Killing is objectively worse, but at least it can be justified: Sometimes killing something/someone is the best/only choice.
There's no situation (none that isn't exceptionally contrived, don't even start) where rape solves a problem. On its own it's not as bad, but you can never justify it.
>There's no situation (none that isn't exceptionally contrived, don't even start) where rape solves a problem.
I'm not trying to argue, I just remembered something tangentially related that I'm kinda curious about.
Do you think that in a hypothetical scenario where two combatants agreed to a duel to the death, but one of them yields and begs for mercy in the middle of it, and then the victor offers to enslave the loser as a concubine in exchange for staying alive, would the victor be considered immoral?
Considered by who? From what point of view?
From a Christian point of view that would of course be immoral.
From an atheist point of view there is no morality so no.
Yes, you do, since morality literally has no meaning without religion. There is no such thing as an atheist moral code. And if the meaning of a word is completely subjective then it is meaningless.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Humans can have a sense of what is right and wrong without religion. Socialization, tradition, and rational thought can all be sources of morality. We also are capable of feeling empathy and acting altruistically, though our biological tendencies can and are shaped by our beliefs and customs.
There can't, of course, be an "atheist moral code," because atheism is not a belief system.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Anon, nobody cares about anyone that isn't transactionally bound to them. Human relations live and die based on transactions.
9 months ago
Anonymous
You sound like a psychopath anon, there's instinctive morals ingrained in most peoples psyche.
Stupid babies know that hurting other people is and cry bad without being told so.
9 months ago
Anonymous
*Stupid babies know that hurting other people is bad and cry when it happens without being told so.
Frick I'm tired
9 months ago
Anonymous
I dont get this argument. So are you saying morality is decided by vote? If most people on earth thought that hurting peopel is not bad then would that make it moral.
And the idea that empathy is the default for humans is obviously wrong if you just read history. Rather, most peopel have empathy only for those they see as kin (family, friends, maybe fellow countrymen).
Yes, you do, since morality literally has no meaning without religion. There is no such thing as an atheist moral code. And if the meaning of a word is completely subjective then it is meaningless.
Are you actually the lad I replied to, or are you just butting into the conversation? If it's the former - then my bad for asking a deranged christcuck such a question. If it's the former - then shut your deranged christcuck mouth and let the adults speak.
So you are not able to give a proper response to what I wrote. I'l take the win.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>proper response
9 months ago
Anonymous
Insulting someone is not an argument. It just singals you have no argument and you are angry.
Humans can have a sense of what is right and wrong without religion. Socialization, tradition, and rational thought can all be sources of morality. We also are capable of feeling empathy and acting altruistically, though our biological tendencies can and are shaped by our beliefs and customs.
There can't, of course, be an "atheist moral code," because atheism is not a belief system.
Well yes, I suppose, since as you pointed out most people do base their actions on things like feels and tradition instead of a metaphysical worldview.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Insulting someone is not an argument.
Indeed it isn't. But I did not merely insult you, I pointed out that you are deranged AND a christcuck, both of which are ample proof that whatever rolls off your tongue can only be correct by sheer accident, and this was not one of those cases. >It just singals you have no argument
No, it does no such thing. This is a copout made by the mentally and/or emotionally challenged to avoid having to maintain their position in an argument, and instead having the moral justification to abandon it while declaring themselves the winner. In reality while an insult does not constitute an argument, neither does it prevent its appearance within the same sentence or paragraph. >and you are angry.
And that is a pure projection on your part, because you insult people when you get angry and aren't mature enough to recognize different perspectives, as is evident by you being a deranged christcuck.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Well you certainly have not presented any arguments so why are you even replying to me? All you did was insult me, so that can only mean you are some angry lunatic, incapable of rational dialogue. Why else would you act like this?
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Well you certainly have not presented any arguments so why are you even replying to me?
I already told you, the argument was presented. It's not my fault you lack the cognitive abilities necessary to understand it. >so that can only mean you are some angry lunatic, incapable of rational dialogue.
Once again you project your own way of thinking onto others, except this time you sprinkle in a generous handful of jumping to extreme conclusions based on your surface understanding of the topic. >Why else would you act like this?
I'm not certain if exerting myself in an attempt to explain it to you is worth it given how oblivious and stunted you are.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Ok so then why are you replying to me?
If it's not worth the effort to explain anything, why is it worth the effort to reply in like 3-4 text bloks to me?
What is your interest in you interracting with me, and replying to me in the first place? And then why do you keep on replying just to say I'm not worth replying to? That's what I'd like to know.
9 months ago
Anonymous
You might be interested in Moral Foundations Theory, which claims that there are universal and innate psychological foundations that vary between individuals and cultures. You can even do an online test (mainly for fun). If anything, it's an illuminating theory worth thinking about.
9 months ago
Anonymous
I meant to say that vary in emphasis between individuals and cultures, making up different moralities.
I'm sick? Hmm, an interesting take. I wonder, do you think that human civilization makes perfect sense? In other words, I want a calm, civilized, sane person to tell me that it is absolutely fine if I want to kill every living thing around me. After all, you and those before you worship murderers, you glorify Alexander, Ghenghis, Jason, Perseus, Frederick, Napoleon, and the like. You love murder, you love devastation, so long as it isn't happening to YOU.
Conflict and problem solving is interesting and fun
Simplest problem/conflict is to put an enemy in your way
Simplest solution to such problems is violence: No enemy = no problem
Violence without death as a final outcome is complicated. If someone just dies, that's simple.
Killing everything and everyone in your way is just the simplest problem solving task you can put in a game that isn't literal children's puzzles
Says who, though? God loves to kill, according to every fricking religious text on Earth. God loves death, God loves to kill. GOD ENDORSES DEATH. The whole beginning and end of every religion on the planet since the dawn of sentience revolves around not being dead. LOL
The entirety of human history glorifies murder. You only sanction murder according to a nebulous social contract that nobody alive agreed to. I want to kill you, but I have to have appropriate permission. LMAO
I wish there were more games that combine lifesim and combat elements. It's constantly either almost pure combat adventuring with nonexistent civilian elements like Skyrim or entirely civilian elements with no combat to speak if like Stardew Valley.
Men are innately warriors, we secure sexual and material resources through competition of strength, mind, and soul. This is why women usually don't play video games and when they do it's usually in the form of life simulators or mundane dramatics. Modernity however and the instructions supervised by the cathedral suppress our warrior spirit and browbeat us into being weak, conformist slaves. Video games are one of the only few remaining outlets of our vigor.
singing wimpy songs on bing bing wahoo drums isn't some fricking warrior spirit shit you homosexual.
Men are innately warriors, we secure sexual and material resources through competition of strength, mind, and soul. This is why women usually don't play video games and when they do it's usually in the form of life simulators or mundane dramatics. Modernity however and the instructions supervised by the cathedral suppress our warrior spirit and browbeat us into being weak, conformist slaves. Video games are one of the only few remaining outlets of our vigor.
also you're a homosexual too. Men haven't been "innate warriors" for as long as agricultural society has existed and if you identify with anything predating that than you're a subhuman, probably a deranged loser thirdie as well. Learn your history.
and not a single one is about raping, really makes you think
torture is worse than killing
and rape is torture
t. murderer
torture is in a lot of games, even mainstream shit that kids play like call of duty
?t=37
*blocks your path*
Killing is objectively worse, but at least it can be justified: Sometimes killing something/someone is the best/only choice.
There's no situation (none that isn't exceptionally contrived, don't even start) where rape solves a problem. On its own it's not as bad, but you can never justify it.
>rape is bad because it just is okay?
They just explained why it is, you're just a moron.
And that's why it has no real use for games unless you're a moviegay.
You didn't explain shit. You tried to push your own moral values on others.
stop speaking in 3rd person
>There's no situation (none that isn't exceptionally contrived, don't even start) where rape solves a problem.
I'm not trying to argue, I just remembered something tangentially related that I'm kinda curious about.
Do you think that in a hypothetical scenario where two combatants agreed to a duel to the death, but one of them yields and begs for mercy in the middle of it, and then the victor offers to enslave the loser as a concubine in exchange for staying alive, would the victor be considered immoral?
Absolutely not. That is the nature of conquest.
Considered by who? From what point of view?
From a Christian point of view that would of course be immoral.
From an atheist point of view there is no morality so no.
You don't need to be religious to be moral, anon.
Yes, you do, since morality literally has no meaning without religion. There is no such thing as an atheist moral code. And if the meaning of a word is completely subjective then it is meaningless.
Humans can have a sense of what is right and wrong without religion. Socialization, tradition, and rational thought can all be sources of morality. We also are capable of feeling empathy and acting altruistically, though our biological tendencies can and are shaped by our beliefs and customs.
There can't, of course, be an "atheist moral code," because atheism is not a belief system.
Anon, nobody cares about anyone that isn't transactionally bound to them. Human relations live and die based on transactions.
You sound like a psychopath anon, there's instinctive morals ingrained in most peoples psyche.
Stupid babies know that hurting other people is and cry bad without being told so.
*Stupid babies know that hurting other people is bad and cry when it happens without being told so.
Frick I'm tired
I dont get this argument. So are you saying morality is decided by vote? If most people on earth thought that hurting peopel is not bad then would that make it moral.
And the idea that empathy is the default for humans is obviously wrong if you just read history. Rather, most peopel have empathy only for those they see as kin (family, friends, maybe fellow countrymen).
Are you actually the lad I replied to, or are you just butting into the conversation? If it's the former - then my bad for asking a deranged christcuck such a question. If it's the former - then shut your deranged christcuck mouth and let the adults speak.
So you are not able to give a proper response to what I wrote. I'l take the win.
>proper response
Insulting someone is not an argument. It just singals you have no argument and you are angry.
Well yes, I suppose, since as you pointed out most people do base their actions on things like feels and tradition instead of a metaphysical worldview.
>Insulting someone is not an argument.
Indeed it isn't. But I did not merely insult you, I pointed out that you are deranged AND a christcuck, both of which are ample proof that whatever rolls off your tongue can only be correct by sheer accident, and this was not one of those cases.
>It just singals you have no argument
No, it does no such thing. This is a copout made by the mentally and/or emotionally challenged to avoid having to maintain their position in an argument, and instead having the moral justification to abandon it while declaring themselves the winner. In reality while an insult does not constitute an argument, neither does it prevent its appearance within the same sentence or paragraph.
>and you are angry.
And that is a pure projection on your part, because you insult people when you get angry and aren't mature enough to recognize different perspectives, as is evident by you being a deranged christcuck.
Well you certainly have not presented any arguments so why are you even replying to me? All you did was insult me, so that can only mean you are some angry lunatic, incapable of rational dialogue. Why else would you act like this?
>Well you certainly have not presented any arguments so why are you even replying to me?
I already told you, the argument was presented. It's not my fault you lack the cognitive abilities necessary to understand it.
>so that can only mean you are some angry lunatic, incapable of rational dialogue.
Once again you project your own way of thinking onto others, except this time you sprinkle in a generous handful of jumping to extreme conclusions based on your surface understanding of the topic.
>Why else would you act like this?
I'm not certain if exerting myself in an attempt to explain it to you is worth it given how oblivious and stunted you are.
Ok so then why are you replying to me?
If it's not worth the effort to explain anything, why is it worth the effort to reply in like 3-4 text bloks to me?
What is your interest in you interracting with me, and replying to me in the first place? And then why do you keep on replying just to say I'm not worth replying to? That's what I'd like to know.
You might be interested in Moral Foundations Theory, which claims that there are universal and innate psychological foundations that vary between individuals and cultures. You can even do an online test (mainly for fun). If anything, it's an illuminating theory worth thinking about.
I meant to say that vary in emphasis between individuals and cultures, making up different moralities.
Join the wishlist for me game: Hitman but you have sex with the targets.
Zombies to not deserve rights
Rapelay
177
and it feels good
why would i share my intimacy with someone i dislike in place of putting a bullet in them
rape is moronic
So I take it you've just never heard of Japan?
Humans want to simulate their nature since they can't kill freely anymore
Literally this. I want to destroy every fricking thing I lay eyes upon. Why?
You are sick
I'm sick? Hmm, an interesting take. I wonder, do you think that human civilization makes perfect sense? In other words, I want a calm, civilized, sane person to tell me that it is absolutely fine if I want to kill every living thing around me. After all, you and those before you worship murderers, you glorify Alexander, Ghenghis, Jason, Perseus, Frederick, Napoleon, and the like. You love murder, you love devastation, so long as it isn't happening to YOU.
Hunters instincts are still intact. Not everyone has been wholly buckbroken and domesticated by modernity.
In Pokemon, you don't even kill a fly.
In Cooking Mama you're promoting the killing of cows and hens.
>the killing of cows and hens
you're just giving them a purpose
How do you know mama doesn't use ethically sourced roadkill?
Conflict and problem solving is interesting and fun
Simplest problem/conflict is to put an enemy in your way
Simplest solution to such problems is violence: No enemy = no problem
Violence without death as a final outcome is complicated. If someone just dies, that's simple.
Killing everything and everyone in your way is just the simplest problem solving task you can put in a game that isn't literal children's puzzles
be the change you want to see in the world
Killing is bad, and wrong
Says who, though? God loves to kill, according to every fricking religious text on Earth. God loves death, God loves to kill. GOD ENDORSES DEATH. The whole beginning and end of every religion on the planet since the dawn of sentience revolves around not being dead. LOL
We are locked into technological slavery when we subconsciously yearn to be chasing elk with spears on the open tundra again
this is why the elites want to cull the population. they want sole rights to the spirituality of necessity hunting rituals.
The entirety of human history glorifies murder. You only sanction murder according to a nebulous social contract that nobody alive agreed to. I want to kill you, but I have to have appropriate permission. LMAO
play some slime rancher OP
I wish there were more games that combine lifesim and combat elements. It's constantly either almost pure combat adventuring with nonexistent civilian elements like Skyrim or entirely civilian elements with no combat to speak if like Stardew Valley.
Eh, 1's and 0's. Victimless mayhem
Men are innately warriors, we secure sexual and material resources through competition of strength, mind, and soul. This is why women usually don't play video games and when they do it's usually in the form of life simulators or mundane dramatics. Modernity however and the instructions supervised by the cathedral suppress our warrior spirit and browbeat us into being weak, conformist slaves. Video games are one of the only few remaining outlets of our vigor.
Godfrickingdammit, thank you. I want to..
singing wimpy songs on bing bing wahoo drums isn't some fricking warrior spirit shit you homosexual.
also you're a homosexual too. Men haven't been "innate warriors" for as long as agricultural society has existed and if you identify with anything predating that than you're a subhuman, probably a deranged loser thirdie as well. Learn your history.
>we
>our
there should be more games about killing homosexual fricking frogposting frick tarded frickwads