Geneaux486

Games like DC Universe Online for PC are down as well. It sucks, but what can you do. Better for them to make sure they've got their shit together than put everything back up prematurely. They're compensating gamers for the downtime and offering affected players the tools to protect their identities, so that's pretty cool. Plus that "Batman-inspired" mask DCUO players will get is pretty sweet.

A frequently used argument that ignores the fact that a second human life is involved. It's a question of whether or not the medical procedure goes too far (it's not like an abortion is something just anyone can do), and whether or not it should be funded by taxpayer dollars. Whether or not it's ethical or moral to conduct a medical procedure that terminates a developing human life, whether or not we have the moral right to interfere with natural growth to that extent. There's nothing simple about this issue no matter which side of it you're on.

Sometimes a little over the top, but for the most part Doug Walker's material is thouroughly enjoyable and interesting. His affiliates put out some pretty strong material to.

Meh, I say it's all worth it. They've produced a lot of DLC for free, and charged for others. They made it, they deserve to be compensated for it.

Then you've jumped to the wrong conclusion. All I say is that were I to be asked whether or not I think cannibalism could be a moral action for cultural reasons, I would say "no". Anything you draw from that is going to be an assumption, and in this case they were incorrect assumptions.

...yeah 'cause that's the part that confused me, not the fact that you asked me a question then responded as if I had already answered.

What are you talking about?

If you're aware of universal moralities then you shoudn't have to question why we're having this discussion. What you're talking about crosses over into subjectivism and potentially moral relativism. Not a viewpoint I could see myself subscribing to. I could not, for example, agree that cannibalism is morally right for certain groups of people simply because they think it's right. But that's an entierly different discussion altogether.

True, and I'm not sure how I feel about that yet. I think we may have already had this discussion.

A focus on individual rights is not exclusive to egoism. Some ideals are bound to overlap, but your assertion that these are purely egoist ideals does not hold. And yet that’s basically how the country they formed was governed, by the will of the majority. Indeed, it was the will of the majority that gave rise to the revolution to begin with. Some things we have a moral right to claim as our property, some things we do not. That is why your rationale that something is either capitalist or statist fails. It does not take into account that there are some things we simply should not be able to own. Corporations, for instance, should not be able to patent the method for creating certain kinds of organisms, medicine, etc. They have the legal right to do so, but not a moral one. Incorrect. It is to say we simply do not have the right to terminate a developing human being. The reason this logic is flawed is because it ignores the basic fact that there are two lives involved, not just one. Again I say, we all have rights, we all have things we deserve to have in order to survive. In a world of limited resources, we cannot all get the things we need, which is why we must learn to share them (willingly, not forced, in terms of the way it should be). Rights can and do infringe on other rights. And now it is my turn to ask if you’re reading what I’m saying. The stage of development in the case of a human being is irrelevant in deciding whether or not we have a right to kill it when it otherwise would not die. It involves sacrificing the developing human being to achieve whatever end is desired. Existence as a parasite is irrelevant, since it is a mandatory condition of every human being’s survival. Terminating a developing human life is what is immoral. Doesn’t matter whether or not we’re nice. We are only one form of life on this planet, and we need the other forms of life to do what they do just as much as they need us to use them responsibly. Otherwise, everything deteriorates, and everything comes to a very bad end. What makes us so special that we get to dictate what does and does not have rights? See my earlier posts where I explained that quite clearly. No no you’re thinking of your view of rights. That only humans have them, and we can do whatever we want, claim whatever we want, only as long as we don’t step on another human’s toes. Which you are content to ignore and replace. A viewpoint that I see heavily interwoven into egoism, at least as you describe it. And my views in this case are objectivist. Our ability to reason should dictate our boundaries on what we can and cannot do, what we should and should not do, to other living things, based on the undeniable fact that we are reliant on everything around us to survive, and if we misuse our resources, we are going to pay dearly for it. It’s not something that doesn’t apply to someone who chooses not to concern themselves with it, because as long as they live on Earth, it is going to concern them whether they want it to or not. Agreed. And the conclusion ethical egoism draws from this is not factual. Government decides what is and is not harmful to the general population. This is not subjectivist, it is not “deciding” what is and is not moral, it is following the morality that you and I agree already exists, to keep people safe, and controlled by the will of the people. I realize this does not often happen in the real world, but the same can be said for the ideal capitalism. It is important to note that in this situation, we are discussing the way things should be. I see a mixed system where government and business respect each other’s boundaries as the scenario that is likely to do the least amount of damage. I didn’t say that. I said your view of rights based on it are incomplete. It isn’t. To say that only rational human beings have rights because rational beings say so is subjectivist. And when these types of situations arise it proves the necessity of a government who’s objective is to protect the well-being of the people from corporations and the like who would take advantage of their desperate situations. I mean pay them insufficiently to survive in their environment, and relative to what the goods they produce are being sold for. Taking advantage of another government’s failure to establish laws and regulations to protect their workers to exploit desperate situations and limited employment opportunities to further their own agenda while harming the people who live there. Still you. You continually defended a corporations right to do the things I mentioned earlier on. I have no exaggerated in saying this, it is simply what happened. It does not imply an act of force. You can use people without being forceful upon them. If you manipulate someone into doing something for you by means of deception or by taking advantage of their desperate situations, then that is treating them as a means to an end without directly using force. And the situation these people are in is not beneficial at all, and only voluntary in the sense that they submit to the best option they have, which is to be taken advantage of. This is why your views are incomplete, they only cover extremes, which real life situations don’t often deal in. Which in some cases does happen. Altruism is selflessness, and kindness arises from that. Why must I understand something that is not true? Kindness is selflessness. You don’t have to enjoy doing something for someone else in order for it to be kind. An extreme view of altruism. Ethical egoism can be taken to similar extremes. But that’s just it, in terms of the basic right to live, there’s not really a difference at all. Life is life, death is death. We are always going to be dependent on the world around us in order to survive, the only thing that changes as we grow is the means by which we obtain those things.

Species doesn't change when it comes out of the womb, it's the same being no matter what stage of developement it's in. Newborns can't survive independently, either, nor are their minds much further along in developement.

Yes, really. You continue to misunderstand what I say, second guess me, and use strawman arguments. No, they didn't. Some thoughts may have overlapped, statistically likely, but no, I do not believe our founding fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution with egoist ideals in mind. No, they're not. That was actually kind of clever. And yet you continue to respond. Again, cut the shit. Either respond or don't, this "I'm done bothering with you but here are a few parting shots" bit is not doing you any good. No, my statements are not contradictory, nor are they all arbitrary, nor are they assumptions. To believe that rights can't violate other rights is to be detached from reality. We cannot all get what we want, what we are entitled to, without someone else losing something. That's not a matter of perspective, that's just the way the physical world is. Your view of rights is incorrect. And as I've said, a fetus is not a potential life, it is an existing, developing organism that is on the path to becoming a full adult. I argue that we do not have the right to initiate force on that life when there is no distinct difference between it and us when we were in that stage. We do not have the right to end that life, period. I ain't trying to convince you of anything. I know a person who's dug their heels in when I see one. I respond because like you, I have the right to express my viewpoint here. Your view that rights in any capacity only extend to rational human beings, and that life is defined by owning property and the like, is skewed, incomplete, and insufficient to the real world. Not to mention it ignores the actual definitions of those terms. Again, all stuff I've covered in detail already. Your view that abortion should always be acceptable and your support of embryonic stem cell research make this a very hypocritical statement (of course if one accepts your view that rights only apply to rational human beings then it isn't. I see this view as baseless, as you already know). Not to mention your constant attempts to justify corporations underpaying child laborers in third world countries in substandard working conditions. Cases of treating people as means to an end don't often get clearer than that. I'll keep my personal thoughts about ethical egoism to myself for the time being, but this whole "altruism is bad" viewpoint makes no sense to me.

Fair enough. We disagree, and I respect that. As long as you don’t do something lame like continue to address me directly and indirectly in the rest of your- Oh for crying out loud! You start off your post saying you can’t continue our discussion then spend the majority of the rest of said post and some of the following post talking about me. Dude, that wouldn’t even be a good copout. Either respond to what I’m saying or don’t, cut this bullshit in between. Drop the pretense of “You’re not worth arguing with” because I don’t buy it and neither should anyone else. If you really believe what you’re saying here you either have an inhuman inability to grasp that there are people out there who disagree with you and are sane, which is ridiculously arrogant, or you’re just trying to get some kind of last word in. None of that has any basis in what I’ve said. I’ve gone several posts explaining my views as distinctly different from that. Again, literally nothing in this post is correct. Your view of rights is skewed, incomplete, and insufficient to the real world. The same pretty much applies to your view of my views. Basically, cut the shit. If you don’t want to continue debating with me, that’s fine, I don’t really care, but it'd be a good idea to keep it out of the thread, because I’m damn sure going to continue to post here.

HEY! Wait.... HEY! Wait... HEY! Wait...

Collin Machri speaks the truth.

Not the best criteria, as most things are better than Superman 64. But yeah, they also did a fantastic job of immersing the player into the DC world.

Not even slightly like WoW and that's why I gave it more than a passing glance. Outside of the fact that there are other players, it doesn't even feel like an MMO. Combat works like any other superhero type fighting game, with different moves you learn being integrated in the form of button combinations. In WoW you basically stand still and use your different abilites, but in this game, you're cranking out button combos, blocking, dodging, jumping, it's a blast. This is basically an MMO that non-MMO fans can enjoy, myself included.

Meh, pay for the software, pay for the continued service. It can be worth it, if the game is good enough, which this one is.

I want to say Arby n' the Chief, but maybe I just don't get it. Same with Freeman's FEAR, which I hadn't watched until reading this thread. Those shows might just be lost on me, I think.

Just started playing it a few days ago, was wondering if anyone else here played it as well.

Sonic Adventure had an amazing opening cinematic. Borderlands' intro was great to.

It can’t develop into an embryo if it does not implant, bottom line. It does begin to develop into a unique organism, this is true, but it can only go so far without implantation. To clarify, I’m merely distinguishing the difference between abortion and contraception, not saying I support forms of contraception that kill the zygote while opposing abortion. It is also important to note that there are methods of contraception that do not kill a zygote. I honestly have not decided where I stand on contraception in general, though you've brought up some excellent points regarding the zygote, so I have made some progress on that front. Semantics. They are part of the earliest development of our species. Call it what you want, that is what they are. It isn’t arbitrary when discussing the morality of abortion. I’ll save my views on that particular process for another debate. I will point out that you say it is a “human being” according to my logic. Logic in general shows us that it is part of the development process for a human being. It cannot develop into any other species, and the development process is fairly linear. The question is when a human being is assigned the basic right to live, or conversely, at what point do we not have a moral right to interfere with the development process. I say unless there is a discernable difference between one zygote/fetus/embryo and us when we were in those stages of development, we do not have the right to end them. Again, semantics. What it is called or reported is irrelevant. A life that is developing into a full-grown human being has died. The risk of death also does not diminish after we are born. Miscarriages are considered tragedies by many families.

Humans are always developing. The mind actually doesn’t finish maturing until mid to late twenties, believe it or not. Yes, a developing human is a human, even as early as the womb. To say otherwise is to ignore basic biology. Another unsound comparison. You assemble a car piece by piece, you do not assemble a small car on a molecular level and watch it grow into a larger car. Here we agree, the sperm and egg are pieces, and parts of a potential person. If the zygote does not implant in the uterus then it is not a developing human. It cannot grow until it reaches that point. Until then it is akin to a seed that has not been planted. When it does implant, it becomes comparable to a planted seed that has begun to grow. If it did not implant, then it did not begin development. “Fetus”, “baby”, and “human” are just words we call these various stages. What we do or do not call them does not change the fact that it is the same species of organism in every stage. It is a thing that is the same as us, that has begun its development, that will continue to develop. This fact is unavoidable. Notice that very few women would say “I have two children and a fetus”. I don’t think your point here supports your stance. They’re all different natural stages of a developing human life. This is not an extension of my arguments. Correct. This does not prove that a human at the embryonic stage of development has no right to survive. I’ve not argued that a baby should get the same rights as an adult, or anything else along that line. I’ve said from the start that I believe rights vary according to the capacity of the entity they’re being applied to, further affected by stages of development. A baby does not have the right to vote, a young child cannot drive a car, etc. I argue that a human being’s basic right to life is not forfeit at any stage of its development.

XD I didn't even know they printed shirts like that. Mass Effect 2 really was a meme goldmine.

Yeah, I 100%'d the first game after the second to. In Mass Effect 2 it was enjoyable and challenging, but in Mass Effect it was really tedious to get all those Ally achievements and the Mastery ones. The ability masteries that fell outside of soldier and vanguard anyway.