213374U

No, that's not what I meant. By a "set of rules" I implicitly meant a moral code. "Morality" is one of those important sounding words that stand for something much less grand and often simpler in concept. I wasn't talking about legality specifically either, as laws themselves (at least in a democracy) stem from the prevalent moral code in that society. As for the examples you brought up, they don't really deal with moral relativism, or even with morality itself, since those are all discussions of details. Everyone will agree that killing a human being before it's born is wrong. The question in that particular issue is, when exactly does the embryo become a human being? The question of gay marriage is a question of semantics, mostly, as some feel that a same-sex union shouldn't appropriate for itself the name "marriage". Global warming? Well, the scientific community itself can't seem to agree about that. And as for wars... that probably deserves a thread of its own. No, not really. Does watching sunrise make you automatically understand how the Solar System works?It is apathy because by claiming "respect" towards other moral outlooks that might be in direct conflict with yours equals to shrugging and walking off. It is also the easy and convenient thing to do when confronted with a situation that puts your integrity on the line. This brings up the point of the meaninglessness of integrity in moral relativism as well. A moral code is not something that just you will go by. It is something you believe in and will try to uphold regardless of circumstances. If you won't fight for your principles, what is there left to fight for? This is a flawed example. It's the same as proposing we have sharks be prosecuted for attacking and eating swimmers. Human moral codes are meant to apply only to humans, since as I said before, they are just a set of rules meant to ensure that mankind can ultimately progress as a whole. But yes, regardless of all that, I wouldn't allow a female to devour a male in my jurisdiction, because under my standards, killing a sentient being for no good reason (you haven't stated that there is a biological or sociological need for this... just inertia) is wrong. Sentience entails being able to overcome and control one's bodily urges. But I digress. Yes, stating the obvious is a central tenet of moral relativism. Unfortunately, it doesn't go much farther, so as to avoid being proven wrong in the future, maybe. Something that you don't define can't be wrong... but can't be right either. Therein lies the apathy of the theory. Good and evil have changed through time, and will continue to change, but should that stop us from defining them? Mind you, I'm not debating that good and evil are arbitrary notions, entirely dependant upon the circumstances. What I dispute is the idea that because they are, they have no value and shouldn't be upheld to the best of one's ability. If we do not, it's chaos. Those are moral dilemmas that have nothing to do with moral relativism, since they are internal conflicts within a given set of moral values, and they do not take other moral outlooks into consideration. Moral dilemmas predate by far the idea of moral relativism. Sorry for for the rambling and possible incoherences, but too much coffee and too little sleep prevent me from doing being more concise.

But don't get to become famous that way! It's like attention whoring on a message board, only this guy's a pro.

Yo Alan, what's the strategy element in this game, exactly? I've been to the website and it looks like a BF game only bigger... edited: - Disruptive comment removed -

Didn't you make the exact same thread a few months ago?

:'( :'( Why do you hate freedom?

Links. A "thousand" details you have failed to point out. That's called bullshitting, and I'm calling you on it. Translation: "Fallout needs to be what I want it to be or else I'll flood the boards with the same boring rants over and over until everyone can't resist the urge to kill themselves anymore".

Rape?

I think this warrants a "R00fles!".

Hades, repeating to yourself that 2+2=5 ad nauseam won't change the fact that 2+2=4. Sorry bub, but Tactics is part of the continuity until the owner of the IP says otherwise. No, that isn't you.

Um, it's been some time since I played Tactics, so I may be wrong but, did they explicitly state that their vehicles were powered by fossil fuels? I always assumed they used "micro-fusion cells" or something along those lines. Aside from the fur thing, Deathclaws weren't mind-controlled by the Beastlords; they worked for them willfully so they didn't kill Mother. And since the Master himself showed some kind of psionic abilities, I don't see how the Beastlords mind-control is in any way inconsistent with the setting. I'm surprised there is so much debate over the Deathclaws' fur, and nobody has mentioned how ridiculous (and different) Supermutants look in Tactics. Non-canon...? Well... since none of those supporting these alleged breaches of canon are actually officially accredited spokespersons for whoever owns the FO IP, I'd say canon contradicts them. Which automatically makes them wrong. It's like Star Wars canon. A lot of the EU went down the drain when Lucas went and did the prequels. I'm not dismissing anything, though. I just haven't found any of the typical complaints and arguments about Tactics irreconcilably contrary to the canon established in FO and FO2.

General Barnaky would agree with you. Unfortunately, I splattered his brains all over the place.

No, it's about how if the kids had been armed, they couldn't have been kidnapped. ...right?

I didn't know that. No official language for the country? What a mess.

Disregarded FO canon in rather vague ways, thus becoming the Tactics Heresy, and attracting the amount of hate, fear and outrage that heresies rightfully stir. Makes perfect sense.

The first and foremost duty of the government is to preserve the status quo. All other considerations come later. Also, you have twice dodged the point. The legitimate government does not represent illegals. Nor should it try to. At the detriment of general use of English? Did the rest of the famliy have to learn French so they could still communicate in the family? Yep. Thus forming isolated (in many ways) communities of immigrants. Is that desirable? Never been there, but are you still able to make yourself understood in the official language of the country? If not, that is a problem. So, let me get this straight. They can be as selfish, rude and purposefully oblivious as they want, but we have to be selfless, help them fit in, and accomodate to them? That's not what I would call "integrate themselves very nicely". I don't know about you, but I don't like to feel like a foreigner in my own country. It's a strawman because the point is only valid because of the absurd proportions it's been taken to. Freedom of Religion is a fundamental human right. Not only you are not breaking any human rights by requiring people to know the language of the country they want to live in, it's established that way in the Constitution, I think.

Um, no. "Safe" (100%) sex does not exist.

I'd think it'd have worked better if you had offered to shoot only one of his kneecaps off.

That's a lot of literature. Most of them seem focused in either Mexican or US History and politics, rather than immigration itself. I'll see if I can find any of them in Spanish, since I'm not too keen on reading textbooks in English. Thanks for the references. Um, I think I did answer it, if not explicitly, maybe. Okay then, I'll be more clear. No, the government is there to enforce the law, and preserve the culture of those that elected the government, as well as those people themselves. If people aren't happy with that, or the ethnical or cultural composition of the majority changes, then people will elect a different government that will change the law. That's democracy for good or ill... And why aren't the two situations comparable? Does it not come down to forcing others to accomodate you instead of the other way around when you are the alien? Yes, but legal immigrants are far less than illegals. Therefore, their impact on the culture is diminished. Also, and as GD pointed out before, you are actually required to know something about the US when immigrating there legally. So I guess that you mean some illegals care nothing for the country they are going to get their livelihood (and possibly their families') off. This is at best selfish, and at worst, an incitation for xenophobia. So, why should any government accomodate to these people, again? Such as speaking in English during dinner? Come on. That's a strawman. BUT. Would I have them address us in our language? Yes. Would I have them have breakfast, lunch, and dinner with the rest of the family? Yes. Would I have them help with home chores? You bet I would. No doubt. But in those cases, there's at least a will to try. I guess that depends on how you define "danger".

Jedi Academy had the best LS combat As a matter of fact, Jedi Academy/JO lightsaber combat sucked. Running around in circles beyond lightsaber range, jumping and rolling around like crazy simply does not qualify as "combat". And when you actually got into saber range, results were way too random. Not to mention the ridiculously unbalanced Force powers. ...And I spent some 4 years in JO/JA clans, playing competitively and stuff. So I know something about it. On the other hand, the RotS game, for all its faults, had an awesome lightsaber combat system, with combos, parries, blocks, counterhits, stuns, and Force powers that worked without breaking the flow of the duel, or the game itself. Different lightsaber styles for each character as well. I wish they would release a Tekken-style game like the limited vs mode the game featured. But yeah, TIE Fighter (the classic with iMuse music) > all.

Can you point to some book on Mexican immigration you have read to reach your (obviously) informed opinion?

You didn't answer the question, which leads me to believe you are just being argumentative. It's not a matter of government, but a matter of customs, culture, and manners (or lack thereof). If the majority of immigrants were of that African ethnicity that encourages female genital mutilation, should the government just legalize it because "the government should represent the constituency"? An extreme example no doubt, but valid still, since it's ultimately an example of culture clash. Furthermore, the extent and validity of the "constituency" you refer to is in dispute as well, since illegals by definition are not a part of that. So I'll reformulate. If you were an exchange student living with a family abroad, would you adapt to them or force them to do things your way?

Couldn't you apply this same logic to governments? When you are a guest in someone else's house, do you try and force them do things your way?

The real question here is, would you be interested in "Massage Therapy Review: Passing the NCETMB and NCETM with Student CD-ROM by Laura A. Abbott"? Well, would you?

I save all my money for myself.

Heh. Interestingly enough, they aren't Spanish, and they don't see themselves that way. I say this because in my country, we get A LOT of South American ("latin" is a misnomer) immigrants, and they act just the way you have described. This might seem odd since the language is roughly the same, but still they manage to isolate themselves and form their own exclusive communities (I've even seen them go as far as printing their own newspapers for themselves), thus purposefully preventing their integration into our society. I personally hate this. But, it's not their fault. It's ours because we allow them to do it in our country. They are quick to cry xenophobia, too.