Wrath of Dagon

Again, when you buy games, you don't buy property like a house or a car. You buy the use of someone else's intellectual property. It's not fully yours, for example it's illegal to copy it and sell it to someone else. So long as you get it on a physical medium, you can resell that medium. If all they sell you is a license, like digital distribution, then you can't resell the license. That's all there's to it.

I'm sorry, you're not making any sense.

Most of the world cultures have been polygamous for the vast majority of time, including ancient Egyptians and Chinese, way predating Jews. Of course may be you were joking.

Because they're not selling a transferrable license. Most people will not utilize the servers 100%. If the game keeps getting transferred, that means much higher utilization of the servers in reality, something the publisher is not compensated for. Thus they have a right to charge extra for the transfers. There's no reason a publisher should be obligated to sell a transferrable license to their game. They could very well sell a single user license (as is commonly done with other software) and they'd be on solid legal and ethical ground.

Explain to me why you think a company should maintain their servers for you even though you haven't paid them one cent? Unless it specifically states that online rights are transferable when the game was bought new, they have no such obligation.

Since you seem to be against it, I was wondering if you think it's constitutionally protected or not.

Seems like a simple question, what's not clear about it?

Especially since Amazon usually sells with a big discount, not tax and free shipping. May not work if you have to have it on day 1 though.

Don't forget our ally Pakistan's ISI, the best resource of all.

@Hurlshot You're not implying there's no Constitutional right to a polygamous marriage, are you?

With a name like "Fisto", it would have to be.

Is that your rule, or is there some reason it can't be both?

I'll have to check your quotes when I get home. The way I understand it Canaan is Palestine, and Canaanites were the people who lived there before the Hebrew invasion (a lot of historians actually believe Hebrews were Canaanites). In any case, I wasn't claiming that a lot of Christians didn't support slavery, only that the equality of men before God was the argument against slavery used by early abolitionists.

How so? Was Germany about to invade Finland? Was there any indication the Soviets would break the peace treaty? The Soviet Union didn't get any Marshall aid either. Neither did any East European country. Obviously Finland had no choice but to sign the friendship treaty with SU after the war, but at that point the West no longer considered it an ally, that's just the reality of it. Edit: Also Marshall aid wasn't "compensation". US certainly didn't owe anything to anyone. It was an attempt to rebuild Western Europe, because that was considered to be in US interest.

What a prick you are, Krezack.

Explain. Did I insult him in any way?

I understand the metaphor, it's just that your comment doesn't really make sense in the context. But I don't really have the time (or, in your particular case the inclination) to educate you on the finer details of WWII in the Nordic countries. Let's just say that there was very little choice involved. So you're saying Finland had no choice but to ally with the Germans? Then why didn't they advance beyond their own territory? I'd say you guys helped the Soviets as much as the allies. Just can't do without the insults, huh?

You mean like a list of laws like in the link you posted? Yes.

I thought I just explained the Biblical law is based on the Mesopotamian to an extent, and then Western law is based on the Biblical to an extent, but obviously had other influences and evolved over the years.

The code of Hammurabi influenced Biblical law, just like Mesopotamian Legend of Galgamesh is very similar to the story of Noah. It says in the Bible Abraham came from Mesopotamia.

You reap what you sow.

Because I'm talking about Christianity and the ideas in it, and not the Church as an organization of privilege which was of course interested in maintaining the status quo. As to the rest of your post, you should not (and this applies to others) read any more into it than what I'm actually stating. My personal religious beliefs have nothing to do with it, I'm talking about history the way I understand it.

No, I'm generally aware of it but I'm not enough of a historian to make a cogent argument using historical evidence. The church didn't have to address the secular inequalities to maintain the idea as part of the culture. Eventually the idea of equality before the law took hold in the culture based on the older idea. I'm pretty sure the early abolitionists were Christians and based their opposition to slavery on the same idea. Edit: In my brief search, I stumbled on this: from 1381. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ball_(priest)

But secular equality came from the idea that all men are equal before God. I never claimed there was some kind of utopia that broke out as soon as Constantin converted. Nothing you're saying contradicts anything I've said.