations like the aforementioned one, and thus has an inbuilt weakness.

I've not managed to make an invisible blade yet, one feat alludes me, but I did level-up by choosing to take a few ranks in Assassin.

But those acts are still not inherently evil, nor would they be if everyone on earth thought they were. If everyone on earth thought something was evil, that wold make it evil, relatively. Unless you are saying it's absolutely not evil. "Good" and "evil" are simply labels that are put on things we, either as an individual or a society, like and, respectively, disagree with - and thus something can never be proven to be absolutely moral or amoral. I might consider something immoral that the next generation accepts as a standard practise, while they, in turn, could abhor things that I support. You cannot make the claim that there are moral absolutes, even if they are universally applied, as the next generation might have a need to disregard the ancient taboos and adopt a forbidden practice - something that would disprove the absolute "evil" nature of the act. Maybe Walsingham is correct, and this entire discussion is pointless, but I do not agree.

"Du Riechst So Gut" - Rammstein I came across this band on YouTube and they're not that bad - however, I really have no idea what the lyrics are as I do not speak German.

How is it?

I'm now playing MotB.

Ironically, I just watched The Last Man on Earth.

Any anisotropic filtering? The textures look very washed, I thought they were teh crispness for their time... I would guess that the screenshot quality has more to do with that than the graphics settings.

Some pictures:

But those acts are still not inherently evil, nor would they be if everyone on earth thought they were.

For those people who continue to follow Confucius his word may still be the most important thing to them, but I do not live by his words. For example, I believe that the Bible is a hypocritical document centered in myth that promotes atrocities, but yet other humans might try to live their lives according to its words. Because I do not believe most abortions to be amoral - while the act of forcing the woman to bare a child she does not want is.

Just because we can debate something doesn't mean there isn't a correct stance on it. I mean, we could theoretically debate the color of my X-Box for hours. That doesn't mean it isn't black. But morality is not a physical object that can be examined, it is a ever-changing mental label. I would tend to disagree, and that is the exact point I was making in my previous statement - morality, along with the concepts of "good" and "evil," is something that is assigned by individuals and groups. Those ideas are only titles that we use to help identify things we like and things we do not like - and thus they are always open to interpretation.