Nick_i_am

You jerks, play at times that mean I don't have to wake up at 5 in the sodding morning.

Smoke on the Yangtze http://www.videofantastica.com/view_video/31903/

Now that's news to me (then again, I never really did belive in radio, with the exception of 'I'm sorry I havn't a clue'). Thanks for the heads up.

I'm sticking smily faces to the heads of japanese schoolgirls playing leapfrog. I'm totally serious. I know, somewhere, that this is someones fetish, and I intend to cash in.

No problems with the autodesk lineup eh? Interesting. Thanks for the list.

wut?

haha, that's kinda cute. All Llyranor and I ever did was make people bitter and twisted.

hahahahahahahahahahha. Don't I remember you having some great stories about playing Eve too? I might care about MMOs if they hadn't been so pussified recently.

If that's you, I love you.

Nobody said that. You missed the point.

That's the real issue here walkerdude, NOBODY is arguing that murdering someone for no reason isn't evil. What the ARE arguing is that there is always a reason and that that being a good reason or not is what's up for debate. To some people there is NEVER a good reason, but you think that sometimes the reason is justified. This isn't a discussion on morals, it's a discussion on the notion that, given the above, it's very hard to put the notion of murder into the catagory of either good or evil 100% of the time. You seem to understand this, but i'm just trying to clarify what other people are talking about. They are NOT arguing that murder is good, they're questioning your idea that it's always bad, except where it's good, because YOU'RE the one deciding when it's good or bad. That is to say, the contridiction in your argument. If you're saying that murder is always evil when it's done for no good reason, then nobody is disagreeing with you. What they are disagreing with is the notion that it's a universal truth of what counts as 'no good reason'.

Actually, the real contradiction is that you agree with the point that H

We're talking about opinions, not actual possible actions so the point stands if you wish to address it. To reiterate simply, can you justify the initiation of a war of foreign soil? I'm not even talking about conflicts like Korea or WW2 where the US was essentially stepping into someone elses conflict, I mean, literally, can you justify starting a war on foreign soil?

He never said that He already admited that.

And yet, you'll argue that a war on forign soil is acceptable in cirtain circumstances. You claim peace and love, but look at the attitudes you showed towards china, you're hardly offering them an olive branch and whatever claims you have that 'they started it' are rended somewhat dubious by 'your' failure to stop it from happening in the first place. After all, if actions are evil, inaction that leads to the same result can be just as evil, and by your own account, intention or even knowledge is no excuse. The point isn't weather ANYTHING is good or evil, the point is that they're both just labels that we give to things based on our own experiences and morals. They can't be absolute or else everyone would agree with them. Look at the old testiment, god purged the world full of sin of all its life, and yet, would it have only taken one good person killed in the flood to make the entire act 'evil'?

Actually, people missed the point of Hell Kitties post. He was in no way justifing the actions, but simply showing them from the perspective of the person commiting them, and thus showing that there isn't an absolute in evil because it depends entirely on ones perspective and moral standpoint. To phase it more simply. The killer doesn't think they're evil, so does that mean they are just because we think so? It doesn't mean they arn't, it just means that we have to consider perspective and intent clearly, showing that there is no absolute.

Same for Rock Band

But you said that killing PERIOD is evil, what you're doing is proving that there IS a moral grey-area. Why isn't war itself evil? Cirtainly some people think it is, but within your own moral system you can justify it as 'nasty, but sometimes nessesery'. I'm not even saying that this is 'wrong', but I AM saying that there's a moral grey area. I am NOT saying that war or murder is good or evil, I am questioning your doublethink over the idea that killing is evil PERIOD, unless you say that it's okay, which obviously means that it's not evil PERIOD depending on the situation. You also said that intention doesn't matter, but when an evil action leads to a good effect, for example, a rape child developing a cure for AIDS, does that mean the original act was good? After all, you also say that a sacrifice for good is good, and while, in the above example, the 'good' is retrospective, it's still enough to cast a moral gray area over what you've said. I'm NOT saying that rape is good, I am questioning your claim that intention means nothing. Don't take these posts as attacks, take them as oppotunities to clarify your points.

What's what?

Erm, excuse me, but what makes you assume that I havn't? The problem with your above arguments is that you've damned all sorts of actions, such as killing, as being good or evil, period. But you've then said that killing in cirtain circumstances is okay, effectively supporting the post that you're trying to argue with.

Well, they ARE following the 'electric psudo-rock with waifish female vocalist' model pretty closely.

Yeah, don't get me started on Linkin Park.

Which it isn't. So much potential

Personally, I stopped caring about the sims at about the same time that Will Wright did.