LoneWolf16

Small children and the elderly aren't capable of defending themselves. Twenty-year-old males are, but the punishment would still be death for that offense...given that someone was just robbed of their life, the killer's is automatically forfeit. Then again, you can't make it too general....I'd love to have these sorts of things judged on an individual basis. Like if a man killed the guy who raped and murdered his wife the night before, he'd be free to go, with a bit of therapy...the guy who committed the murder, he'd have his head chopped off if he hadn't been killed already. Then again again, I realize that doing these things individually is entirely too complex, and up for an incredible amount of debate...pipe dream. Just because you obey the law and a murderer did not does not make you morally better than him or her. For all we know, you may have had the desire to kill someone more than once in your life but only refused to do so for fear of the consequences. Then the only difference between you and the murderer would be that he had the balls to actually take a life while you did not. But that would not make you better than him or her. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There's a distinct difference between thinking about killing someone and actually doing it. Mostly the part where you actually do it. Yes, you are morally superior because, frankly, you didn't pull the trigger when faced with the option, regardless of your reasons for not doing so.

*Nod* <{POST_SNAPBACK}> and the killers of the elderly? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Same thing. If you brutally murder an old woman, say hello to the horses who like running in opposite ways with parts of you attached.

23 posts and not one of them a picture. For shame.

*Nod*

Damn right, mine all mine. Find your own! :angry:

Alright. But I don't think you can say that one person can't know more than another person about what happens in the world. That would be like saying that a history professor wouldn't know more about history than the average joe on the street. It depends on how much people read into these things and how much they desire to know the truth. We can all be mislead, but one who knows a lot about what he or she is talking about has less of a chance of being mislead than the other. If one knows about history or current events, or both, than that person at least has more credibility to offer his opinion on a subject than someone who doesn't read at all. Aw, when you put it that way...just forget everything I said. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That person who's more versed in the subject may have much more to draw on...but truth is an absolute, and in this particular area, absolutes are few and far between. One last stab, baby.

I'd just like to say....please don't tear by fragile argument apart. That is all.

Key word is "believe". I could believe that frogs become super models when kissed, but that doesn't make it true, now does it? Truth is, you don't know any more than anyone else does. Don't treat your view point as fact, and others' as worthless. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't automatically treat others viewpoints as worthless. When history and facts prove a person's arguments wrong, then their viewpoint is probably not worth listening to. Your whole 'supermodel frog' example is both silly and inadequate to show your point because everyone knows that that can't happen in real life. It's something that is scientifically impossible that has been proved wrong by scientific fact. When something becomes a fact, then it is truth. You could say that's what you believe, but nobody would believe you because everything proves you wrong. The frog example isn't like when reads about politics or current events. Current events are something that should be obtained from multiple sources. Then you could determine what is true and what's not, because you'd have evidence to support one view or the other. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ya definitely came across as though anyone who thought well of Clinton was a ****ing moron. And you dissected my comment way too much there, simply saying that you don't know what goes on behind the scenes any more than the rest of us...and the example works, to a degree, you, as well as the rest of us, base your opinion on the words of others....meaning there's plenty of room to be mislead, or just left out on pertinent information.

Grooooovy.

Key word is "believe". I could believe that frogs become super models when kissed, but that doesn't make it true, now does it? Truth is, you don't know any more than anyone else does. Don't treat your view point as fact, and others' as worthless.

Eh, somebody may remember that Al-Zarqawi thread....which was fun...so I won't get into this again. But I'm in full agreement with Ms. Vampire, and Pope's right too. And Feng....for shame. Bastard made me grin at something terrible.

Shadowsong's where all my friends and my main are. I really need to start moderating myself when it comes to this game....gotten to the point I'm just on to talk to people and hang out. Sort of an IM service with dungeons and pretty graphics.

Some people seem to be bringing up Final Fantasy, and whilst those cutscenes are pretty, they're still CGI and so its only logical to replace them with in game cutscenes as graphics progress. I miss FMVs with real actors. Games like Dark Forces... I'd rather watch those cutscenes than the new Star Wars films. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Like Wing Commander: Prophecy

For the good of your soul....don't. I mean, look at my xfire. That's not normal.

Being "bad" and "molesting then murdering a 10-year-old girl" are two slightly different things.

*Begins coordinating an aerial assault on the given area of Hades' supposed residence.* Er...I mean... *Begins NOT coordinating an aerial assault on the given area of Hades' supposed residence..not at all.* We'll send in werewolf paratroopers!

Born in Florida, raised in Illinois and Indiana, and currently residing in Florida again. I didn't think it was possible, but I actually miss the bitter cold. The beaches and thong-wearing, tanned, hot chicks are quite nice though.

Can't forget the fun of bashing your buddy in the back while he's sniping at a Elites. :D God, we always got into bash fights. Mid-level, covies all around, gun fire everywhere...bash. "HEY! What the hell, dude?" Spawn, bash back, repeat, until you agree to a truce....then drive him off a cliff in the warthog 'cause he got the last bash in. The Library is the longest damn level I can think of, ever....but it was still creepy and suspenseful that first time through, and the first Flood combat form that leaps out from the shadows is always a shock. Anywho, about Halo Wars....it's a 360 exclusive, which is just stupid for an RTS, I don't care what the control scheme is. Doesn't fit the genre at all.

So, am I the only one who really liked the story? Granted, I've never heard of Ringworld or anything, but still... I liked it a lot better than HL2's plot, and just thought it was a hell of a lot cooler too. I even like the art and concepts a lot more. Comes down to opinion really... And co-op is a blast. A blasty blast. My cousin and I played H1 for almost a year, just the freakin' demo disc. Then finally got the game itself, and played almost another year. H2 came out....got it the first day, and loved it. Excellent experience. I love the gameplay and the story's pretty good. For the memory argument....I remember that engagement with the Scarab in H2 almost perfectly, and the first landing in those foreboding swamps in H1, still there. Walking in on a room covered in Covenant blood is still fresh in my mind. Good times.

I'll try... :">

So? Who gives a smeg about Halo? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I do. So shut it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Agreed, tenfold.

Don't laugh at this too much, ya vicious bastards, but here's mine. Wasn't my idea to make it, and I rarely even look at it. Plus, it was made by a friend of mine, with the exception of the uber bright background. Yeeeah.