213374U

Spoilers?

I don't. If it actually reduced the price of the final product, it would be ok. But it doesn't. The devs are just cutting the publisher and the rest of middle men from the loop, only to get a larger piece of the cake for themselves. Nothing wrong with that, of course, after all it's a capitalist system we're working with. But if it causes me any sort of annoyance that the standard form of retail, for the same price, as a good capitalist customer I'm just not going to support it.

Yes, that's the atheists' magic wand, isn't it? Unfortunately, that's a non sequitur fallacy inconsistent with Occam's Razor. If it wasn't, the existence of God would be already disproved. Forgive my skepticism, but I don't think you can succeed where all those great philosophers and theologists have failed. Anyone said arrogance? Ignoring all the particular myths, it is not against Occam's razor to assume that, in order to explain the inner workings of reality, something had to assemble reality for it to be so... rational. The other alternative to that is the idea of the multiverses, an infinity of realities each with a random set of rules. It is logical to think that in a reality with random rules, it would be hard for life to prosper to a point in which it could question these things. So, again, we must assume that we are living in the one universe that, due to the randomness of that multiverse has a set of rules that has allowed life to exist. As you see, in either case you need to introduce entities in order to explain reality. However, you just choose to dismiss the one theory that doesn't suit your purposes. It is simply aburd to think that our single universe has existed forever along with the rules that govern it. Because, for starters, it hasn't. The universe is thought to have begun as a quantum fluctuation, whatever the hell that means. So, yeah.

Your analogy is flawed. You didn't go to nightclubs that were "immersed in the gay scene" while you were a child. Thus, you weren't impressed in the same way a child would be. And while I don't see homosexuality as a "disease" (thank you for yet another delightful attempt at putting me down as an homophobe), I think that children should be allowed to have clear, traditional, distinguished sexual roles in order to develop their sexual identity in a normal manner. And since a great deal of homosexuals were born in and raised by heterosexual couples, this is not an argument against homosexuality, nor an attempt to "contain" it. So spare me the demagogy. Following that definition, a parent who spent no time with their children but had plenty of resources to ensure their welfare would be a good parent. Another flawed analogy. Medications are tested on a wide variety of animals, ranging from rats to chimpanzees, before it's safe to test them on human beings. And, at any rate, those upon which the medications are tested are adult, willing individuals. A rather blatant attempt to induce a logical fallacy. For starters, I have never denied that. And while many heterosexual parents are poor parents, the opposite isn't necessarily true. So, your point is?

Turn the argument around, and answer your own question, if you can.

Alas, overzeal is not exclusive to religious fundamentalists.

No. There's no assumption behind that approach. However, we don't know if a gay couple (be it male or female) can provide the same psychological imprints than a heterosexual one can (I have my doubts regarding sexual roles, but anyway). And since we don't know, I don't think it would be fair to the adoptee to just "try and see if it works" only to satisfy the adoptants. Obviously, the ability to procreate has no direct relation to the ability to raise children, as is proven by the fact that many otherwise normal heterosexual couples are unable to conceive due to sterility issues. But, it is not less true that it is an unnatural (as in impossible by natural means) and anomalous situation for a child to have both parents of the same gender. So far, the possible repercussions of this are not fully known. But the state's duty is to protect the rights of the weakest, in this case, the child. No. Don't try to twist my words unless it's a flame war you're after. If it sounds reasonable and you find yourself unable to refute the arguments, then perhaps it not only sounds reasonable, but it is. As I said, in an adoption case, the adoptee's welfare overrules any other concerns, including the would-be adoptants' right. And while I'm all for an equality legislation, I'm not particularly fond of the idea of putting that equality before all other considerations.

Not while I'm able to post! That's quite false. Science is built on evidences and logic while religion is built on superstitions and unproven speculations. Drakron isn't a believer - he only embraces facts. Was that even directed at you, dumbass? Perhaps you should read the original post to which that reply was directed at, instead of cherry picking my posts, and twisting them out of their original context. When people cling to evolutionism as the only true explanation for life as we know it, they are assuming that evolutionism is correct. Which we don't know for sure because evolutionism is a theory, and not a law. Therefore, evolutionism is another belief, plain and simple. Well, in that case, the adoptee's welfare is the primary concern. Hence, and until clear evidence is presented to support the idea that couples of the same gender can provide the same as any heterosexual couple, gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt, or at least, have less priority. Just to be on the safe side, because since children cannot be naturally born in a gay couple, it is at the very least an anomalous situation.

If you ban something, you are 'intolerant' to it. Your statement is ridiculous. People like you are the most intolerant...right up there with the fringe-right Christians in the USA. LOL. Hey Nur, there's somebody here that wants to have a word with you...

"Ah, that's what you think, my boy, that's what you think"

Um, yes, there should be, as there is.

That's not a matter of applying our notions to a historical context in which the social values were completely different. It is a widely accepted fact that when children are exposed to sex, it leaves serious psychological sequels that last for their entire life. Homosexuality, as far as I know, does not. You know I had the exact same opinion when I was twelve .. Well, he is twelve, and has proven so countless times. What did you expect?

I think that for a game to run under Linux it needs to be ported. Much like MacOS. Other than that, I've only heard good things about it...

That is false. There is faith in the evolution process in that since it's not a law you have to assume it's correct in order to draw any conclusions from it. And while neo-evolutionism seems a pretty solid theory, science has as of yet been unable to explain the mechanisms and processes that led to the conception of the first living being from organic compounds. Hell, they can't even agree what is truly alive and what is merely a complex set of chemical reactions. I know you hate to see yourself as a believer, but you are one. Science is your religion. But perhaps you should know your religion a little better before lunging forward like that.

Well, Privateer II only shares the name with its predecessor. It's not really a sequel, more like a rip-off. A shame, really.

Hmm. Briefing, cutscenes, and a story told from three different perspectives. The storytelling was much better than in HL2, if you ask me. But I'm a AVP fanboy... meh. Oh yes, and the netcode sucked, big time.

I agree that it's a FPS and story is not the focus of the game. But compare it to AVP2, for instance. That game had as much action as any, and it had a greatly woven, involving story. Hell, compare it to HL1, Gordon doesn't say a damn word in that game either, but the story is better. You actually have a goal in that game. You know why and how. My problem with HL2 is that I spent most of the game expecting to be given a little background, a simple explanation of what's going on, or something that would give me a reason to do what the rambling NPCs said I had to do. And that's the only thing that kept me playing. So when I got to the end of the game and finished it I felt like... "So what?"

Intriguing indeed. I'd say the most likely explanation is that she is just stealing the guards' bondage/fetish party stuff. Nobody said that being a guard in the garrison had to be boring. They are entitled to some fun, too. Or perhaps those are armors like the ones from NWN, that magically change shape depending on who puts them in their inventory. "

So, you're a satanist?

Yes, unfortunately I bought and played HL2 to the bitter end. Note that I'm not attacking the setting, the atmosphere, or even the NPCs. Those were fine, better than in most FPSs I have played. I just don't see where the story on HL2 is. You spend the whole game running for your life (for unexplained reasons, too), except for the final part of the game. You don't have clear motivations for what you do other than "run, or the [insert nasty thing here] will shred you". That's not a story. That's map roaming. But perhaps I'm wrong and the game does have a story. If so, I totally missed it. Please be so kind to tell me what the hell it was about.

I was going to write a long, well thought reply, but I'm tired and Eldar pretty much did it for me:

For the Nth time. Wikipedia is not a reputed source on ANYTHING.

LOL Did you both expect the Bible to feature 21st century moral and social values, as well as a completely PC writing style? Don't make me freaking laugh. And Drakron, yes. The Bible was written by regular people alright. It wasn't written or inspired by God. But that is not a valid argument to sustain that its value as a historical document is nil.

There may be arguments about "natural use" being misogynistic, but I know I don't feel good being told that my "natural use" is a receptacle for male seed. Now here's a goody... So it's good for a man to not touch a woman, but hey, better to be married and not fornicate. At least the polygamy of the OT is thrown out here. Here's another fine portion from 1 Corinthians... And now I'll skip down to my favourites... Thanks, but without your rather biased comments, those aren't really misogynistic quotes. Archaic conceptions of what family roles and aesthetics are, at worst. Using today's standards to judge the past is not a very good way of analyzing history.

HA! Of course it can. The problem is that religion itself is based on postulates that are not necessarily subject to logic. They are a matter of faith. You can't prove that God doesn't exist because, for starters, God may indeed exist. You are just an adherent to another doctrine. The modern doctrine that states that any problem can be solved by means of logic.