Nick_i_am

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.

<3 Working Designs.

post count.

Except that he already said that the fun in Mass Effect has little to do with the story alone, but of all the other gameplay elements coming togeather. Why do people have an issue with someone playing a game for fun? You get the same crap over guitar hero. 'wah wah, buy a real guitar, wah wah, stop having fun. Guys? Listen to me guys!'

Brass Eye, and it's prequal 'The Day Today', are genius. The Day Today is where Alan Partrage started.

Well, it's done in a non-painful way (blood circulation is cut off until it falls off, generally), and it's done pretty much purely for health reasons. Domesticated sheep have no use for their tails and tend to get crap all over then which (esspesally for female sheep) tends to lead to genital infections, potentially killing the animal or rendering them infirtile. So yeah, intention is important, but generally these are animals that are going to be eaten so who can say.

Actually, you're right. It's not so much that people who do it are evil, because they might have, within their own society, genuinely good reasons for doing it. That doesn't mean that they're actually good reasons, and it doesn't mean that the act itself can't be described as evil, but it's enough of a gray area. It's not in the same league, but would it theoretically make cutting a sheeps tail off evil?

Well, it's a single premium module rather than an expansion pack, no rush, no rush.

MCA doing a spy thriller? close call, close call.

Not at all, just like Battleships. Wait.....

It's a comedy of embarrisment, which can be painful to watch as it is.

Patton didn't.

When the features that make a game 'M' are more than blood and gore (Call of Duty 4 being a good example), then i'll care. You're right in the sense that an M rating means that a game can explore it's subject matter more fully (which could be important in the case of Alpha Profile), but when the only excuse for an 'M' is the Soldier of Fortune ethos of 'lets make their heads fly off' then you're not going to see me give a crap, that stuff got old before I technically even allowed to play them. Except in the case of carmageddon2 and the Gears of War chainsaw attack, both of which make me giggle like a schoolgirl.

I remember it being quite fun, yeah, nice combo system. And the novelty of the rest was pretty amusing.