213374U

Quite a few people in academia are challenging the traditional notions of free will. It appears that unconscious memory plays a huge role in decision-making, and an experiment showed that the process can begin as early as a full ten seconds before we actually get the impression we are making a decision... which would mean that the sensation or thought train we experience when making choices is actually a consequence of a hidden process we have no control over. I read that in Germany there are initiatives to change the penal code based on these findings, on the premise that culpability rests on the concept of free will, but the page I where read it is an interview in Spanish and lacks references. Fun, fun. @ lof: Can you give some references to the Con game thing you posted? Looks interesting.

Only when discussing Amerika, child rape, and the World Cup. Otherwise I go from "mild idiocy" to "retardo land" in the blink of an eye, tbh. It's just that I'm not amused by old internet memes anywhere near as much as I used to be. And Godwin's is one of the most lame. Find something fresh. Heh. The second sentence suggests to me that you didn't fully read my first post in this thread. I don't propose anything either way, I'm not really bothered by this - I don't have any "problems", and I actually see this as a good thing for games in general. But that doesn't mean I'm going to start ridiculing those who think that games or the media in general shouldn't go there. As long as they don't push for censorship, that is. But so far they haven't, have they? Are you saying that things should be banned because they break those, so called, "taboos"? If so, I disagree with you. Quite an imagination you got there buddy, quite an imagination.

Yeah, it's UNTHINKABLE that in this day and age, societies still have taboos! omg noes etc... That's what I was thinking.

The context is different, and the context is everything. FO3 has no relation to present or past events, and the game doesn't focus on murdering civilians so it cannot be attacked as anything but random violence. The segment in MW2 is about the player taking an active part in a terrorist attack. You'd have to be really dense not to see how the two are only superficially similar. Is that it? I'm disappointed in you. Are you sure you don't want to post a link to an inane tvtropes article or one of those retarded gifs instead? Those are way better at creating a diversion from the fact that you have nothing relevant to say!

No, the concept is completely different. The only similarity is that you have innocent fictional characters dying by the player's actions. This has nothing to do with censorship either - works that promote, for example, holocaust denial needn't be banned, but they are generally frowned upon all the same. The concern here is that the game may be understood as an apology of terrorism. And depending on how the game deals with it, it could easily be interpreted that way. It's the verosimilitude to recent events that makes this controversy possible at all. I don't agree with folks up in arms over this, but I understand where they are coming from. Personally, I think it's a good thing that devs dare do things like this every now and then. It's a step in the right direction towards games becoming a more serious medium.

You seem to have a deeply held belief that there isn't a choice component in crime, or that the influence of that choice is of almost negligible weight anyway. Do we have to believe that all criminals have some sort of excuse in the shape of an abusive father or a depressed neighborhood? Why this urge to suppress accountability and embrace the idea that all human beings are fundamentally powerless and mere products of the circumstances surrounding them? I see how this thinking makes justifying a nanny state so much easier, but please, I'd like to see some hard evidence (as opposed to mere belief) before I accept I'm just a puppet of fate without a shred of free will. Further, I'd like to know what you mean exactly by "learn how to become a productive member of society", because that sounds awfully vague and bordering the clich

Says the guy whose strongest rebuttal is "ZOMG ur dumb!". Pure comedy. It's not my fault that the only times you aren't setting up straw men is when you're using other types of fallacies to cover up your rather embarassing ignorance. "The best defense is a good offense", right?

Seriously, you guys need to read up on what "proof" means.

It is. The 'scare factor' of harsh punishment does not work, as has been proven time and time again (look it up). No, it hasn't. For something to be deemed "proof", certain criteria must be met. The studies you probably refer to don't meet those. You'd need to understand the logic and semantics behind "proof" to realize this. Being the sad eurocommie tool you are, you can't be reasonably expected to do anything more complicated than regurgitate the prepared propaganda you're spoon-fed by your welfare gurus. Sweet dreams. Slippery slope. Look it up.

Short of cheating, it wasn't possible to game the system. To me, that's a successfully implemented design idea. The hunger IS the drive of the story, and a gameplay mechanic intended to put pressure on the player is tailored around that drive. How is that "annoying at best"? The tragedy of blind idealism... I thought you guys liked "dark" stories?

I miss tarna.

On the other hand, spending the rest of his miserable life digging holes might have. Or perhaps you're right and more time will do no good, but he'll be too tired to try anything funny, anyway. Yup. Punishment is antiquated. Accoutability is antiquated. Effort is antiquated. Good and evil are antiquated. War is antiquated. We are, after all, so much smarter than those barbarians who thought that threatening bodily harm to potential wrongdoers might *gasp* make them think twice - we invented Facebook! Honestly, I'm scared ****less by the pervasion of this kind of neo-hippie-pseudo-intellectualoid discourse based essentially on blissful fantasies where all men respect the law and the thought of harming or killing others not only doesn't exist, but cannot exist - if it does, it's only in the alien mind of some freak of nature (which, perplexingly, isn't beyond "rehabilitation"). For, who would want to do that in this modern-day broadband Garden of Eden we've built?! Blasphemy! Madness. You may be on to something, though. Chemical castration should be mandatory in rape cases, once they serve their time. What IS rehabilitation? How do you rehabilitate somebody whose mind, save for the fact that he has no compunctions against killing, cheating and raping, works just fine? How do you rehabilitate somebody who thinks the law isn't made for him simply because he's found a way around it? There is no cure for psychopaths, alas. If anything, the penalty IS the rehabilitation. Further measures are redundant and undermine the intended effect.

Silver man, silver! Gold is no good against those damn lycanthropes! edit: I'd just settle for being the guy that gets to count the money...

You can never be too obersturmfuehrer.

You can't put a price on good taste.

http://www.deadlystream.com/forumdisplay.php?f=123 ^ TSLRCM. Those guys release stuff first, build hype later.

Overrated.

Well, yeah. It's nowhere near as cool to go around saying you're fighting for theocratic oppression and return to feudal society worldwide. And virgins in the afterlife. FOR GREAT JUSTICE!

Yeah, no need for nukes, really. Just keep pushing eastwards, until they become the Chinese' problem, too. Those guys know how to deal with troublemakers alright. There ain't no problem a bit of old fashioned Stalinism can't fix... 'cept economic depression.

Wow.

Haha, I bet they ain't so happy they forced ol' Pervez out anymore.

An animal being vermin does not mean violence against it stops being violence. It might justify a humane culling or something, but it doesn't suddenly change the meaning of violence. Yeah, I guess then that putting your hand in a snake hole and getting bitten and dying as a result is "violence" as well. The only difference is that a snake does what it does by reflex, while a human shooting gophers that chew on the crops operates teleologically. I'm not really interested in being dragged into yet another internet semantics debate, anyway. So, yeah. Eating meat is MURDER.

Sorry man, but the filter knows full well what it's doing: cοckroach.