Obviously. it's just a game, but people don't want to do bad things to people they like. Like, if I play Infamous, I have to go out of my way to frick over characters that I may have grown to like and that won't feel good for most people.
Obviously. it's just a game, but people don't want to do bad things to people they like. Like, if I play Infamous, I have to go out of my way to frick over characters that I may have grown to like and that won't feel good for most people.
imo it's not so much they want to avoid doing bad things so much as they want their virtue cred of being a good boy and getting the points most of the time. Back in the day people lost their shit over the "karma loss" they received for that Tenpenny Tower quest with the goal. They didn't care about doing what is right, they cared about the game telling them it was right.
it's dialogue that always gets me. I can sew havoc and woe and be a cruel tyrant but I can't be rude to people in a video game, especially party members.
Because if we didn't empathize with well-written characters as much as real people, fiction wouldn't exist as a genre. So in well-written stories, people generally don't feel good about choosing bad options.
As already noted in the thread it has less to do with that and more to do with the game telling you it was the "right choice"
Also most games with a morality system are poorly written but do everything they can to suck off your OC Doughnut Steel so people love it.
then yeah the first one works great cause it implies the whole world is fricked if you don't get the power to defeat the monster. "evil" route done well where being selfish gets you more power and makes your life easier at the expense of your morality
from what I remember, Fable does this
It always perplexed me how some people turn immediately into emotional wrecks when bad things happen to dogs or cats but have no problem watching gory torture scenes enacted on people.
Learn to arrive to your own conclusions instead of trusting studies that can be easily biased due to ideology, everyone has interacted with humans and watched their behaviors so everyone is an expert
>they're not gods you ought to put absolute faith in
Which is exactly why peer review doesn't mean shit. I'm so tired of people acting like peer review is the gold standard. Always the fricking lefties with their "Got any peer reviewed studies to prove that?" Reproducibility is the gold standard. Peer review means virtually nothing. Even amongst the hard sciences studies often fail the reproducibility test.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Agreed. It's tiresome to see people referring to sources as a way to avoid applying critical judgement of their own, thinking it makes them more rational and intelligent in the process. I get it if it's physics or a topic from one of the 'harder' sciences, but this is society we're talking about, everyone has had experience in it
There's a generally well recorded (circular logic aside) replication crisis in modern academia, notable for being prevalent amongst highly referenced material, not just namemaking citations.
There's also surveys particularly in the social sciences on whether patrons would employ people who do the forbidden dark science, as you can expect, the more social the science, the more likely they are to screen ideology.
You can look it up if you're interested. It exists with or without your acknowledgment.
>There's a generally well recorded (circular logic aside) replication crisis in modern academia
source?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You can look it up if you're interested. It exists with or without your acknowledgment.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility_Project >The group went through extensive measures to remain true to the original studies, including consultation with the original authors. Even with all the extra steps taken to ensure the same conditions of the original 97 studies, only 35 (36.1%) of the studies replicated, and if these effects were replicated, they were often smaller than those in the original papers. The authors emphasized that the findings reflect a problem that affects all of science and not just psychology, and that there is room to improve reproducibility in psychology.
>trust me bro
Never said that though. Pay attention to everything, both anecdotal and in studies, and arrive to your own answers
Din't pay attention just to studies
People who love animals more than other people general have high insecurities and usual have control issues as well. If animals could talk to them, tell them how they really felt, they dislike them just as much as people. It's that inability to communicate how they feel mixed with them being forced servants to them that makes their love for them be stronger than a humans because you can't force a human to accept you like you can a dog.
in extreme cases, yeah, but I think more commonly people just conflate animals and children in terms of bad things happening to them; most people think of most animals as innocent and ignorant of their circumstances, like children.
Could be said fully communicate. Your dog might like you for the food but doesn't give a damn about you the person and just uses you, you can't really be certain because you can't have a conversation with the dog like you would a person.
People who love animals more than other people general have high insecurities and usual have control issues as well. If animals could talk to them, tell them how they really felt, they dislike them just as much as people. It's that inability to communicate how they feel mixed with them being forced servants to them that makes their love for them be stronger than a humans because you can't force a human to accept you like you can a dog.
You can't pretend to be scientific (without sources) in one post and then ignore that dogs have literally been bred to care about you on an emotional level. You could have said they were this manipulate species back when they first started getting raised, but now it's literally in their genetics to feel good when humans do. Their satisfaction is based on our satisfaction because they literally evolved, forced or no, to be that way
Moral relativism pseudo-science about animals is always the most moronic shit
I think you are having trouble seeing the forest for the trees as your point further cements the ideas made that loving these broken creatures more than your fellow people outs you for a narcissist.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why on earth wouldn't I be a narcissist?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>spouts ambiguous bullshit >doesn't refute anything >use a faulty premise to come to a gaslighting conclusion
Lmao. You're the narcissist trying to rationalize the false dichotomy of you have to love one more than the other, rather than on the context of what's getting hurt, under what circumstances, and whether it was deserved. No, I'm not going to care about the ten time world rapist champion of the world more than an animal who could maul you but prefers spending time in your company
Its more because animals such as dogs, cats, kids have the intelligence fo 4-6 year old kids, so watching them be abused with no way to fight back is just sad. They didn't ask to be born into a world of pain then tortured.
>They didn't ask to be born into a world of pain then tortured.
no one ask for it anon but we are all too quick to make the exceptions when it suits us.
In some ways it kinda is though or perhaps it was, the masses are treated now closer to bugs or a daycare so perhaps that's fricking with their brains.
Empathy for something defenceless makes sense. With people we try to rationalise that the situation they're in could be their fault due to autonomy, regardless of if it is true or not. So we don't care that much.
>Empathy for something defenceless makes sense.
That is not at all what is happening here for a wide rage of reasons, more so the fact most cats and dogs are far from defenseless.
Eh, the human neurology just says "big eyes = baby = must cherish and protect"
2 years ago
Anonymous
again by that logic however abortion should be a zero tolerance approach but instead it's a very split issue, showing empathy is not the driving force. At best it's the cope used to justify behavior.
2 years ago
Anonymous
its not a 100% effect you moron it varies from person to person will you stop with this bait already
2 years ago
Anonymous
It's not bait but it's clear I'm hitting a nerve because nothing I said made it 100% what I am trying to show is that the driving force isn't empathy otherwise people would never force them to be pets and in many cases force them to breed and/or castrate them. That is not coming from a place of empathy, that is coming from a place of possessiveness.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>force
2 years ago
Anonymous
The animals you love are conditioned to be with you. They stay because they are dependent on you. That's why human love being real or not is such a controversial thing to many people because the idea of someone loving you for you is such a rare thing to witness.
Let me guess, latinx?
Who would even use that term unironically?
2 years ago
Anonymous
It's the correct term
2 years ago
Anonymous
Let me guess, latinx?
2 years ago
Anonymous
You're not making any sense. We impound/kill cats and dogs too for being harmful to the ecosystem and society. Go away, stupid.
2 years ago
Anonymous
a cluster of cells can't look at you witht big cute eyes, lmao
2 years ago
Anonymous
Fetuses aren't "clumps of cells" for the majority of their time in the womb.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Don't care.
People who are getting abortions are better off not reproducing anyway.
Killing babies is based too, the only issue is that this gives women a right, which is always a bad idea
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't really give a shot one way or another about abortion but people ignorantly say "it's just a clump of cells" all the time like morons.
If you're going to pulp babies at least don't hide behind cope arguments.
2 years ago
Anonymous
it's not a baby either until it leaves the womb, you wanna be a pedantic homosexual, do it right.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Don't be moronic
2 years ago
Anonymous
cool, now ask oxford about it
2 years ago
Anonymous
Ask my peenus weenus haha!
My peenus weenus!
2 years ago
Anonymous
THAT EGG WAS FERTILIZED FOR SEVENTEEN MILLISECONDS AND 11 MICROSECONDS YOU SICK FRICK
2 years ago
Anonymous
Simply try not being wrong about everything all the time all at once.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Is there such a thing as a fetus fricker?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Is that a question you really want answered? because in truth the answer is probably yes given the number of insane people in the world
2 years ago
Anonymous
>asking a search engine for word definitions
Lol
Lmao even
2 years ago
Anonymous
You could be anything, why choose to be moronic?
2 years ago
Anonymous
seethe troony
2 years ago
Anonymous
Nice try moron, but that's still not an actual dictionary. Any ACTUAL dictionary (Oxford, Merriam-Webster) lacks that definition
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Dictionaries are careful not to hurt my feelings
lmfao
2 years ago
Anonymous
Keep it up, little moron, just sift through six more dictionaries and you'll find one supporting your opinion eventually
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'm a different anon, morono, what you said made me pee a little so I had to respond.
Also, I myself support abortion knowing fully well that it is a human baby, grow some balls.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The not yet baby is kicking >The clump of cells is kicking >The foetus is kicking
2 years ago
Anonymous
>only dictionaries controlled by leftists who change definitions according to their beliefs count
don't think so troony
2 years ago
Anonymous
Oxford and Merriam-Webster are as far from leftist word changing bullshit as it gets, keep seething
2 years ago
Anonymous
>big corpos that infected us with the cancer to avoid the "occupy wallstreet" movement and nullify it have nothing to do with the cancer.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Merriam-Webster who keeps changing the definition of racism >far from leftist
lmao dumb troony
2 years ago
Anonymous
>as far as it gets
learn to read, moron
2 years ago
Anonymous
so you admit they're leftists? what's your argument moron?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>as far from X as it gets >as far as it gets
moron
2 years ago
Anonymous
One of the 2 did an article on the history of gender neutral pronouns. It's worth a read
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Killing babies is based
cringe edgelord
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Gankerirgins don't know that quote
Of course you don't
2 years ago
Anonymous
>literally start as a lizard
2 years ago
Anonymous
yes, and you and me both know that abortions are not performed after significant neural activity begins to form except for life-threatening cases, do you ever get tired of trying to warp reality so you can tell yourself you're right?
2 years ago
Anonymous
I literally just posted an image, I don't give a shot about abortion.
Do you ever get tired of constructing strawmen to fight?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>i jumped into this post chain about abortion becasue i don't care about abortion
lmao ok
2 years ago
Anonymous
I care about the misrepresentation of facts and bullshit arguments.
I want everyone to argue with good arguments not bad ones that make everyone dumber.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I want to squash these things with my boot.
2 years ago
Anonymous
how does the baby flip upsidedown after 8 months?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Quit parroting reddit TIL moronic homosexual.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Eat shit and die, you schizophreniac emotionless husk.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I think that shop is in North Carolina and I think I've been there
There it is. Dogs and cats can't be evil of their own design. They aren't complex enough to NOT be a 100% reflection of their environment. Humans on the other hand can willfully choose to do evil things despite having the opportunity to do what's right. Such humans deserve their punishments.
There it is. Dogs and cats can't be evil of their own design. They aren't complex enough to NOT be a 100% reflection of their environment. Humans on the other hand can willfully choose to do evil things despite having the opportunity to do what's right. Such humans deserve their punishments.
>"Dogs ... are innocent" >"Dogs ... can't be evil of their own design"
What's interesting is people will accuse bad behavior as a sign the dog was abused when in many cases they are just not domesticated/broken to act helpless in front of others. Wild dogs are vicious.
I don't fully agree with that call considering we still can't even identify/define the nature of consciousness. Human behavior is not clear cut nor defined otherwise all this variety in behavior couldn't exist. Hell people still argue if humans do or don't have instinct hardwired in us.
Stealing the food, eating food from all the bowls ahead of the other dogs, alright. Then he goes and stomps in the water bowl so no one else can have any.
"It is not enough that I should succeed, all others must fail."
Animals do that shit in the wild all the time. Some will go and kill/rape young just to force the other packs to follow them.
Animals are about as frick up if not more than humans.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Not evil
2 years ago
Anonymous
"Evil" is entirely subjective.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Nope
2 years ago
Anonymous
Well from my point of view, the Jedi are evil!
2 years ago
Anonymous
>do my actions negatively effect someone else? >yes >evil
>do my actions negatively effect society which peripherally negatively effect other people even on a delayed timeframe? >yes >evil
Seems pretty quantifiable to me, moron
2 years ago
Anonymous
It’s like NPCs are incapable of taking their thoughts past a certain point. Why is negatively impacting others evil? We have developed through the totally amoral and meaningless collision of atoms and evolution, why does morality sudden become objective and real in that process? It’s just a herd mentality to keep a society functioning because our brains are hardwired to do to. There’s no inherent truth in it
2 years ago
Anonymous
You’re arguing semantics and acting like you’re “enlightened”, you 13 year old homosexual. When natural selection favors those who propagate their genes the most and have offspring that survive long enough to do the same, then longevity of life is held at the greatest value as it increases the amount of time you have to multiply. In other words, any action by others that potentially costs you measures of health and reduce your maximum vitality decreases your ability to produce successful offspring. Essentially, some dumb homosexual running up to you with a rock and caving in your virgin cranium permanently decreases the likelihood of you getting laid (which was already close to zero) to never or leaves someone else a widow with bastard children less likely to fend for themselves. Survivability is hardwired into us so by consequence so is morality, you stupid Black person
2 years ago
Anonymous
source?
2 years ago
Anonymous
t. Nihlist
2 years ago
Anonymous
>survival is genetically hardwired into us
alright >because our desire to survive is an objective truth, so is morality!
that's one hell of a logical leap
like saying if 1+1 = 2 that Atlantis must be real
2 years ago
Anonymous
But then just existing is evil. You take up ressources that others could use, so you harm them indirectly, unless you actively make up for it by helping them, which you can't do for the whole world population.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Do my actions negatively affect someone else? >Yes >Evil
Is it evil to kill a man who is about to murder another man? >Do my actions negatively effect society which peripherally negatively effect other people even on a delayed timeframe? >Yes >Evil
Is it evil to eat food given to you when you are starving, even if someone else could theoretically, at some future time, need to eat that food to survive?
Subjective. The acts you describe could be quantified as 'undesirable' or 'detrimental' to those negatively effected, but not 'evil' from the perspective of those who benefit.
Again, evil is subjective.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Source that he was going to kill the other guy?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Is it evil to kill a man who is about to murder another man?
That’s where the second question comes in, moron. Maintaining law and order benefits society and individuals indirectly
> Is it evil to eat food given to you when you are starving, even if someone else could theoretically, at some future time, need to eat that food to survive?
What the frick is this logic? Are you genuinely moronic? By contributing to society, lets make this easy and say as a doctor, your role in that society is a net positive to others. Simply surviving isn’t acting any any evil impulse towards other people, you stupid euphoric homosexual
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Maintaining law and order benefits society and individuals indirectly
Whose law? Whose society? That of one country, or its immediate neighbor? >Simply surviving isn’t acting any any evil impulse towards other people, you stupid euphoric homosexual
To survive, people need food, water, shelter, and security. Food, water and shelter are limited. Blindly following the genetic imperative to reproduce would cause overpopulation and create even more resource scarcity, placing massive stress on Earth's ecosystems and the law and order of human societies. As such, if too many people exist, the system gets overburdened and everyone suffers.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Look man, I’m not going to lie, I didn’t even bother reading your post. I’m sure you think you’re very smart and this is your way of coping that you’re still intellectually superior to other considering you have nothing else going for you and your academic career has been mediocre. You’re mom might call you her smart little man but nobody else has to bother with hearing you brainlessly flap your gums like she does
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Maintaining law and order benefits society and individuals indirectly
Whose law? Whose society? That of one country, or its immediate neighbor? >Simply surviving isn’t acting any any evil impulse towards other people, you stupid euphoric homosexual
To survive, people need food, water, shelter, and security. Food, water and shelter are limited. Blindly following the genetic imperative to reproduce would cause overpopulation and create even more resource scarcity, placing massive stress on Earth's ecosystems and the law and order of human societies. As such, if too many people exist, the system gets overburdened and everyone suffers.
Huskies are one of the 8 or so basal breeds that are much closer to wolf than dog. Hence harder to train, high prey drives etc.
They're literally less domesticated. Especially compared to a retriever.
genuine moronation, we as humans made the concept of good and evil but we only apply it to ourselves. >You see that hyena eating a deer alive as it's giving birth then eats the baby as the half eaten mother watches?
yeah that's natural and not evil at all but a human doing anything remotely negative to another animal, even if it's for self defense is seen as evil incarnate. Animals rape, kill and eat each other alive all the damn time but people over look it because they're "cute", see otters, ducks, dolphins (one of the smartest animals) etc. Your cats and dogs will eat your corpse if you die and they get locked with you indoors.
>esl latinx wants to rape with no consequence
Called it
2 years ago
Anonymous
not even south american you moron, just forgot to delete a word. And i was just giving an example of what would happen if a human does what the "innocent" animals do
2 years ago
Anonymous
Anon, you're so far below in intellectual ability that you should stop posting if you thought that was ever worth needing to say,
There it is. Dogs and cats can't be evil of their own design. They aren't complex enough to NOT be a 100% reflection of their environment. Humans on the other hand can willfully choose to do evil things despite having the opportunity to do what's right. Such humans deserve their punishments.
what are you autistic? its obvious people view dogs as inherently good natured companions and to do something evil before a dog has wronged you brings a sense of betrayal and guilt.
>people view dogs as inherently good natured companions and to do something evil before a dog has wronged you brings a sense of betrayal and guilt.
Because people are morons
Innocence bias. If something is suffering and also can't comprehend the situation it's worse than if something is suffering and can. This is why abortion is wrong.
also anthropomorphization
"if it's suffering, so it must feel the heinous indignity of having its dreams and future denied, its responsibilities and vows broken, its potential squashed"
Nah, it's a cow, without animal husbandry its species wouldn't even exist. At best it could spend its entire life mindlessly grazing before dying to an ankle sprain or a predator. It has no self-awareness, no real empathy, and only immediate emotions. As long as its life is not constant torture, its swift death is as meaningful and as distressing as a plant's. The mountain lion would take long hours eating it from inside out before it dies, its species always on the verge of extinction.
>Innocence bias. If something is suffering and also can't comprehend the situation it's worse than if something is suffering and can. This is why abortion is wrong.
I assume you're a vegan?
Skipping all the innocence talk, it's because everybody's been shit on or pissed off by another human. Usually a lot, and especially people on here. You understand the inherent possibility for a human to "probably" deserve whatever they're experiencing.
I'm not sure why people have trouble understanding this
Everybody's been shit on or pissed off by animals too it's just if you are their caretaker you get to decide their fate after the events.
That's just getting back to the point of control, you can't shout at another human for doing something bad and not receive some level of retaliation while your pet is just at your mercy.
>shit on or pissed of by animal >blame animal owner for not teaching it properly >anger (rightfully) redirected to human
He's still right. Well, except monkeys. Those frickers absolutely deserve every bad thing that happens to them. And geese.
It's because pets trigger the cute response, which is a biological imperative whose role is to protect infants; when people see dogs and cats, their brains go "that's a baby, it needs my help".
homosexuals like you are the reason i’m a misanthrope. you literally put the lives of parasitic lower creatures over the lives of other humans yet you’re delusional enough to put yourself above other people as the don’t live up to your arbitrary idiosyncratic standards. people like you are the reason the world is shit, the least you can do is admit that you’re the actual problem
Indulge me and tell me why do you consider them 'lower parasitic' creatures when in fact i know that they bring me pleasure with barely anything in exchange.
On the other hand we have 'people' i have to deal with on a daily base that constantly require me to sidestep their emotional issues, pamper to their needs, expect me to behave a certain way, and are not true to their true nature whatsover compared to that 'parasitic creature'.
Also why in the everloving frick would i not put myself above other people? In fact why would anyone not do that. Even people who fricking 'do put lives of others over their own' they do not do it beacuse its a cold and logical thing to do, but beacuse it brings them pleasure, thus looping the whole fricking thing back to them putting their own selfish need of trying to fix other people lives over those people.
You're an ignorant fool, and the reason the world is shit is beacuse we climbed down from the trees and kept going instead of going back up, not beacuse Gerald that you've never met gets sad when a cute kitty dies, and not when some completely irrelevant to him homosexual does.
You are emotionally stunted and on a Norweigen basket weaving board screaming psychoanalysis you don't understand because someone else likes animals rather than relentlessly wanting everything to die.
Intent is all that matters in life. Humans can have malicious intent, animals operate on instinct. There's no reason to love all humans as equally as you would Jerome who wants to stab you for the ten bucks in your wallet.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>humans don’t operate on instinct and unconcious biases
Lol
We’re made of the same atoms moron
2 years ago
Anonymous
97% of the human body comes from the same matter found in space rocks. Guess the stars also think and feel like you do bro, and water thinks at 70% of your capacity since it's most of our body
>mfw the replies to this
lol irl
go feed your pet while you can, you'll have to spend more money on dopamine when it dies
2 years ago
Anonymous
your parents will use your real name on your grave
2 years ago
Anonymous
They should, I'm a proud man. With no pets.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I farm more dopamine watching you cope and knowing no matter how bad in life I get I won't be as fricked up as you, than you will in your entire life of baiting
Thanks dopaminepiggy
People see animals as innocent on a similar level to children.
Even though pooch would happily tear apart a screaming rabbit.
But dogs especially because their "loyalty" comes across like unconditional love so people feel bad about betraying that even if it's simulated.
People feel bad about performing simulated cruelty for the same reason they feel about about thinking about performing cruel things.
Because most humans are evil that have been killing each other for territory and resources since the dawn of our existence yet our parental instincts are so extreme that our brains see cats and dogs as surrogate children we wish to protect
It's because they're truly innocent, unlike the humans who have actively gone out of their way to do evil shit.
It's why nobody bats an eye when you kill all dogs in Resident Evil either.
I love animals and get upset by seeing them in pain, but the people who sympathise more with animals than humans are textbook narcissists. Ricky gervais is a good example of that. Human beings are difficult to love because they can challenge you, annoy you, threaten your ego and self concept with their differences to you. They have a greater degree of free will to piss you off with. That’s why loving a person is a deeper love than loving an animal, you will cry more over a dead sibling or wife than your dog. Loving a person is a real commitment to a conscious being with all its flaws. Loving an animal is comparatively easy. A cat might act like a little shit but they will never ideologically challenge me, insult my personality, humiliate me etc. They will for the most part behave in a way acceptable to me and look cute, they are incredibly easily to care for and love, unlike a son or daughter who rebels against everything you believe in. Loving a human being is really difficult for someone who has a lack of empathy, because loving a person requires a certain amount of tolerance of shit that annoys you as well as an understanding that they are a conscious human who is struggling in the same ways you are and that their ideas and thoughts are not less valid despite being different. You will NEVER experience that with a hamster. You can easily empathise with something that has no opinions on anything, is pretty much servile as long as you provide for it and only experiences simple emotions. FYI this is also why most pedophiles are massive narcissists too, they basically want to frick the human equivalent of a pet
>people who sympathise more with animals than humans are textbook narcissists
Do you even think about what you write?
I've never known a narcissist that loves animals.
People sympathise with animals more because they see them like children and so their protective instincts kick in, we don't have those instincts for grown ass humans for the most part because tribes had to compete for resources so the humans that could kill other humans without guilt survived.
You’re arguing semantics and acting like you’re “enlightened”, you 13 year old homosexual. When natural selection favors those who propagate their genes the most and have offspring that survive long enough to do the same, then longevity of life is held at the greatest value as it increases the amount of time you have to multiply. In other words, any action by others that potentially costs you measures of health and reduce your maximum vitality decreases your ability to produce successful offspring. Essentially, some dumb homosexual running up to you with a rock and caving in your virgin cranium permanently decreases the likelihood of you getting laid (which was already close to zero) to never or leaves someone else a widow with bastard children less likely to fend for themselves. Survivability is hardwired into us so by consequence so is morality, you stupid Black person
Again, this does not an objective right or wrong create. You are using amoral meaningless natural conditions to try to justify objective morality. There’s no reason any of this is inherently good outside meaningless chemicals in your brain telling you it is.
What are you even arguing here? No there’s no fricking magic cosmic rule book that says x = good and y = bad. You are genuinely moronic and I am no longer replying to you because you are one of those special morons that think they’re a genius for talking sophistry, holy shit
2 years ago
Anonymous
So you are conceding then and nothing is inherently wrong or right morally. Thanks
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The "Dunning Kruger effect" has never actually been proven or verified in anyway >It's literally nothing more than a funny story >Which, ironically, means that people posting about the Dunning Kruger effect are a perfect example of the Dunning Kruger effect
>DUUUUUUUDE LOVE AINT REAL ITS ALL CHEMICALS AND SHIT MANNNNNNN WERE LIKE STARDUST AND EMPTY SPACE BRAAAAAAAAAA
2 years ago
Anonymous
>DUUUUUUUDE LOVE AINT REAL ITS ALL CHEMICALS
Not him, but it's real and it's chemicals, no?
What else could it be?
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don’t actually think this, i’m just dabbing on people who think good and bad is a thing despite the fact that they also think nothing created everything for no reason
>understanding that they are a conscious human who is struggling in the same ways you are
I always found it difficult to believe. It looks like everyone got their shit together except me.
First impression is a pretty important part of social behaviour, so you learn to keep a facade, you don't want to look weak or lash out in front of strangers.
The reality is people are often miserable in their own way.
Fair enough, I do it myself. Successfully, in fact, which is surprising.
But then I do not understand how people can like one another.
I find myself vomit-inducingly disgusting, and - provided your assessment is right - it's probably would be exactly the same for another person if the facade is removed.
Maybe it's what it means to be a narcissist, though, then it really makes sense.
>I find myself vomit-inducingly disgusting
here's your issue. learn to love yourself, then you'll learn to love others.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I need a brand new me to like myself because I'm below the most standards that I've set up.
Also I'm not sure that I know what love even is.
But thanks anyway!
Where is this scene from
t. my hard wiener
It's in a metadata. Download it, open in the player and you could see it. Asobi ni Iku yo!
2 years ago
Anonymous
then bring yourself up to those standards of yours.
it's not easy but you can do it you fricking homosexual
2 years ago
Anonymous
Thanks, homosexual. That was a surprisingy nice thread.
I like having my ideology challenged and I like deep conversation, but I do not like being made fun of for being ugly or having hobbies others do not like, therefore I like animals more.
The alternative is spending time around people who will just abuse me for things beyond my control so between the dog and being alone I'll take the dog. At least the dog appreciates when I do nice things for it and shows me affection instead of calling me an ugly moron.
>The alternative is spending time around people who will just abuse me for things beyond my control
Do they really abuse you or is it just you don't get what you want from them? Because most people are at worse apathetic.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>most people are at worse apathetic
proof?
2 years ago
Anonymous
anon was asking for proof about the guy being hated by everyone first.
But they can't and your entire argument is based on fantasy. People judge the world based on the way it is, not what it could be
In an alternate universe, you've tested the Moby Dildo to the base but here you are thinking you're not a homosexual
Animals are innocent. They might do things that we consider cruel, but they're operating on a purely instinctual level. They didn't hurt something because they wanted it to suffer, they did it because they felt they had to out of survival. Even cats, the ones that are the closest to wanting things to suffer, hunt for play because it's in their nature to practice in safe circumstances for as long as possible so they can survive in real ones. Animals don't think have the ability to rationalize. They didn't have to choose between good and bad.
Conversely, humans are perfectly capable of rationally planning out their moves. They have to make a wilful decision to be a frickwit and almost none of their butthole actions directly relate to their survival - at absolute best, it just makes surviving a little bit easier. It's not instinctual either. They do it because they can.
People empathize based on perceived innocence.
The comparison's moronic because if the average person sees a human that seems innocent getting hurt, people will still feel awful over it. Unless there's some kind of bias towards them, or something (example being race or gender of the person and how the watcher feels about it). But that's still based on context. Almost all gore the average person sees is scripted so you know it's not real, but when an animal gets hurt people will often search the comments to confirm whether it was real or if it was okay. The real gore gets the visceral reaction it should and everyone feels awful; don't think torture porn threads that appeal to the most psychotic nutjobs in a circlejerk board represents anyone. Extremes are never to be recognized as representations of anything.
That webm was fricking moronic. It didn't prove "evil", it proved primal efficiency. Pride of lions also hoard as much food based on a food chain. They don't make a wilful decision between good vs bad, they choose the thing that gets them the most food. An evil person knows full well their actions hurt others but doesn't care because they benefited. An animal knows their actions prevent themselves from starving and isn't capable of processing the consequences for others
Dolphins are also one of the species that do random acts of kindness. They're bound by curiosity and, once again, don't make a wilful decision to be evil. They do anything perceived as evil by instinct. Dolphins bullying pufferfish is because they get high from the poison, and dolphins raping people is an urge to procreate that literally defines every species. It's very different from someone who decided they'll just do something evil that day because it's fun while knowing it'll hurt someone, yet being remorseless
Sociopaths love the animal more than people because they can only form an relationship with a being that has been selectively bred for hundreds of years just to love them unconditionally
Sociopaths only survive because our society indulges them. If we just tossed them all out into the woods to fend for themselves they wouldn't last very long.
And if trees were made of candy dentists would be rich. Do you want to keep talking about non-existant fantasies or do you want to bring the discussion back to the real world?
Sociopaths and psychopaths survive based on the cracks of society. If everyone did what they did, all the accomplished sociopaths would be killed off by others that can do the same thing, but better, yet chose not to because they're not completely psychotic
They're more likely to survive in the wild because they're willing to do anything to survive, like a naturally-occurring AI whose purpose is efficiency above anything else, but the second they're around other people they'd quickly lose that capability because they'd just find every opportunity to use others instead, make a mistake misunderstanding actual human emotion, and die because they didn't train the things the reasonable people did to live properly.
2 years ago
Anonymous
They're just like in my movies!
Psychologists are a joke.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Between a person who might feel bad about killing something innocent and a person who isn't capable of feeling emotion (defining characteristic of a psychopath) or has poor emotional control and capacity (defining characteristic of a sociopath), the latter is going to be the one more likely to kill things without a second thought.
And before you say some dumb shit like "b-but there's more to them than those", yes, and those things are the common factor between them, and if you don't meet those variables you aren't defined as a psychopath or a sociopath. You're defined as someone with aspergers (albeit the diagnoses was removed and made a generic part of the spectrum) or simply an butthole.
>They're more likely to survive in the wild because they're willing to do anything to survive
Nope. Humans are social animals and need to cooperate together to survive. A lone sociopath in the woods will struggle and the second he finds another human he will beg to be saved. Sociopaths aren't super awesome humans or anything. They're just fricked in the head. Intellectually and physically they're nothing impressive. Being a sociopath is not a helpful attribute.
A lone anyone in the wild would die. That's the point. It wasn't a question of whether people could survive as a tribe, it was about who would live if they were just tossed out there. The tribal thing was what I said after, where once they're around people they can make use of they're incredibly likely to do so at the expense of their own workload. While other people in a tribe would be more likely to do something to help others because it makes them feel good to see others feel good. If you assume everyone is equally intelligent, the person without morality is more likely to succeed. It's shitty, yes, but that's why buttholes are much more likely to get ahead. Because it's efficient, even if no one likes them for it.
I never claimed it was a good attribute, I claimed it was a purely efficient attribute. Because that's literally what it is. A naturally-occurring AI desperately trying to mimic what makes everyone else around them feel genuine, failing, and inevitably being an butthole.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>They're more likely to survive in the wild because they're willing to do anything to survive
Nope. Humans are social animals and need to cooperate together to survive. A lone sociopath in the woods will struggle and the second he finds another human he will beg to be saved. Sociopaths aren't super awesome humans or anything. They're just fricked in the head. Intellectually and physically they're nothing impressive. Being a sociopath is not a helpful attribute.
That's because they are. Imagine being put on this green earth and caring for these disgusting smelly shitpiles.
They can't even communicate with you. All they can do is take.
To a sociopath, anyone who isn't narcissistic is braindead and ripe for manipulation. They're actually lesser.
It's a tell-tale sign of neuroticism and social dysfunction. Those people surely have some form of anxiety/avoidant personality disorder.
People who love animals more than other people general have high insecurities and usual have control issues as well. If animals could talk to them, tell them how they really felt, they dislike them just as much as people. It's that inability to communicate how they feel mixed with them being forced servants to them that makes their love for them be stronger than a humans because you can't force a human to accept you like you can a dog.
>dude u can't like animals you have to donate all your money to BLM instead
I don't think I will.
Animals are and always will be innocent and aren't evil, aside from the ones with the unholy combination of being social animals and having high intelligence like Apes, monkeys, dolphins and killer whales
The same can't be said for human beings
every infant and every child will inevitably grow to be unpure
I am desensitized to violence and I mostly just smile or laugh at the absurdity of people wanting to hurt their fellow man or some animals that do not deserve to be hurt.
Humans are fricked up and I have no hope for them, but I still want people to not hurt each other either physically or mentally, same with animals.
I find it difficult to wrap my head around why people just can't get along, it's the easiest thing in the world to do, but for the life of them, many just can't do it.
I never understood people’s obsession with fictional dogs, I own an actual dog and I love it but I couldn’t give less of a frick about killing a dog in a game or if a dog dies in a movie.
in my evil fable 2 play through for assassination missions I would make the target villager fall in love with me then marry them and kill them the same day as the marriage
Why? They are all just polygons with prerecorded sound files.
People who love animals more than other people general have high insecurities and usual have control issues as well. If animals could talk to them, tell them how they really felt, they dislike them just as much as people. It's that inability to communicate how they feel mixed with them being forced servants to them that makes their love for them be stronger than a humans because you can't force a human to accept you like you can a dog.
Agreed >but my pet really loves me I just know ok?
yeah but I love animals even digital ones
although I never had that problem with being evil to people in vidya
i hope that doesn't mean i'm a psychopath or something
I hate how rare that is, in most causes being a good boy rewards you way to well compared to doing the selfish shit. More so game romances, that shit has to have had a bad effect on the last few generations of men that expected dating to work like their vidya games
The real hard mode is playing the neutral character. You almost always get the worst reward, assuming the game doesn't just have the quest fail entirely. Your missions also end up harder because you don't get the shortcuts and bonuses morality levels unlock. And since you're not solving their problems or forcing them to fall in line, all of your teammates are uncooperative shit heads.
Funny enough if you go all available neutral choices in the Dragon Age Origins you get a very high approval from Morrigan. Sten as well but that should be expect considering his personality.
And those that have nuance generally paint utilitarianism as immoral. If taking the long-term into perspective is considered evil then let me don the cape and wicked beard.
>Evil
shit >Selfish
perfect
See, "evil" routes usuially include going out of your way to do some silly shit that doesn't benefit you in any way, and I fricking hate it.
They don't want to risk making the player made and to quit because they had to choose between what they wanted and what is right
Frick off
I'm just saying humans can be as ignorant and dumb as anything else and can be abused just like animals and made to do great evil without them understanding it. People don't like believing that because it means they have to accept how little they understand of their world and what is going on in it.
>because they had to choose between what they wanted and what is right
Drives me mad.
This should be exactly another way around.
Being good isn't supposed to be easy.
>Being good isn't supposed to be easy.
Agreed but most people play games to be empowered snowflakes that are loved and praised. Make it a challenge where they are getting their shit kick in doing what is right and they will quit very fast.
The dishonored games had the audacity to give you a bad ending for resorting to violence too much over subterfuge and people fricking hate it to this day for "punishing me for using the fun mechanics of the game".
Ironically, you can kill a fairly large number of people in those games and still get a low chaos score. You have to run around on a psychopath killing spree to really build it up.
In case of Dishonored, the problem is that I do not understand the correlation between the MC murdering his way through the game and the bad ending.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I do not understand the correlation between the MC murdering his way through the game and the bad ending
Because there's a plague happening involving rats, if you kill a lot of people, you fed the rats, and basically made the entire city unlivable.
2 years ago
Anonymous
A couple hundred corpses make that big of a difference?
I call bullshit.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Isn't there a skill that just disintegrates the corpse of anyone you kill?
Okay, looking into it, you need to kill over 50% of the population you encounter, which involve a lot of guards.
I guess it's the fact you're basically cutting down the only people who can keep the peace during an epidemic that cause chaos.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>you're basically cutting down the only people who can keep the peace during an epidemic that cause chaos
This one actually makes sense.
It's a shame that the game didn't articulate this one very well.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Isn't there a skill that just disintegrates the corpse of anyone you kill?
2 years ago
Anonymous
More dead bodies propogates the plague.
More chaos from visible public assassinations increases paranoia in both your allies and your enemies and makes everyone much less trusting of each other.
That and you are the biggest influence on the young Princess, who idolizes you.
>Being good isn't supposed to be easy.
Yeah I fricking hate it >be good in game, give a hobo some gold >"oh my god Mr. Hero I love you so much now, here's this priceless sword I could have pawned off instead but now it's yours!" >be evil in game, steal hobo's priceless sword >*le sword is now dull and shit because you are le evil!*
There is never an incentive to being evil in games because being good will both get you allies (make encounters easier, etc.) and much more net reward. It's like "give up 10 gold now, get 1000 gold in five minutes" bullshit
Dragon Age Origins was one of the very few that rewarded you the most by going evil.
>As a male noble you can only become King of the lands if you spare Loghain thus ruining your friendship with Anders >As a female noble you have to harden Anders heart so he will be cruel enough to be a leader >the most powerful allies to recruit for the final battle(werewolves, and golems) require you to take evil paths
There are more than that but those two come to mind where you have to take some dark routes to get the best outcomes.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I heard DAO is a masterpiece but I cannot and will not slog through that boring ass tower section again
2 years ago
Anonymous
if on PC I'm sure you can mod or command skip that part.
What I don't get with the logic is "animals don't know any better" but then at the same time, people don't feel remorse for human characters in the same situation.
It's not uncommon in dystopian scenarios to have human/sentient enemies who are conditioned to be evil and never given the tools to question their authority (extreme surveillance, constant propaganda, strong punishment for thinking differently, ...). And people don't feel bad about killing them.
But a dog who get taught to kill intruders? "Oh no! That sad he didn't know better!"
I think you're creating an imaginary person and then complaining about said person
Nobody said anything about dystopian scenarios or guard dogs.
It's just easier to feel empathy for animals than humans, it's not that deep.
That was an example.
The point was that people don't seem to apply the same standards to humans than they do with animals.
People feel bad about killing animals because they don't know any better, but don't feel bad when humans don't know any better either.
Fallout 4 doesn't have karma and really doesn't have an evil path besides just killing everybody, even then it could be considered a good deed by saving them from poor interactions with the same 3 poor Boston accents
I just don't buy moral heroes. Everyone knows that only by being evil and ruthless can you get shit done.
Paragon Shepard has no place being a Specter, he doesn't flaunt his authority, Renegade Shepard is like "why am I even bothering talking to you? I can legally kill every person in this bar to get what I need."
I'm like that playing every Fallout game. I'm just hardcoded at this point to react nice and be constructive to other characters around me, as opposed to being a horrible jackass to characters i don't even know yet in a game.
I wish choices could be nuanced enough where you could be selfless and be a dick or be ingratiating and charismatic but make incredibly unethical decisions.
I've noticed a trend that recent games punish you for being a good guy. Like the 1st thing that happens in Ass Red Odyssey is that if you spare some bandits, they ambush you again down the road. And then one of the first quests lets you spare some sick people which ends up in the ENTIRE ISLAND DYING.
Isn't that more 'natural consequences of your actions' than being the good guy?
You spare a bunch of criminals they're not gonna just STOP being criminals because they saw the light or something.
Even more so with the sick people, you let sick people wander around a larger population and more people get sick and die, that's just how diseases work.
You should think more about the consequences of your decisions anon.
You are the first to bring it up actually. Most of the thread is getting into subjective topics of morals and existence. Only American midwits would think it's political.
>evil route means you have to make all choices evil
Pretty sure Satan likes his dog Cerberus, and any villain people care about have at least a few appreciable traits so that they are not parodies. Essentially, the players doing this are aiming to write the most unsubtle story, so usually the devs will direct them by forcing answers that aren't all black-or-white. Of course, a better solution is to offer more dialogue options so that you can write your character more precisely.
lol. Satan has many names and he is known to every culture. It all began when man ingested fungi and was shown things in secrecy. All cultures have seen the mysteries, but gave them different names. I dont care if greeks talked about it, it's Satan's dog guarding the gates of Hell.
>Satan and his dog cerebus
Cerebus is Greek mythology not Christian.
Hades is not a Satan analog as he's not evil, just as much of a dick as the rest of the pantheon though.
This. Hades is just portrayed as doing his job managing the afterlife and all the dead people.
Though it's hard to visualize due to most modern religions having to portray their gods as the ultimate good but ancient gods were generally much more "We worship them because they're fricking powerful and could kill us whenever they want" rather than because they were necessarily good.
The best way to do a “good” route is to force the player to take short term losses that eventually lead to long term gain, while the evil route should be a bunch of short term gains and instant gratification.
Essentially, good should be hard but rewarding, while evil should be easy but lead to you having to constantly watch your back.
This. I blame Bioware for instilling this mindset of “all evil choices or all good” in players.
I came into this thread with anger in my heart and a chip on my shoulder. It's true. It's true and I won't deny it. I came here, and I thought to shoot this comic down. To call it just another pitiful, unfunny, untrue Dorkly strip. You think I haven't been around the block? Look, this is not my first rodeo, I've seen these gamer comics these so-called LOL threads. I know what I'm getting into. But then I look at this comic, and what I see is not quite what I expected. I see... the truth. I see a young artist capturing the moral quandary all gamers have been faced with. And what's this? Simple, rustic, and most importantly, relatable artstyle with succinct dialogue... storytelling through our heroine's expression alone in our fourth panel, delivering a perfect punchline... this is masterful. This is what I have been wanting from videogames comic for so long... Kelsie Brumet, hmm? Well, I for one will be keeping an eye on the young Ms. Brumet. I do believe, and don't think me out of line for saying this, I do believe this young bud will flourish into one of the finest storytellers of our time.
Good is unironically relative here.
It's more of an butthole vs a nice guy.
The only RPG that comes to mind where the evil playthough makes perfect sense from a narrative standpoint is MotB.
>Being good isn't supposed to be easy.
Agreed but most people play games to be empowered snowflakes that are loved and praised. Make it a challenge where they are getting their shit kick in doing what is right and they will quit very fast.
I've posted Black & White for a reason. I distinctly remember that my castle was all spiky on my first playthough.
Same logic should be applied here > will quit very fast
Or they will choose a quick and dirty path to empower themselves and get to the end that way.
I honestly don't think the story of PS:T works basically at all unless you play Good. The whole point of the story is about finding atonement and accepting your sins, even those that you didn't commit yourself.
An Evil character accepting his own sacrifice for the sake of the multiverse seems weird, and you'd lose out on like 2/3rds of the quests unless you're going to be a very helpful Evil person.
>can't discern between reality and fiction >literally unable to draw the distinction >just completey non-comprehending of the difference >no, YOU are broken
oke
What I find funny about moral choices is how it's actually turning people opportunistic
Nobody really act good in video games just for the sake of being nice, it comes from the fact you know you'll get something out of it.
>People should either be caressed or crushed. If you do them minor damage they will get their revenge; but if you cripple them there is nothing they can do. If you need to injure someone, do it in such a way that you do not have to fear their vengeance.
― Niccolo Machiavelli
I could be a piece of shit in kotor but I could never betray Mission and Zaalbar. Her crying breaks my heart every time. I can torture Bastila until the end of time however.
I'd love a fantasy RPG that made being racist the wrong choice.
Like you are given the option to either push out this group of refugees or accept them, but turns out blindly accepting a large foreign group was actually a bad idea and it gets hundreds of people killed with the game basically telling you 'lol you fricked up, your settlement is in ruins and it's all because you didn't think about what might happen if you just let these people in unconditionally'.
Would never happen though since modern audiences are so programmed to think that 'inclusiveness = good' that even suggesting that maybe there are some people you DON'T want to include for very good reasons is considered the height of bigotry.
and did that ever light the communities into a flame. They quest was seen as bad showing you how the average player thinks. They don't want hard or difficult choices in their games, they want to just be a superhero and special.
Exactly! I loved that, you could do what is "right" and still get met with a face full of negativity for it. But the fact it upset people and even in your case show issue with it brings the light the dark truth that players don't want to play good, they want to be told they are being good. They want affirmation for their actions and as such show they don't give a damn about right and wrong so much as just being called virtuous.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It's more weird by the fact he also aknowledge that the ghouls basically murdered everyone before that.
That being said, I just think it's Three Dongs being a massive c**t And his karma is Good, kek
Three Dog is a hippy who’s all for anti-racist stuff. No shit he wouldn’t be happy. The residents of Tenpenny consider you a hero if you kill the Ghouls though. The take away of that quest is that you can’t please everyone.
True. Personally, I find quests like Tenpenny Tower to be interesting character studies of most players. When you don’t give players a clear “good” option vs. a clear “bad” option, the choices tend to be much more varied between players. Otherwise, most people just go for the good option, with the only people going for the evil option just being people who want to have fun being an edgelord.
I also think there’s an uncomfortable truth most people don’t want to face that they’re likely not as good a person as they think they are. Everyone is capable of evil, the only difference between people is how far you have to push them to get them to resort to evil.
>think there’s an uncomfortable truth most people don’t want to face that they’re likely not as good a person as they think they are.
I think it's sadder than that and people don't want to face they care more about appearing good than actually being good.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I feel the sign of a great morality system is when players are able to embark on a Spec Ops: The Line tier descent into madness where it becomes increasingly difficult for them to keep up the facade of being “good”. At which point, the players can decide to either simply be pragmatic or go full psychopath and embrace the insanity. To do this, I feel the evil option really needs to be the quick and easy way, while the good option requires a ton of hard work and dedication to your own sense of morality. If a player wants to RP as Jesus, then it should be required that they have the patience and unshakable morals of Jesus.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I agree with you but the masses don't want that. They want to be told they are good and wonderful for parroting whatever is ask of them.
I often try to be evil but can't do it. Doesn't help that in most games the good choices are objectively better, and evil means worse rewards and harder scenarios just for the sake of larping as evil.
>I need to be told how to think and cannot comprehend causality without a wrangler to direct me
If you need to read about it you shouldn't be discussing it.
Right, no one here likley has them for these topics, we are just sharing thoughts and ideas about said topics. You seem to be upset about that for some reason.
Christ, talk about arguing in bad faith. You want to genocide entire races, literally, you rightoid piece of shit. Go give a gun a blowjob like your leader you slimy waste of oxygen.
When i first got fable and i learned you could be evil i hit the dad in game and i immediately regretted it because how could i hit the man who despite his wife being dead still did everything in his power to be a good father to his 2 kids, i can't be evil in games unless the game is like overload
>Last enemy in a group has the fear of fricking God put into them and they flee or beg for mercy >nearly always let them go
Anyone else?
If it's just some mook or anything like that. Also didnt apply to Skyrim because they just do the >I YIELD I YIELD >never should have come here
Assassin's Creed 1 was good for this. It's just some guard, ive got no personal grudge against like 90% of the enemies.
Kingdom Come Deliverance have this system, and letting enemies go don't give you anything, and in fact forfeit all the loot they're carrying, so it's purely out of your goodwill that you spare them.
What is really frustrating is when the game then punishes you for not hardlining one or the other, as if picking and choosing a response based on the situation is for pussies.
if you werent an amerilard you'd realize that a war in europe is dangerous as frick
i live in eastern europe and everything is becoming more fricked economically-wise at an alarming rate and war is one of the reasons for it
I'm inherently biased because I'm from Russia, but it looks like you're for the most part fricked due to having a unified monetary policy, yet separate fiscal policy.
Coutries like Greese, Cyprus and Spain have a lot of a bad debt and don't want to *actually* do anything about it.
Last time they were saved by fat cats like Germany buying the bad debt, and now this problem has risen its ugly head again.
The second problem is sanctions, which prevent you from consuming enough resources.
The war itself is a comapratively minor factor. In a matter of fact, your military contractors making a great wealth by emptying their warehouses and selling the old stuff.
>The second problem is sanctions, which prevent you from consuming enough resources.
really? thanks I didn't realize! >The war itself is a comapratively minor factor. In a matter of fact, your military contractors making a great wealth by emptying their warehouses and selling the old stuff.
what are you arguing here? taxpayers won't even see this money
>taxpayers won't even see this money
Sure they will. Government taxes these war profits and spends those taxes in various ways that benefit the citizens.
>really? thanks I didn't realize!
Sanctions that you yourself implemented.
I totally understand why, but complaining about the bleeding *after shooting yourself in the leg* is... a bit hypocritical. > what are you arguing here?
It helps the economy as a whole.
Whe war itself is a net middle-sized nuisance for the economy.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Sanctions that you yourself implemented.
european union implemented those, and we are even more fricked without it >It helps the economy as a whole.
what helps? corrupted military big fish and politicians taking 90% of the money they made by selling some rusty ass tanks? when there is a war, a common civilian always loses
if your monke president didn't ape out we wouldn't be here paying for gasoline at 200% markup, but of course this is everyone's fault but yours.
dumb vatnik, go suck oligarch wiener
2 years ago
Anonymous
> european union implemented those
I was under the impression that I was talking with someone who lives in the EU. > what helps? corrupted military big fish and politicians taking 90% of the money they made by selling some rusty ass tanks? when there is a war, a common civilian always loses
Common civilian always loses period. >if your monke president didn't ape out we wouldn't be here paying for gasoline at 200% markup, but of course this is everyone's fault but yours
It's a cascade falilure of several systems.
My point is that, theoretically, had nobody implemented sanctions, barely anything would've happened economically.
It's all politics. The war itself is a minor thing.
And if we're talking about the US, the really big problem economically is QE and now QT coupled with the political instability and the green energy program.
I've already adressed EU earlier with the bonds situation.
You may not know this but most of us in east europe grew up with parents/grandparents telling us horror stories about how shit it was under russian rule. This counts a lot for why we oppose Russia even if just a few years ago most of us couldn't tell ukraine appart from you guys. Any russian influence, even indirect, is dreaded.
>really? thanks I didn't realize!
Sanctions that you yourself implemented.
I totally understand why, but complaining about the bleeding *after shooting yourself in the leg* is... a bit hypocritical. > what are you arguing here?
It helps the economy as a whole.
Whe war itself is a net middle-sized nuisance for the economy.
If you read the thread, you will see that the initial point that I've responed to was about the economy.
>And here we see the phenomenal combination of stupidity, ignorance of the world at large and blatant lack of basic empathy that chracterizes the common amercian specimen >It is unclear what precisely prompted the retrograde development this particular sub-family suffered after it split from it's european ancestor
We have to get our own morons to stop trying to redefine what a woman is before we start worrying about what's happening on the other side of the ocean bro.
You are actually fricking moronic if you don't understand that for actual CENTURIES now, any US citizen is looking for every possible excuse to frick Russia over. It's 50% "war (in the West) is bad" and 50% "lmao frick Russia"
Honest question: do these people really feel crushing despair from all this? Am I dysfunctional for treating all this with a "Oh, ok" or are these folks just addicted to catastrophizing in a performative manner?
>much easier to build evil karma than good by orders of magnitude >evil powers are all much better than good powers >the companion you get as an evil character has more personality than the good equivalent >evil ending is much more emotionally powerful and interesting
Is there a game out there with a bigger failure of a moral choice system? There's barely any reason not to be evil in this game at all.
>Game makes a point to explain that it's morality system is more nuanced and gray than "good and evil" >It's actually very black & white, with the evil side literally giving you the ability to stomp on puppies when you max out the meter.
Bioware always failed at that shit. Mass Effect Paragon was suppose to be like Obiwan and Renegade was to be like Han Solo, but in the end it just turned into Paragon was take everything up the ass with a smile while Renegade was rape everything that moves and call it shit for it.
Stealth builds are the most OP builds in any Bethesda game.
[...]
Bioware are hacks that can’t comprehend morality beyond “messiah” and “edgelord”. More at 11.
[...]
Comics like these are often exaggerated for dramatic/comedic effect. Most normal people don’t give a frick about world events unless it directly affects them. The people who do give a frick are mentally ill people who need to stop watching the news and go outside for once.
I think they landed it right in DA:O but everyone b***hed about how they couldn't just use good boy points to get their love interests so it got scrapped after that. I honestly put more blame on players because Bioware always leaned into what the majority wanted or did.
Stealth builds are the most OP builds in any Bethesda game.
Bioware always failed at that shit. Mass Effect Paragon was suppose to be like Obiwan and Renegade was to be like Han Solo, but in the end it just turned into Paragon was take everything up the ass with a smile while Renegade was rape everything that moves and call it shit for it.
Bioware are hacks that can’t comprehend morality beyond “messiah” and “edgelord”. More at 11.
Honest question: do these people really feel crushing despair from all this? Am I dysfunctional for treating all this with a "Oh, ok" or are these folks just addicted to catastrophizing in a performative manner?
Comics like these are often exaggerated for dramatic/comedic effect. Most normal people don’t give a frick about world events unless it directly affects them. The people who do give a frick are mentally ill people who need to stop watching the news and go outside for once.
>Game has multiple choices >Replay the game for all the "evil" choices >100% of them are just "Have something happen" or "Completely end a 3 hour quest line before it starts."
It's kinda funny how only Eastern writers actually bother to show what real evil looks like while Westerners nowadays simply try to ignore the darker undertones (unless the story is purposefully made of nothing but dark undertones). We have long moved away from things like showing actual slavery in a story for all ages. Your character can be a maniac, but he has to be an equal opportunity maniac, or the audience might feel a bit too icky, and we don't wanna ruin the pretend-egalitarian vibes.
That's just because the writers don't want to make the villain "too evil". Even when he's supposed to be an unrelenting psychopath (like the Joker). Even if he's technically capable of true evil, like torture or rape, we never actually see any of it. And what's far more important, we don't see the consequences of such actions from the victim's perspective. Because then it gets "too real", and "you shouldn't talk about these things". It's an unspoken taboo in Western fiction, that probably goes back to its Christian background, which is why we don't see it in Eastern fiction nearly as much.
>be bad man >consume media with bad people >hope for good things for those bad people because you're a bad man >they don't deserve to suffer for their actions >you don't deserve to suffer for your actions >they're innocent >you're innocent >determinism
I got bored towards the end, but these types are a complete fricking mess
>don't see it in Eastern fiction nearly as much
You mean in Japanese fiction. Xianxia, Wuxia, and every other style of non-Jap Eastern fiction bases half their plotlines around someone getting raped and another person relentlessly killing the person's entire family tree for the action of one butthole. The villains are shown doing bad things but obviously they don't turn into some rape-smut fanfic, but they certainly don't dodge it either.
It was so bad that most web novels (the main source for Chinese/Korean fiction) have had a forced culture change because people are tired of seeing the same moronic plot points for why the main character is in a never-ending loop of bad guy does something horrendous > main character kills him > bad guy's even worse father comes for vengeance (plus promises do even worse things to the main character's loved ones) > that guy dies > grandfather comes out > repeat
>NPCs are essential
It's funny to me that Betheda gets all the shit for this when it's what all RPGs do. The way RPGs normally work is just they completely disable your ability to do combat at all when you're around character they don't want dead. There's no point in KOTOR2, for example, where you can just turn around and kill Kreia. The game just will not allow you to do it. And yet it's only Bethesda that gets shit for this. Cyberpunk had one that really pissed me off recently where one character is about to murder another character and the game only allows you to attempt to talk them down and if you fail you just stand there and watch the murder happen. You cannot harm them in any way to stop the murder. Your ability to enter combat is completely disabled.
Humans are complex irl and animals are simple irl
Humans are simple in games and animals are simple in games
I'm not choosing between a dog and a human, I'm choosing between a dog and pic related
Feels good knowing I don't have a walking shitting emotional time bomb crutch walking around in my home.
I've never met a pet owner that was worth keeping around.
No, you're an edgy psycho talking about cutting up animals and feeding them to owners and finding every excuse to try and insult them for having a pet
have a nice day. Your life isn't worth a tenth of what you claim all human lives apparently equally are
ITT: neglected moron screams at his monitor that society has to love him more than something that actually benefits the people he's screaming at because he says so
lol
cope
infamous on the evil route was some of the most fun i've ever had
Most evil runs are fun as frick. I have no idea why the masses don't do that shit more often.
Because not everybody wants to do bad things.
It's a game bro, one in which you already do a lot of bad things, it's just the game says those bad things are ok.
Obviously. it's just a game, but people don't want to do bad things to people they like. Like, if I play Infamous, I have to go out of my way to frick over characters that I may have grown to like and that won't feel good for most people.
imo it's not so much they want to avoid doing bad things so much as they want their virtue cred of being a good boy and getting the points most of the time. Back in the day people lost their shit over the "karma loss" they received for that Tenpenny Tower quest with the goal. They didn't care about doing what is right, they cared about the game telling them it was right.
That too, but that has more to do with moral choice systems being bullshit in the first place instead of morality.
it's dialogue that always gets me. I can sew havoc and woe and be a cruel tyrant but I can't be rude to people in a video game, especially party members.
Mass Effect and Dragon Age let you do that shit all the time. The renegade way to tell Illusive man off most of the time was priceless
>Game forces you to work with Cerberus
>Sequel forces Cerberus to betray you and blames you for working with them
Who wrote this shit?
Because if we didn't empathize with well-written characters as much as real people, fiction wouldn't exist as a genre. So in well-written stories, people generally don't feel good about choosing bad options.
As already noted in the thread it has less to do with that and more to do with the game telling you it was the "right choice"
Also most games with a morality system are poorly written but do everything they can to suck off your OC Doughnut Steel so people love it.
wish Infamous get PC port later after decade..
you better not be talking about Second Son where you nuke your nan at the end out of nowhere and cackle and fly away
i woukd have specified if that was the case
then yeah the first one works great cause it implies the whole world is fricked if you don't get the power to defeat the monster. "evil" route done well where being selfish gets you more power and makes your life easier at the expense of your morality
from what I remember, Fable does this
I love that one scene in 1 where you meet up with Trish and she says your a bastard and Evil Cole is like
>What did i do? I luv you 🙁
>and no one... is stronger... than me...
>black light ing crackling in Cole's hands
That was pure kino to my 9 year old self in 2009.
hi guys
hey man
whats good mang
Hey man, come on in.
It always perplexed me how some people turn immediately into emotional wrecks when bad things happen to dogs or cats but have no problem watching gory torture scenes enacted on people.
Source on that being the same people?
Yeah, it's me. Frick people
Have you ever watched a movie with a woman?
They can't handle either
no
you have? why??
>source?
>got a source?
>its observable in reality but source?
You types are brain dead.
So, no source?
>Source?
It came to me in a dream
>source
Learn to arrive to your own conclusions instead of trusting studies that can be easily biased due to ideology, everyone has interacted with humans and watched their behaviors so everyone is an expert
>studies that can be easily biased due to ideology
source?
Source: my ass
Scientists are humans and therefore subject to human error, they're not gods you ought to put absolute faith in, especially regarding social studies
>they're not gods you ought to put absolute faith in
Which is exactly why peer review doesn't mean shit. I'm so tired of people acting like peer review is the gold standard. Always the fricking lefties with their "Got any peer reviewed studies to prove that?" Reproducibility is the gold standard. Peer review means virtually nothing. Even amongst the hard sciences studies often fail the reproducibility test.
Agreed. It's tiresome to see people referring to sources as a way to avoid applying critical judgement of their own, thinking it makes them more rational and intelligent in the process. I get it if it's physics or a topic from one of the 'harder' sciences, but this is society we're talking about, everyone has had experience in it
>Scientists are humans
source?
There's a generally well recorded (circular logic aside) replication crisis in modern academia, notable for being prevalent amongst highly referenced material, not just namemaking citations.
There's also surveys particularly in the social sciences on whether patrons would employ people who do the forbidden dark science, as you can expect, the more social the science, the more likely they are to screen ideology.
You can look it up if you're interested. It exists with or without your acknowledgment.
>There's a generally well recorded (circular logic aside) replication crisis in modern academia
source?
>You can look it up if you're interested. It exists with or without your acknowledgment.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility_Project
>The group went through extensive measures to remain true to the original studies, including consultation with the original authors. Even with all the extra steps taken to ensure the same conditions of the original 97 studies, only 35 (36.1%) of the studies replicated, and if these effects were replicated, they were often smaller than those in the original papers. The authors emphasized that the findings reflect a problem that affects all of science and not just psychology, and that there is room to improve reproducibility in psychology.
Do you really think he was asking in good faith?
So don't pay attention to studies because they can be biased... but trust me bro?
>trust me bro
Never said that though. Pay attention to everything, both anecdotal and in studies, and arrive to your own answers
Din't pay attention just to studies
>only pay attention to the studies that I agree with
and here's the leftism
>that I agree with
Why do you keep adding words I never said, you're acting like a journalist
People who love animals more than other people general have high insecurities and usual have control issues as well. If animals could talk to them, tell them how they really felt, they dislike them just as much as people. It's that inability to communicate how they feel mixed with them being forced servants to them that makes their love for them be stronger than a humans because you can't force a human to accept you like you can a dog.
in extreme cases, yeah, but I think more commonly people just conflate animals and children in terms of bad things happening to them; most people think of most animals as innocent and ignorant of their circumstances, like children.
source?
>It's that inability to communicate how they feel
I disagree that cats and dogs are unable to communicate how they feel
Could be said fully communicate. Your dog might like you for the food but doesn't give a damn about you the person and just uses you, you can't really be certain because you can't have a conversation with the dog like you would a person.
You can't pretend to be scientific (without sources) in one post and then ignore that dogs have literally been bred to care about you on an emotional level. You could have said they were this manipulate species back when they first started getting raised, but now it's literally in their genetics to feel good when humans do. Their satisfaction is based on our satisfaction because they literally evolved, forced or no, to be that way
Moral relativism pseudo-science about animals is always the most moronic shit
I think you are having trouble seeing the forest for the trees as your point further cements the ideas made that loving these broken creatures more than your fellow people outs you for a narcissist.
Why on earth wouldn't I be a narcissist?
>spouts ambiguous bullshit
>doesn't refute anything
>use a faulty premise to come to a gaslighting conclusion
Lmao. You're the narcissist trying to rationalize the false dichotomy of you have to love one more than the other, rather than on the context of what's getting hurt, under what circumstances, and whether it was deserved. No, I'm not going to care about the ten time world rapist champion of the world more than an animal who could maul you but prefers spending time in your company
Its more because animals such as dogs, cats, kids have the intelligence fo 4-6 year old kids, so watching them be abused with no way to fight back is just sad. They didn't ask to be born into a world of pain then tortured.
>They didn't ask to be born into a world of pain then tortured.
no one ask for it anon but we are all too quick to make the exceptions when it suits us.
You are a useless human being.
It's not that hard to understand moron
In some ways it kinda is though or perhaps it was, the masses are treated now closer to bugs or a daycare so perhaps that's fricking with their brains.
Empathy for something defenceless makes sense. With people we try to rationalise that the situation they're in could be their fault due to autonomy, regardless of if it is true or not. So we don't care that much.
>Empathy for something defenceless makes sense.
That is not at all what is happening here for a wide rage of reasons, more so the fact most cats and dogs are far from defenseless.
Eh, the human neurology just says "big eyes = baby = must cherish and protect"
again by that logic however abortion should be a zero tolerance approach but instead it's a very split issue, showing empathy is not the driving force. At best it's the cope used to justify behavior.
its not a 100% effect you moron it varies from person to person will you stop with this bait already
It's not bait but it's clear I'm hitting a nerve because nothing I said made it 100% what I am trying to show is that the driving force isn't empathy otherwise people would never force them to be pets and in many cases force them to breed and/or castrate them. That is not coming from a place of empathy, that is coming from a place of possessiveness.
>force
The animals you love are conditioned to be with you. They stay because they are dependent on you. That's why human love being real or not is such a controversial thing to many people because the idea of someone loving you for you is such a rare thing to witness.
Who would even use that term unironically?
It's the correct term
Let me guess, latinx?
You're not making any sense. We impound/kill cats and dogs too for being harmful to the ecosystem and society. Go away, stupid.
a cluster of cells can't look at you witht big cute eyes, lmao
Fetuses aren't "clumps of cells" for the majority of their time in the womb.
Don't care.
People who are getting abortions are better off not reproducing anyway.
Killing babies is based too, the only issue is that this gives women a right, which is always a bad idea
I don't really give a shot one way or another about abortion but people ignorantly say "it's just a clump of cells" all the time like morons.
If you're going to pulp babies at least don't hide behind cope arguments.
it's not a baby either until it leaves the womb, you wanna be a pedantic homosexual, do it right.
Don't be moronic
cool, now ask oxford about it
Ask my peenus weenus haha!
My peenus weenus!
THAT EGG WAS FERTILIZED FOR SEVENTEEN MILLISECONDS AND 11 MICROSECONDS YOU SICK FRICK
Simply try not being wrong about everything all the time all at once.
Is there such a thing as a fetus fricker?
Is that a question you really want answered? because in truth the answer is probably yes given the number of insane people in the world
>asking a search engine for word definitions
Lol
Lmao even
You could be anything, why choose to be moronic?
seethe troony
Nice try moron, but that's still not an actual dictionary. Any ACTUAL dictionary (Oxford, Merriam-Webster) lacks that definition
>Dictionaries are careful not to hurt my feelings
lmfao
Keep it up, little moron, just sift through six more dictionaries and you'll find one supporting your opinion eventually
I'm a different anon, morono, what you said made me pee a little so I had to respond.
Also, I myself support abortion knowing fully well that it is a human baby, grow some balls.
>The not yet baby is kicking
>The clump of cells is kicking
>The foetus is kicking
>only dictionaries controlled by leftists who change definitions according to their beliefs count
don't think so troony
Oxford and Merriam-Webster are as far from leftist word changing bullshit as it gets, keep seething
>big corpos that infected us with the cancer to avoid the "occupy wallstreet" movement and nullify it have nothing to do with the cancer.
>Merriam-Webster who keeps changing the definition of racism
>far from leftist
lmao dumb troony
>as far as it gets
learn to read, moron
so you admit they're leftists? what's your argument moron?
>as far from X as it gets
>as far as it gets
moron
One of the 2 did an article on the history of gender neutral pronouns. It's worth a read
>Killing babies is based
cringe edgelord
>Gankerirgins don't know that quote
Of course you don't
>literally start as a lizard
yes, and you and me both know that abortions are not performed after significant neural activity begins to form except for life-threatening cases, do you ever get tired of trying to warp reality so you can tell yourself you're right?
I literally just posted an image, I don't give a shot about abortion.
Do you ever get tired of constructing strawmen to fight?
>i jumped into this post chain about abortion becasue i don't care about abortion
lmao ok
I care about the misrepresentation of facts and bullshit arguments.
I want everyone to argue with good arguments not bad ones that make everyone dumber.
I want to squash these things with my boot.
how does the baby flip upsidedown after 8 months?
Quit parroting reddit TIL moronic homosexual.
Eat shit and die, you schizophreniac emotionless husk.
I think that shop is in North Carolina and I think I've been there
The points they don't walk into situations knowing what could happen, people do.
>The points they don't walk into situations knowing what could happen, people do.
after 2020 I have no idea why you would believe this of humans.
Frick off
Dogs and cats are innocent.
Cats are inherently evil.
t. pitBlack person
There it is. Dogs and cats can't be evil of their own design. They aren't complex enough to NOT be a 100% reflection of their environment. Humans on the other hand can willfully choose to do evil things despite having the opportunity to do what's right. Such humans deserve their punishments.
>"Dogs ... are innocent"
>"Dogs ... can't be evil of their own design"
What's interesting is people will accuse bad behavior as a sign the dog was abused when in many cases they are just not domesticated/broken to act helpless in front of others. Wild dogs are vicious.
Yes, but it's instinct. It's not instinct for humans to shove buzz lightyears up their ass so we don't have sympathy for those who do
How do you know it's not human instinct to shove things up our ass?
Checkmate.
I don't fully agree with that call considering we still can't even identify/define the nature of consciousness. Human behavior is not clear cut nor defined otherwise all this variety in behavior couldn't exist. Hell people still argue if humans do or don't have instinct hardwired in us.
INSTINCT =FETISH
Stealing the food, eating food from all the bowls ahead of the other dogs, alright. Then he goes and stomps in the water bowl so no one else can have any.
"It is not enough that I should succeed, all others must fail."
Animals do that shit in the wild all the time. Some will go and kill/rape young just to force the other packs to follow them.
Animals are about as frick up if not more than humans.
Not evil
"Evil" is entirely subjective.
Nope
Well from my point of view, the Jedi are evil!
>do my actions negatively effect someone else?
>yes
>evil
>do my actions negatively effect society which peripherally negatively effect other people even on a delayed timeframe?
>yes
>evil
Seems pretty quantifiable to me, moron
It’s like NPCs are incapable of taking their thoughts past a certain point. Why is negatively impacting others evil? We have developed through the totally amoral and meaningless collision of atoms and evolution, why does morality sudden become objective and real in that process? It’s just a herd mentality to keep a society functioning because our brains are hardwired to do to. There’s no inherent truth in it
You’re arguing semantics and acting like you’re “enlightened”, you 13 year old homosexual. When natural selection favors those who propagate their genes the most and have offspring that survive long enough to do the same, then longevity of life is held at the greatest value as it increases the amount of time you have to multiply. In other words, any action by others that potentially costs you measures of health and reduce your maximum vitality decreases your ability to produce successful offspring. Essentially, some dumb homosexual running up to you with a rock and caving in your virgin cranium permanently decreases the likelihood of you getting laid (which was already close to zero) to never or leaves someone else a widow with bastard children less likely to fend for themselves. Survivability is hardwired into us so by consequence so is morality, you stupid Black person
source?
t. Nihlist
>survival is genetically hardwired into us
alright
>because our desire to survive is an objective truth, so is morality!
that's one hell of a logical leap
like saying if 1+1 = 2 that Atlantis must be real
But then just existing is evil. You take up ressources that others could use, so you harm them indirectly, unless you actively make up for it by helping them, which you can't do for the whole world population.
>Do my actions negatively affect someone else?
>Yes
>Evil
Is it evil to kill a man who is about to murder another man?
>Do my actions negatively effect society which peripherally negatively effect other people even on a delayed timeframe?
>Yes
>Evil
Is it evil to eat food given to you when you are starving, even if someone else could theoretically, at some future time, need to eat that food to survive?
Subjective. The acts you describe could be quantified as 'undesirable' or 'detrimental' to those negatively effected, but not 'evil' from the perspective of those who benefit.
Again, evil is subjective.
Source that he was going to kill the other guy?
>Is it evil to kill a man who is about to murder another man?
That’s where the second question comes in, moron. Maintaining law and order benefits society and individuals indirectly
> Is it evil to eat food given to you when you are starving, even if someone else could theoretically, at some future time, need to eat that food to survive?
What the frick is this logic? Are you genuinely moronic? By contributing to society, lets make this easy and say as a doctor, your role in that society is a net positive to others. Simply surviving isn’t acting any any evil impulse towards other people, you stupid euphoric homosexual
>Maintaining law and order benefits society and individuals indirectly
Whose law? Whose society? That of one country, or its immediate neighbor?
>Simply surviving isn’t acting any any evil impulse towards other people, you stupid euphoric homosexual
To survive, people need food, water, shelter, and security. Food, water and shelter are limited. Blindly following the genetic imperative to reproduce would cause overpopulation and create even more resource scarcity, placing massive stress on Earth's ecosystems and the law and order of human societies. As such, if too many people exist, the system gets overburdened and everyone suffers.
Look man, I’m not going to lie, I didn’t even bother reading your post. I’m sure you think you’re very smart and this is your way of coping that you’re still intellectually superior to other considering you have nothing else going for you and your academic career has been mediocre. You’re mom might call you her smart little man but nobody else has to bother with hearing you brainlessly flap your gums like she does
>Maintaining law and order benefits society and individuals indirectly
Whose law? Whose society? That of one country, or its immediate neighbor?
>Simply surviving isn’t acting any any evil impulse towards other people, you stupid euphoric homosexual
To survive, people need food, water, shelter, and security. Food, water and shelter are limited. Blindly following the genetic imperative to reproduce would cause overpopulation and create even more resource scarcity, placing massive stress on Earth's ecosystems and the law and order of human societies. As such, if too many people exist, the system gets overburdened and everyone suffers.
Huskies are always neurotic little shits swear to god
So many morons buy Huskies because they're aesthetic without realizing how much work they are.
They're tailor made to run across vast distances pulling weight. Unless you have a huge yard the dog is just going to get miserable and neurotic.
imo most pets become miserable and neurotic.
They just need engagement, but for working dogs you've got to try twice as hard because they're hardwired to be doing shit.
Pisses me off seeing huskies in my areas climate. Its never going to be cold enough for them to be comfortable out of maybe 2 months a year.
Huskies are one of the 8 or so basal breeds that are much closer to wolf than dog. Hence harder to train, high prey drives etc.
They're literally less domesticated. Especially compared to a retriever.
genuine moronation, we as humans made the concept of good and evil but we only apply it to ourselves.
>You see that hyena eating a deer alive as it's giving birth then eats the baby as the half eaten mother watches?
yeah that's natural and not evil at all but a human doing anything remotely negative to another animal, even if it's for self defense is seen as evil incarnate. Animals rape, kill and eat each other alive all the damn time but people over look it because they're "cute", see otters, ducks, dolphins (one of the smartest animals) etc. Your cats and dogs will eat your corpse if you die and they get locked with you indoors.
That's not evil.
okay then, i'll rape every your mom then rape the kid that's born 9 months lateit.
>esl latinx wants to rape with no consequence
Called it
not even south american you moron, just forgot to delete a word. And i was just giving an example of what would happen if a human does what the "innocent" animals do
Anon, you're so far below in intellectual ability that you should stop posting if you thought that was ever worth needing to say,
Except pitbulls
Pitbulls should become extinct
>was about to get back with her ex bf
patrick dodged a bullet there
what are you autistic? its obvious people view dogs as inherently good natured companions and to do something evil before a dog has wronged you brings a sense of betrayal and guilt.
>people view dogs as inherently good natured companions
Which is funny for how many men women and children are killed by their pet dogs every year.
Pitbulls aren't pets.
This, they're abominations bred for hyperaggression and murder, unfit for any kind of civilized life.
Hardly any? You're more likely to die by food poisoning
>people view dogs as inherently good natured companions and to do something evil before a dog has wronged you brings a sense of betrayal and guilt.
Because people are morons
Innocence bias. If something is suffering and also can't comprehend the situation it's worse than if something is suffering and can. This is why abortion is wrong.
also anthropomorphization
"if it's suffering, so it must feel the heinous indignity of having its dreams and future denied, its responsibilities and vows broken, its potential squashed"
Nah, it's a cow, without animal husbandry its species wouldn't even exist. At best it could spend its entire life mindlessly grazing before dying to an ankle sprain or a predator. It has no self-awareness, no real empathy, and only immediate emotions. As long as its life is not constant torture, its swift death is as meaningful and as distressing as a plant's. The mountain lion would take long hours eating it from inside out before it dies, its species always on the verge of extinction.
>Innocence bias. If something is suffering and also can't comprehend the situation it's worse than if something is suffering and can. This is why abortion is wrong.
I assume you're a vegan?
fetuses don't suffer moron
prove it moron
Then ALL meat is murder
Skipping all the innocence talk, it's because everybody's been shit on or pissed off by another human. Usually a lot, and especially people on here. You understand the inherent possibility for a human to "probably" deserve whatever they're experiencing.
I'm not sure why people have trouble understanding this
Everybody's been shit on or pissed off by animals too it's just if you are their caretaker you get to decide their fate after the events.
That's just getting back to the point of control, you can't shout at another human for doing something bad and not receive some level of retaliation while your pet is just at your mercy.
>shit on or pissed of by animal
>blame animal owner for not teaching it properly
>anger (rightfully) redirected to human
He's still right. Well, except monkeys. Those frickers absolutely deserve every bad thing that happens to them. And geese.
Most people are not sociopaths.
Found the chink
Chinks also hate their fellow human
It's because pets trigger the cute response, which is a biological imperative whose role is to protect infants; when people see dogs and cats, their brains go "that's a baby, it needs my help".
love me animals, hate umans, simple as
homosexuals like you are the reason i’m a misanthrope. you literally put the lives of parasitic lower creatures over the lives of other humans yet you’re delusional enough to put yourself above other people as the don’t live up to your arbitrary idiosyncratic standards. people like you are the reason the world is shit, the least you can do is admit that you’re the actual problem
Us nihilist huh?
what the frick are you talking about, moron? you don’t even know what a nihilist is
It's you and I bro, you and I.
Define the word and properly attribute it to anything I just said, you braindead window-licking mongoloid
Whoa cool it with the nihilism br0
you enither know the correct definitions for misanthrope nor parasite
Indulge me and tell me why do you consider them 'lower parasitic' creatures when in fact i know that they bring me pleasure with barely anything in exchange.
On the other hand we have 'people' i have to deal with on a daily base that constantly require me to sidestep their emotional issues, pamper to their needs, expect me to behave a certain way, and are not true to their true nature whatsover compared to that 'parasitic creature'.
Also why in the everloving frick would i not put myself above other people? In fact why would anyone not do that. Even people who fricking 'do put lives of others over their own' they do not do it beacuse its a cold and logical thing to do, but beacuse it brings them pleasure, thus looping the whole fricking thing back to them putting their own selfish need of trying to fix other people lives over those people.
You're an ignorant fool, and the reason the world is shit is beacuse we climbed down from the trees and kept going instead of going back up, not beacuse Gerald that you've never met gets sad when a cute kitty dies, and not when some completely irrelevant to him homosexual does.
>barely anything in exchange
Low IQ beyond belief
You are emotionally stunted and your pet won't last forever. You're a homosexual.
Neither will your mother - assuming you don't reply to this post of course
Your delusion about being a real woman won't last forever either.
You are emotionally stunted and on a Norweigen basket weaving board screaming psychoanalysis you don't understand because someone else likes animals rather than relentlessly wanting everything to die.
Intent is all that matters in life. Humans can have malicious intent, animals operate on instinct. There's no reason to love all humans as equally as you would Jerome who wants to stab you for the ten bucks in your wallet.
>humans don’t operate on instinct and unconcious biases
Lol
We’re made of the same atoms moron
97% of the human body comes from the same matter found in space rocks. Guess the stars also think and feel like you do bro, and water thinks at 70% of your capacity since it's most of our body
You couldn’t prove otherwise
>mfw the replies to this
lol irl
go feed your pet while you can, you'll have to spend more money on dopamine when it dies
your parents will use your real name on your grave
They should, I'm a proud man. With no pets.
I farm more dopamine watching you cope and knowing no matter how bad in life I get I won't be as fricked up as you, than you will in your entire life of baiting
Thanks dopaminepiggy
Other humans are parasitic lower creatures to me buddy.
People see animals as innocent on a similar level to children.
Even though pooch would happily tear apart a screaming rabbit.
But dogs especially because their "loyalty" comes across like unconditional love so people feel bad about betraying that even if it's simulated.
People feel bad about performing simulated cruelty for the same reason they feel about about thinking about performing cruel things.
Because most humans are evil that have been killing each other for territory and resources since the dawn of our existence yet our parental instincts are so extreme that our brains see cats and dogs as surrogate children we wish to protect
I hate bad faith questions
slit your throat, vermin
It's because they're truly innocent, unlike the humans who have actively gone out of their way to do evil shit.
It's why nobody bats an eye when you kill all dogs in Resident Evil either.
I love animals and get upset by seeing them in pain, but the people who sympathise more with animals than humans are textbook narcissists. Ricky gervais is a good example of that. Human beings are difficult to love because they can challenge you, annoy you, threaten your ego and self concept with their differences to you. They have a greater degree of free will to piss you off with. That’s why loving a person is a deeper love than loving an animal, you will cry more over a dead sibling or wife than your dog. Loving a person is a real commitment to a conscious being with all its flaws. Loving an animal is comparatively easy. A cat might act like a little shit but they will never ideologically challenge me, insult my personality, humiliate me etc. They will for the most part behave in a way acceptable to me and look cute, they are incredibly easily to care for and love, unlike a son or daughter who rebels against everything you believe in. Loving a human being is really difficult for someone who has a lack of empathy, because loving a person requires a certain amount of tolerance of shit that annoys you as well as an understanding that they are a conscious human who is struggling in the same ways you are and that their ideas and thoughts are not less valid despite being different. You will NEVER experience that with a hamster. You can easily empathise with something that has no opinions on anything, is pretty much servile as long as you provide for it and only experiences simple emotions. FYI this is also why most pedophiles are massive narcissists too, they basically want to frick the human equivalent of a pet
>people who sympathise more with animals than humans are textbook narcissists
Do you even think about what you write?
I've never known a narcissist that loves animals.
People sympathise with animals more because they see them like children and so their protective instincts kick in, we don't have those instincts for grown ass humans for the most part because tribes had to compete for resources so the humans that could kill other humans without guilt survived.
Same. Every good pet owner I've known is kind to people as well.
I've only seen morons and edgelords say they care more about animals than humans
So what's why I cared more when my cat died than when my family member died.
Always a pleasant surprise to see a thoughtfully written post in shithole. Well said, anon.
This is actually extremely accurate and is going to massively trigger a lot of emotionally stunted manchildren
I think they are getting tired as we were building up to that point so they might just check out.
well said
pretty good post.
>Ricky gervais is a good example of that
What do you mean by that?
Edgelord with a cat obsession
Had no idea, how embarrassing.
because I don’t like atheists LOL
Holy based
Again, this does not an objective right or wrong create. You are using amoral meaningless natural conditions to try to justify objective morality. There’s no reason any of this is inherently good outside meaningless chemicals in your brain telling you it is.
What are you even arguing here? No there’s no fricking magic cosmic rule book that says x = good and y = bad. You are genuinely moronic and I am no longer replying to you because you are one of those special morons that think they’re a genius for talking sophistry, holy shit
So you are conceding then and nothing is inherently wrong or right morally. Thanks
>The "Dunning Kruger effect" has never actually been proven or verified in anyway
>It's literally nothing more than a funny story
>Which, ironically, means that people posting about the Dunning Kruger effect are a perfect example of the Dunning Kruger effect
That is a funny story
Dude, how old are you? you taking philosophy 101 this summer semester?
>dude let me believe my lie duuuuuuuuud
>DUUUUUUUDE LOVE AINT REAL ITS ALL CHEMICALS AND SHIT MANNNNNNN WERE LIKE STARDUST AND EMPTY SPACE BRAAAAAAAAAA
>DUUUUUUUDE LOVE AINT REAL ITS ALL CHEMICALS
Not him, but it's real and it's chemicals, no?
What else could it be?
I don’t actually think this, i’m just dabbing on people who think good and bad is a thing despite the fact that they also think nothing created everything for no reason
I want to say I'm enjoying the meta talk that has come out of this thread
I can't be evil against both humans and animals in RPGs, I feel bad about it
>understanding that they are a conscious human who is struggling in the same ways you are
I always found it difficult to believe. It looks like everyone got their shit together except me.
First impression is a pretty important part of social behaviour, so you learn to keep a facade, you don't want to look weak or lash out in front of strangers.
The reality is people are often miserable in their own way.
Fair enough, I do it myself. Successfully, in fact, which is surprising.
But then I do not understand how people can like one another.
I find myself vomit-inducingly disgusting, and - provided your assessment is right - it's probably would be exactly the same for another person if the facade is removed.
Maybe it's what it means to be a narcissist, though, then it really makes sense.
>I find myself vomit-inducingly disgusting
here's your issue. learn to love yourself, then you'll learn to love others.
I need a brand new me to like myself because I'm below the most standards that I've set up.
Also I'm not sure that I know what love even is.
But thanks anyway!
It's in a metadata. Download it, open in the player and you could see it.
Asobi ni Iku yo!
then bring yourself up to those standards of yours.
it's not easy but you can do it you fricking homosexual
Thanks, homosexual.
That was a surprisingy nice thread.
weak bait
Great post
Based as frick. People who have pets really just want legal slaves. They're worthless people, through and through.
I like having my ideology challenged and I like deep conversation, but I do not like being made fun of for being ugly or having hobbies others do not like, therefore I like animals more.
Simple as that.
If animals could speak to you they likley make fun of you for being ugly and call your hobbies stupid as well.
Your enjoyment comes from the fact they can't express judgement to you.
The alternative is spending time around people who will just abuse me for things beyond my control so between the dog and being alone I'll take the dog. At least the dog appreciates when I do nice things for it and shows me affection instead of calling me an ugly moron.
>The alternative is spending time around people who will just abuse me for things beyond my control
Do they really abuse you or is it just you don't get what you want from them? Because most people are at worse apathetic.
>most people are at worse apathetic
proof?
anon was asking for proof about the guy being hated by everyone first.
Yeah, and I asked you
But they can't and your entire argument is based on fantasy. People judge the world based on the way it is, not what it could be
In an alternate universe, you've tested the Moby Dildo to the base but here you are thinking you're not a homosexual
False equivalence: depends of the race and/or breed in question.
I like dogs and cats more than people.
It's a tell-tale sign of neuroticism and social dysfunction. Those people surely have some form of anxiety/avoidant personality disorder.
>UGH I HATE HUMANS
They're always reddit bugmen who've been ostracized by peers. It's just a coping mechanism.
Animals are innocent. They might do things that we consider cruel, but they're operating on a purely instinctual level. They didn't hurt something because they wanted it to suffer, they did it because they felt they had to out of survival. Even cats, the ones that are the closest to wanting things to suffer, hunt for play because it's in their nature to practice in safe circumstances for as long as possible so they can survive in real ones. Animals don't think have the ability to rationalize. They didn't have to choose between good and bad.
Conversely, humans are perfectly capable of rationally planning out their moves. They have to make a wilful decision to be a frickwit and almost none of their butthole actions directly relate to their survival - at absolute best, it just makes surviving a little bit easier. It's not instinctual either. They do it because they can.
People empathize based on perceived innocence.
The comparison's moronic because if the average person sees a human that seems innocent getting hurt, people will still feel awful over it. Unless there's some kind of bias towards them, or something (example being race or gender of the person and how the watcher feels about it). But that's still based on context. Almost all gore the average person sees is scripted so you know it's not real, but when an animal gets hurt people will often search the comments to confirm whether it was real or if it was okay. The real gore gets the visceral reaction it should and everyone feels awful; don't think torture porn threads that appeal to the most psychotic nutjobs in a circlejerk board represents anyone. Extremes are never to be recognized as representations of anything.
>They didn't hurt something because they wanted it to suffer
Actually a lot of them do. Dolphins get the worse rap for it but as seen in
many animals will hurt others for the sake of it.
That webm was fricking moronic. It didn't prove "evil", it proved primal efficiency. Pride of lions also hoard as much food based on a food chain. They don't make a wilful decision between good vs bad, they choose the thing that gets them the most food. An evil person knows full well their actions hurt others but doesn't care because they benefited. An animal knows their actions prevent themselves from starving and isn't capable of processing the consequences for others
Dolphins are also one of the species that do random acts of kindness. They're bound by curiosity and, once again, don't make a wilful decision to be evil. They do anything perceived as evil by instinct. Dolphins bullying pufferfish is because they get high from the poison, and dolphins raping people is an urge to procreate that literally defines every species. It's very different from someone who decided they'll just do something evil that day because it's fun while knowing it'll hurt someone, yet being remorseless
Sociopaths love the animal more than people because they can only form an relationship with a being that has been selectively bred for hundreds of years just to love them unconditionally
Sociopaths love nothing but themselves. That's kind of the defining attribute of a sociopath. They just as readily torture animals as humans.
Sociopaths sound like the unyoked ubermensch amongst the cattle to me
Sociopaths only survive because our society indulges them. If we just tossed them all out into the woods to fend for themselves they wouldn't last very long.
And if trees were made of candy dentists would be rich. Do you want to keep talking about non-existant fantasies or do you want to bring the discussion back to the real world?
Sociopaths and psychopaths survive based on the cracks of society. If everyone did what they did, all the accomplished sociopaths would be killed off by others that can do the same thing, but better, yet chose not to because they're not completely psychotic
They're more likely to survive in the wild because they're willing to do anything to survive, like a naturally-occurring AI whose purpose is efficiency above anything else, but the second they're around other people they'd quickly lose that capability because they'd just find every opportunity to use others instead, make a mistake misunderstanding actual human emotion, and die because they didn't train the things the reasonable people did to live properly.
They're just like in my movies!
Psychologists are a joke.
Between a person who might feel bad about killing something innocent and a person who isn't capable of feeling emotion (defining characteristic of a psychopath) or has poor emotional control and capacity (defining characteristic of a sociopath), the latter is going to be the one more likely to kill things without a second thought.
And before you say some dumb shit like "b-but there's more to them than those", yes, and those things are the common factor between them, and if you don't meet those variables you aren't defined as a psychopath or a sociopath. You're defined as someone with aspergers (albeit the diagnoses was removed and made a generic part of the spectrum) or simply an butthole.
A lone anyone in the wild would die. That's the point. It wasn't a question of whether people could survive as a tribe, it was about who would live if they were just tossed out there. The tribal thing was what I said after, where once they're around people they can make use of they're incredibly likely to do so at the expense of their own workload. While other people in a tribe would be more likely to do something to help others because it makes them feel good to see others feel good. If you assume everyone is equally intelligent, the person without morality is more likely to succeed. It's shitty, yes, but that's why buttholes are much more likely to get ahead. Because it's efficient, even if no one likes them for it.
I never claimed it was a good attribute, I claimed it was a purely efficient attribute. Because that's literally what it is. A naturally-occurring AI desperately trying to mimic what makes everyone else around them feel genuine, failing, and inevitably being an butthole.
>They're more likely to survive in the wild because they're willing to do anything to survive
Nope. Humans are social animals and need to cooperate together to survive. A lone sociopath in the woods will struggle and the second he finds another human he will beg to be saved. Sociopaths aren't super awesome humans or anything. They're just fricked in the head. Intellectually and physically they're nothing impressive. Being a sociopath is not a helpful attribute.
That's because they are. Imagine being put on this green earth and caring for these disgusting smelly shitpiles.
They can't even communicate with you. All they can do is take.
To a sociopath, anyone who isn't narcissistic is braindead and ripe for manipulation. They're actually lesser.
Sociopaths famously feel nothing for animals, you're talking out of your ass
That anon is using the word "sociopath" when really I think he means "someone without emotional intelligence"
t. cat owning sociopath
Where is this scene from
t. my hard wiener
literally one of the most accurate early diagnosis of later sociopathy in children is torturing animals
people are mean to me
animals aren't
What’s it like being an autist?
Desensitized to violence towards humans. Everything that has violence has people getting hurt. Dogs and cats violence is rarer.
>dude u can't like animals you have to donate all your money to BLM instead
I don't think I will.
Simple as
most people arent autistic incels like yourself anon
Because they're precious and people are a bunch of gays.
Shit i'd torture you for a pack of tobbaco.
Animals are and always will be innocent and aren't evil, aside from the ones with the unholy combination of being social animals and having high intelligence like Apes, monkeys, dolphins and killer whales
The same can't be said for human beings
every infant and every child will inevitably grow to be unpure
I am desensitized to violence and I mostly just smile or laugh at the absurdity of people wanting to hurt their fellow man or some animals that do not deserve to be hurt.
Humans are fricked up and I have no hope for them, but I still want people to not hurt each other either physically or mentally, same with animals.
I find it difficult to wrap my head around why people just can't get along, it's the easiest thing in the world to do, but for the life of them, many just can't do it.
kill women
>kill all women
>get the good ending
>good ending include an unskippable 45 minutes cutscenes with incredibly graphic gay sex scenes.
nice
>game saves AFTER the cutscene but not before
people with fetuses*
>2024, playing Binding of Isaac
>kill Mom
>jump down
>You have entered Penis I
>Binding of Isaac: Retrograde
>People with uteruses
Jesus christ that's hilarious. Woman has rightfully become a slur on par with Black person.
>using the w-word
That's it, I'm cancelling you on Twitter!
I'm sorry, as a person of the penis I am prone to such irrational short sightedness. Please forgive me.
she's a 10 but she only plays singleplayer games
so she's an 11?
I never understood people’s obsession with fictional dogs, I own an actual dog and I love it but I couldn’t give less of a frick about killing a dog in a game or if a dog dies in a movie.
I've only been able to be heartless and self-serving in FTL, any other game I just do good or neutral options.
>take dog
>proceed to be an evil bastard
ids thad simble
I've never done a evil play through for evil's sake
Yes, I often play video games completely naked.
She was gonna frick the dog while holding the controller, that's why she's sad.
You just know
being mean in mass effecrt 2 made me feel bad, but I still punched that dumb b***h reporter in 3.
Much better than my shitty edit, I love you anon
LMAO
I remembered that doujin on boorus about young woman fricking her dog after long hesitation
she definitely fricks that dog
in my evil fable 2 play through for assassination missions I would make the target villager fall in love with me then marry them and kill them the same day as the marriage
>villagers that loved abuse
>some of them would gain max love for you because you killed them
I can relate
I always pick the evil route in games but I could never hurt animals in them
Why? They are all just polygons with prerecorded sound files.
Agreed
>but my pet really loves me I just know ok?
yeah but I love animals even digital ones
although I never had that problem with being evil to people in vidya
i hope that doesn't mean i'm a psychopath or something
What about anthro animals?
uhhh
i guess they are animals so I wouldn't hurt them
But they're sentient, they think like humans do, not like household pets.
don't care
I see something like pic related and all i can see is a bnuyyy
>hey anon, would you like to talk about the political climate surrounding my species and the segregation of "our kind"?
*pets you
aww it thinks it's people
KILL
*shovel*
*have sex incel*
>being a good guy is insanely difficult and challenging
I hate how rare that is, in most causes being a good boy rewards you way to well compared to doing the selfish shit. More so game romances, that shit has to have had a bad effect on the last few generations of men that expected dating to work like their vidya games
Not the doggerinooooo
The real hard mode is playing the neutral character. You almost always get the worst reward, assuming the game doesn't just have the quest fail entirely. Your missions also end up harder because you don't get the shortcuts and bonuses morality levels unlock. And since you're not solving their problems or forcing them to fall in line, all of your teammates are uncooperative shit heads.
Funny enough if you go all available neutral choices in the Dragon Age Origins you get a very high approval from Morrigan. Sten as well but that should be expect considering his personality.
Perfect thread to bait out the shitskins and edgelards
Deus ex and dishonored just murdering everyone was a ton of fun. Really made you believe you were some dude who was pissed at everyone.
Did you mean "should be" or "is"?
>Evil
Lame.
>Pragmatic
Now you're talking my language.
Pragmatism requires nuance, something practically no games have when it comes to morality.
And those that have nuance generally paint utilitarianism as immoral. If taking the long-term into perspective is considered evil then let me don the cape and wicked beard.
>Evil
shit
>Selfish
perfect
See, "evil" routes usuially include going out of your way to do some silly shit that doesn't benefit you in any way, and I fricking hate it.
Selfish just makes everyone turn on you, depriving you of a source to exploit.
If you are stupid about it, sure
They don't want to risk making the player made and to quit because they had to choose between what they wanted and what is right
I'm just saying humans can be as ignorant and dumb as anything else and can be abused just like animals and made to do great evil without them understanding it. People don't like believing that because it means they have to accept how little they understand of their world and what is going on in it.
>because they had to choose between what they wanted and what is right
Drives me mad.
This should be exactly another way around.
Being good isn't supposed to be easy.
>Being good isn't supposed to be easy.
Agreed but most people play games to be empowered snowflakes that are loved and praised. Make it a challenge where they are getting their shit kick in doing what is right and they will quit very fast.
Triangle Strategy does this. The catharsis you feel when you finally turn the tide after chapters of getting shit on is amazing.
>NOOOOO!!! You can't just keep doing what's morally correct, it's too hard!!!!
The dishonored games had the audacity to give you a bad ending for resorting to violence too much over subterfuge and people fricking hate it to this day for "punishing me for using the fun mechanics of the game".
Ironically, you can kill a fairly large number of people in those games and still get a low chaos score. You have to run around on a psychopath killing spree to really build it up.
In case of Dishonored, the problem is that I do not understand the correlation between the MC murdering his way through the game and the bad ending.
>I do not understand the correlation between the MC murdering his way through the game and the bad ending
Because there's a plague happening involving rats, if you kill a lot of people, you fed the rats, and basically made the entire city unlivable.
A couple hundred corpses make that big of a difference?
I call bullshit.
Okay, looking into it, you need to kill over 50% of the population you encounter, which involve a lot of guards.
I guess it's the fact you're basically cutting down the only people who can keep the peace during an epidemic that cause chaos.
>you're basically cutting down the only people who can keep the peace during an epidemic that cause chaos
This one actually makes sense.
It's a shame that the game didn't articulate this one very well.
Isn't there a skill that just disintegrates the corpse of anyone you kill?
More dead bodies propogates the plague.
More chaos from visible public assassinations increases paranoia in both your allies and your enemies and makes everyone much less trusting of each other.
That and you are the biggest influence on the young Princess, who idolizes you.
>Being good isn't supposed to be easy.
Yeah I fricking hate it
>be good in game, give a hobo some gold
>"oh my god Mr. Hero I love you so much now, here's this priceless sword I could have pawned off instead but now it's yours!"
>be evil in game, steal hobo's priceless sword
>*le sword is now dull and shit because you are le evil!*
There is never an incentive to being evil in games because being good will both get you allies (make encounters easier, etc.) and much more net reward. It's like "give up 10 gold now, get 1000 gold in five minutes" bullshit
Dragon Age Origins was one of the very few that rewarded you the most by going evil.
>As a male noble you can only become King of the lands if you spare Loghain thus ruining your friendship with Anders
>As a female noble you have to harden Anders heart so he will be cruel enough to be a leader
>the most powerful allies to recruit for the final battle(werewolves, and golems) require you to take evil paths
There are more than that but those two come to mind where you have to take some dark routes to get the best outcomes.
I heard DAO is a masterpiece but I cannot and will not slog through that boring ass tower section again
if on PC I'm sure you can mod or command skip that part.
Black and white morality systems fricking suck anyway.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of running evil playthroughs. Prefer to save the day than be a poopoo meaniehead sour sulky Black person.
What I don't get with the logic is "animals don't know any better" but then at the same time, people don't feel remorse for human characters in the same situation.
It's not uncommon in dystopian scenarios to have human/sentient enemies who are conditioned to be evil and never given the tools to question their authority (extreme surveillance, constant propaganda, strong punishment for thinking differently, ...). And people don't feel bad about killing them.
But a dog who get taught to kill intruders? "Oh no! That sad he didn't know better!"
You're moronic.
We project on people.
I think you're creating an imaginary person and then complaining about said person
Nobody said anything about dystopian scenarios or guard dogs.
It's just easier to feel empathy for animals than humans, it's not that deep.
That was an example.
The point was that people don't seem to apply the same standards to humans than they do with animals.
People feel bad about killing animals because they don't know any better, but don't feel bad when humans don't know any better either.
Fallout 4 doesn't have karma and really doesn't have an evil path besides just killing everybody, even then it could be considered a good deed by saving them from poor interactions with the same 3 poor Boston accents
Where's the option to eat the dog?
That's not a moral choice, it's a choice between gaining a party member or not.
I just don't buy moral heroes. Everyone knows that only by being evil and ruthless can you get shit done.
Paragon Shepard has no place being a Specter, he doesn't flaunt his authority, Renegade Shepard is like "why am I even bothering talking to you? I can legally kill every person in this bar to get what I need."
I'm like that playing every Fallout game. I'm just hardcoded at this point to react nice and be constructive to other characters around me, as opposed to being a horrible jackass to characters i don't even know yet in a game.
I wish choices could be nuanced enough where you could be selfless and be a dick or be ingratiating and charismatic but make incredibly unethical decisions.
I've noticed a trend that recent games punish you for being a good guy. Like the 1st thing that happens in Ass Red Odyssey is that if you spare some bandits, they ambush you again down the road. And then one of the first quests lets you spare some sick people which ends up in the ENTIRE ISLAND DYING.
Those aren't being the good guy. Actually listen to the quests. Letting the family live is dooming a whole town and you're told as much.
Isn't that more 'natural consequences of your actions' than being the good guy?
You spare a bunch of criminals they're not gonna just STOP being criminals because they saw the light or something.
Even more so with the sick people, you let sick people wander around a larger population and more people get sick and die, that's just how diseases work.
You should think more about the consequences of your decisions anon.
I always dismiss dogs or other companions in any game. I fricking hate listening to barking or having them getting in the way.
They're probably the 2nd best companion in terms of being expendable, loyal and easy to care for.
The best companion is ofc the horse. Lets you travel long distances, EATS FRICKING GRASS and can frick shit up in close quarters.
BARK BARK BARK WOOF WOOF BARK
Evil playthroughs are more fun though. Goody two shoes playthroughs are boring as frick.
Also, the best evil playthroughs don’t have you being evil for evil’s sake and instead have you be more of a cold hearted pragmatist.
I didn't read the rest of this thread past the OP, but this turned into an American politics thread, didn't it?
They're trying but no one is biting on abortion
Yeah, kinda pathetic of them but good on Ganker for self control for once. Glad to be wrong
Great fricking job you buttholes, now they took it as a challenge
You are the first to bring it up actually. Most of the thread is getting into subjective topics of morals and existence. Only American midwits would think it's political.
I hate games with any kind of morality meter. Just let me decide things individually and let people react to it in different ways.
>evil route means you have to make all choices evil
Pretty sure Satan likes his dog Cerberus, and any villain people care about have at least a few appreciable traits so that they are not parodies. Essentially, the players doing this are aiming to write the most unsubtle story, so usually the devs will direct them by forcing answers that aren't all black-or-white. Of course, a better solution is to offer more dialogue options so that you can write your character more precisely.
cerberus is greek mythology
lol. Satan has many names and he is known to every culture. It all began when man ingested fungi and was shown things in secrecy. All cultures have seen the mysteries, but gave them different names. I dont care if greeks talked about it, it's Satan's dog guarding the gates of Hell.
hades is not an evil entity
When compared to his brothers, Zeus and Poseidon; Hades is a fricking a saint.
>Satan and his dog cerebus
Cerebus is Greek mythology not Christian.
Hades is not a Satan analog as he's not evil, just as much of a dick as the rest of the pantheon though.
This. Hades is just portrayed as doing his job managing the afterlife and all the dead people.
Though it's hard to visualize due to most modern religions having to portray their gods as the ultimate good but ancient gods were generally much more "We worship them because they're fricking powerful and could kill us whenever they want" rather than because they were necessarily good.
The best way to do a “good” route is to force the player to take short term losses that eventually lead to long term gain, while the evil route should be a bunch of short term gains and instant gratification.
Essentially, good should be hard but rewarding, while evil should be easy but lead to you having to constantly watch your back.
This. I blame Bioware for instilling this mindset of “all evil choices or all good” in players.
I came into this thread with anger in my heart and a chip on my shoulder. It's true. It's true and I won't deny it. I came here, and I thought to shoot this comic down. To call it just another pitiful, unfunny, untrue Dorkly strip. You think I haven't been around the block? Look, this is not my first rodeo, I've seen these gamer comics these so-called LOL threads. I know what I'm getting into. But then I look at this comic, and what I see is not quite what I expected. I see... the truth. I see a young artist capturing the moral quandary all gamers have been faced with. And what's this? Simple, rustic, and most importantly, relatable artstyle with succinct dialogue... storytelling through our heroine's expression alone in our fourth panel, delivering a perfect punchline... this is masterful. This is what I have been wanting from videogames comic for so long... Kelsie Brumet, hmm? Well, I for one will be keeping an eye on the young Ms. Brumet. I do believe, and don't think me out of line for saying this, I do believe this young bud will flourish into one of the finest storytellers of our time.
>The practical incarnation is evil and selfish
>The paranoid incarnation is evil and crazy
>The first incarnation was even more evil
Imagine playing a good nameless one.
Good is unironically relative here.
It's more of an butthole vs a nice guy.
The only RPG that comes to mind where the evil playthough makes perfect sense from a narrative standpoint is MotB.
I've posted Black & White for a reason. I distinctly remember that my castle was all spiky on my first playthough.
Same logic should be applied here
> will quit very fast
Or they will choose a quick and dirty path to empower themselves and get to the end that way.
I honestly don't think the story of PS:T works basically at all unless you play Good. The whole point of the story is about finding atonement and accepting your sins, even those that you didn't commit yourself.
An Evil character accepting his own sacrifice for the sake of the multiverse seems weird, and you'd lose out on like 2/3rds of the quests unless you're going to be a very helpful Evil person.
Imagine being so mentally broken you can do bad things in a video game
Imagine being an NPC who can't involve themselves in the game they play.
>can't discern between reality and fiction
>literally unable to draw the distinction
>just completey non-comprehending of the difference
>no, YOU are broken
oke
What I find funny about moral choices is how it's actually turning people opportunistic
Nobody really act good in video games just for the sake of being nice, it comes from the fact you know you'll get something out of it.
>People should either be caressed or crushed. If you do them minor damage they will get their revenge; but if you cripple them there is nothing they can do. If you need to injure someone, do it in such a way that you do not have to fear their vengeance.
― Niccolo Machiavelli
>"Alexa, what happened to Machiavelli?"
Midwit. Machiavelli wrote that book about things he disliked in politics, then much sociopathic CEO art of war gays took it as a guidebook.
>game has good option and evil option
>evil option is always moronic
GEE WONDER WHY PEOPLE PREFER BEING "GOOD" GUYS
Actually there are as many cases where being good is moronic.
>game has good option and evil option
>evil option locks you out of content
That’s the real reason for me
I could be a piece of shit in kotor but I could never betray Mission and Zaalbar. Her crying breaks my heart every time. I can torture Bastila until the end of time however.
How far did you make it, Ganker?
1- Salutations fellow humans and elves (good)
2- I don't like you, die! (evil)
do rpgs really?
You're only ever a button press away from a diplomatic incident.
1- Salutations fellow humans and elves (truth)
1- Salutations fellow humans and elves (lie)
I would love to see the [Lie] as a generic modifier, not an explicit dialogue option.
Like, Shift+click is a lie.
I'd love a fantasy RPG that made being racist the wrong choice.
Like you are given the option to either push out this group of refugees or accept them, but turns out blindly accepting a large foreign group was actually a bad idea and it gets hundreds of people killed with the game basically telling you 'lol you fricked up, your settlement is in ruins and it's all because you didn't think about what might happen if you just let these people in unconditionally'.
Would never happen though since modern audiences are so programmed to think that 'inclusiveness = good' that even suggesting that maybe there are some people you DON'T want to include for very good reasons is considered the height of bigotry.
Not possible, would just get cancelled for racism.
Fallout 3 has a quest like that. None of the choices result in a 100% happy outcome.
Which one?
Tenpenny Tower
and did that ever light the communities into a flame. They quest was seen as bad showing you how the average player thinks. They don't want hard or difficult choices in their games, they want to just be a superhero and special.
People shit on the quest because killing the ghouls after they murdered everyone is considered bad and Three Dongs shit on you on the radio about it.
Exactly! I loved that, you could do what is "right" and still get met with a face full of negativity for it. But the fact it upset people and even in your case show issue with it brings the light the dark truth that players don't want to play good, they want to be told they are being good. They want affirmation for their actions and as such show they don't give a damn about right and wrong so much as just being called virtuous.
It's more weird by the fact he also aknowledge that the ghouls basically murdered everyone before that.
That being said, I just think it's Three Dongs being a massive c**t
And his karma is Good, kek
Three Dog is a hippy who’s all for anti-racist stuff. No shit he wouldn’t be happy. The residents of Tenpenny consider you a hero if you kill the Ghouls though. The take away of that quest is that you can’t please everyone.
True. Personally, I find quests like Tenpenny Tower to be interesting character studies of most players. When you don’t give players a clear “good” option vs. a clear “bad” option, the choices tend to be much more varied between players. Otherwise, most people just go for the good option, with the only people going for the evil option just being people who want to have fun being an edgelord.
I also think there’s an uncomfortable truth most people don’t want to face that they’re likely not as good a person as they think they are. Everyone is capable of evil, the only difference between people is how far you have to push them to get them to resort to evil.
>think there’s an uncomfortable truth most people don’t want to face that they’re likely not as good a person as they think they are.
I think it's sadder than that and people don't want to face they care more about appearing good than actually being good.
I feel the sign of a great morality system is when players are able to embark on a Spec Ops: The Line tier descent into madness where it becomes increasingly difficult for them to keep up the facade of being “good”. At which point, the players can decide to either simply be pragmatic or go full psychopath and embrace the insanity. To do this, I feel the evil option really needs to be the quick and easy way, while the good option requires a ton of hard work and dedication to your own sense of morality. If a player wants to RP as Jesus, then it should be required that they have the patience and unshakable morals of Jesus.
I agree with you but the masses don't want that. They want to be told they are good and wonderful for parroting whatever is ask of them.
That might be the only good quest in Fallout 3. Another good one is the Stratovarius quest but that's all about the vault's atmosphere
I often try to be evil but can't do it. Doesn't help that in most games the good choices are objectively better, and evil means worse rewards and harder scenarios just for the sake of larping as evil.
why is she naked?
where are her breasts?
FLAT
mutts btfo
>reddit post
opinion discarded. go back.
>Reddithog
who makes these?
MM as her BFFs is hilarious.
>it's another episode of Gankerirgins try to discuss morality despite not having opened a phil book once in their lifes
>t.philosophy teacher trying to save his job
I'm a NEET
based. read sources of the self as well
see above
I read after virtue so I already know secular “ethics” is a moronic scam
I'm reading technological society by ellul right now, what philosophy books do you recommend?
>you cannot have morals if you haven't read all the phil books
Fair enough. I'm trying, though.
lost the debate that hard huh?
Naturalist?
Post modernist?
>I need to be told how to think and cannot comprehend causality without a wrangler to direct me
If you need to read about it you shouldn't be discussing it.
I think reading about it is all good and fine but I'm not a fan of thinking credentials are needed when chewing the fat on a online board
Hey man I said need, not want.
Only because you don't have any
Right, no one here likley has them for these topics, we are just sharing thoughts and ideas about said topics. You seem to be upset about that for some reason.
They're screaming the word "Black folk" and cumming to scat. It's disingenuous of you to claim you come here for discussion
Where do you think we are?
Question is why are you being this disingenuous then? Why even bring it up if you believe what you typed?
I'm not. See, this is the problem with the uneducated
It's hard to betray this mug for the pirates
Christ, talk about arguing in bad faith. You want to genocide entire races, literally, you rightoid piece of shit. Go give a gun a blowjob like your leader you slimy waste of oxygen.
When i first got fable and i learned you could be evil i hit the dad in game and i immediately regretted it because how could i hit the man who despite his wife being dead still did everything in his power to be a good father to his 2 kids, i can't be evil in games unless the game is like overload
>Last enemy in a group has the fear of fricking God put into them and they flee or beg for mercy
>nearly always let them go
Anyone else?
If it's just some mook or anything like that. Also didnt apply to Skyrim because they just do the
>I YIELD I YIELD
>never should have come here
Assassin's Creed 1 was good for this. It's just some guard, ive got no personal grudge against like 90% of the enemies.
I love this option too, but I always chase the guard and kill them before they escape. I like being an edgelord who leaves no witnesses.
Kingdom Come Deliverance have this system, and letting enemies go don't give you anything, and in fact forfeit all the loot they're carrying, so it's purely out of your goodwill that you spare them.
Being good in video games always means one of those two options
- slaughter every "bad" person
or
- let everything slide and and be a cuck
I don't want to kill but I want to screw with people who deserve it. Stealing from them should be fair game.
What is really frustrating is when the game then punishes you for not hardlining one or the other, as if picking and choosing a response based on the situation is for pussies.
LOL
Why do liberals give some much of a frick about Ukraine? Is it literally because “russia evil cause they hacked the 2016 election!!!”?
war bad
if you werent an amerilard you'd realize that a war in europe is dangerous as frick
i live in eastern europe and everything is becoming more fricked economically-wise at an alarming rate and war is one of the reasons for it
I'm inherently biased because I'm from Russia, but it looks like you're for the most part fricked due to having a unified monetary policy, yet separate fiscal policy.
Coutries like Greese, Cyprus and Spain have a lot of a bad debt and don't want to *actually* do anything about it.
Last time they were saved by fat cats like Germany buying the bad debt, and now this problem has risen its ugly head again.
The second problem is sanctions, which prevent you from consuming enough resources.
The war itself is a comapratively minor factor. In a matter of fact, your military contractors making a great wealth by emptying their warehouses and selling the old stuff.
>The second problem is sanctions, which prevent you from consuming enough resources.
really? thanks I didn't realize!
>The war itself is a comapratively minor factor. In a matter of fact, your military contractors making a great wealth by emptying their warehouses and selling the old stuff.
what are you arguing here? taxpayers won't even see this money
>taxpayers won't even see this money
Sure they will. Government taxes these war profits and spends those taxes in various ways that benefit the citizens.
>really? thanks I didn't realize!
Sanctions that you yourself implemented.
I totally understand why, but complaining about the bleeding *after shooting yourself in the leg* is... a bit hypocritical.
> what are you arguing here?
It helps the economy as a whole.
Whe war itself is a net middle-sized nuisance for the economy.
>Sanctions that you yourself implemented.
european union implemented those, and we are even more fricked without it
>It helps the economy as a whole.
what helps? corrupted military big fish and politicians taking 90% of the money they made by selling some rusty ass tanks? when there is a war, a common civilian always loses
if your monke president didn't ape out we wouldn't be here paying for gasoline at 200% markup, but of course this is everyone's fault but yours.
dumb vatnik, go suck oligarch wiener
> european union implemented those
I was under the impression that I was talking with someone who lives in the EU.
> what helps? corrupted military big fish and politicians taking 90% of the money they made by selling some rusty ass tanks? when there is a war, a common civilian always loses
Common civilian always loses period.
>if your monke president didn't ape out we wouldn't be here paying for gasoline at 200% markup, but of course this is everyone's fault but yours
It's a cascade falilure of several systems.
My point is that, theoretically, had nobody implemented sanctions, barely anything would've happened economically.
It's all politics. The war itself is a minor thing.
And if we're talking about the US, the really big problem economically is QE and now QT coupled with the political instability and the green energy program.
I've already adressed EU earlier with the bonds situation.
You may not know this but most of us in east europe grew up with parents/grandparents telling us horror stories about how shit it was under russian rule. This counts a lot for why we oppose Russia even if just a few years ago most of us couldn't tell ukraine appart from you guys. Any russian influence, even indirect, is dreaded.
I understand that and I've already adressed it
If you read the thread, you will see that the initial point that I've responed to was about the economy.
>And here we see the phenomenal combination of stupidity, ignorance of the world at large and blatant lack of basic empathy that chracterizes the common amercian specimen
>It is unclear what precisely prompted the retrograde development this particular sub-family suffered after it split from it's european ancestor
not my problem
>you have to care 24/7 about slavs fricking each other because you just do okay?
How does the rabbi's cum taste?
We have to get our own morons to stop trying to redefine what a woman is before we start worrying about what's happening on the other side of the ocean bro.
You are actually fricking moronic if you don't understand that for actual CENTURIES now, any US citizen is looking for every possible excuse to frick Russia over. It's 50% "war (in the West) is bad" and 50% "lmao frick Russia"
>gunman at large
If it's in the US, you could say the gunman is extra large
Honest question: do these people really feel crushing despair from all this? Am I dysfunctional for treating all this with a "Oh, ok" or are these folks just addicted to catastrophizing in a performative manner?
>much easier to build evil karma than good by orders of magnitude
>evil powers are all much better than good powers
>the companion you get as an evil character has more personality than the good equivalent
>evil ending is much more emotionally powerful and interesting
Is there a game out there with a bigger failure of a moral choice system? There's barely any reason not to be evil in this game at all.
It was like this in 1 too. Being evil got you special black lightning when you hit a certain point, being good got you... Nothing.
bullshit, the lightning stream power good guys get is the most broken
>Game makes a point to explain that it's morality system is more nuanced and gray than "good and evil"
>It's actually very black & white, with the evil side literally giving you the ability to stomp on puppies when you max out the meter.
Bioware always failed at that shit. Mass Effect Paragon was suppose to be like Obiwan and Renegade was to be like Han Solo, but in the end it just turned into Paragon was take everything up the ass with a smile while Renegade was rape everything that moves and call it shit for it.
I think they landed it right in DA:O but everyone b***hed about how they couldn't just use good boy points to get their love interests so it got scrapped after that. I honestly put more blame on players because Bioware always leaned into what the majority wanted or did.
I've never once used the dog companion in any playthrough of Fallout 3/NV.
They're moronic even compared to the regular companion AI and spoil any attempt at stealth.
>he has never walked into the sunset with dogmeat at his side while drinking a refreshing bottle of NukaCola©
ngmi
>stealth
What are you a fricking virgin?
Stealth builds are the most OP builds in any Bethesda game.
Bioware are hacks that can’t comprehend morality beyond “messiah” and “edgelord”. More at 11.
Comics like these are often exaggerated for dramatic/comedic effect. Most normal people don’t give a frick about world events unless it directly affects them. The people who do give a frick are mentally ill people who need to stop watching the news and go outside for once.
>Stealth builds are the most OP builds in any Bethesda game.
The fact that you would respond seriously to what I said is hilarious.
Test
Why is he naked?
It's summer.
>Game has multiple choices
>Replay the game for all the "evil" choices
>100% of them are just "Have something happen" or "Completely end a 3 hour quest line before it starts."
It's kinda funny how only Eastern writers actually bother to show what real evil looks like while Westerners nowadays simply try to ignore the darker undertones (unless the story is purposefully made of nothing but dark undertones). We have long moved away from things like showing actual slavery in a story for all ages. Your character can be a maniac, but he has to be an equal opportunity maniac, or the audience might feel a bit too icky, and we don't wanna ruin the pretend-egalitarian vibes.
>every villain must be a sympathetic villain with multiple humanising scenes
It's an annoying trend. Give me an absolute bastard I can enjoy hating.
That's just because the writers don't want to make the villain "too evil". Even when he's supposed to be an unrelenting psychopath (like the Joker). Even if he's technically capable of true evil, like torture or rape, we never actually see any of it. And what's far more important, we don't see the consequences of such actions from the victim's perspective. Because then it gets "too real", and "you shouldn't talk about these things". It's an unspoken taboo in Western fiction, that probably goes back to its Christian background, which is why we don't see it in Eastern fiction nearly as much.
>be bad man
>consume media with bad people
>hope for good things for those bad people because you're a bad man
>they don't deserve to suffer for their actions
>you don't deserve to suffer for your actions
>they're innocent
>you're innocent
>determinism
I got bored towards the end, but these types are a complete fricking mess
>don't see it in Eastern fiction nearly as much
You mean in Japanese fiction. Xianxia, Wuxia, and every other style of non-Jap Eastern fiction bases half their plotlines around someone getting raped and another person relentlessly killing the person's entire family tree for the action of one butthole. The villains are shown doing bad things but obviously they don't turn into some rape-smut fanfic, but they certainly don't dodge it either.
It was so bad that most web novels (the main source for Chinese/Korean fiction) have had a forced culture change because people are tired of seeing the same moronic plot points for why the main character is in a never-ending loop of bad guy does something horrendous > main character kills him > bad guy's even worse father comes for vengeance (plus promises do even worse things to the main character's loved ones) > that guy dies > grandfather comes out > repeat
I meant you don't see these taboos in Eastern fiction.
>go the evil route
>90% of the NPCs are essential
AAAAAAAAAAA
>NPCs are essential
It's funny to me that Betheda gets all the shit for this when it's what all RPGs do. The way RPGs normally work is just they completely disable your ability to do combat at all when you're around character they don't want dead. There's no point in KOTOR2, for example, where you can just turn around and kill Kreia. The game just will not allow you to do it. And yet it's only Bethesda that gets shit for this. Cyberpunk had one that really pissed me off recently where one character is about to murder another character and the game only allows you to attempt to talk them down and if you fail you just stand there and watch the murder happen. You cannot harm them in any way to stop the murder. Your ability to enter combat is completely disabled.
You can attack but not kill feels so much worse than not being able to attack.
Ganker arguments is always the dumbest people vs common senses
>reddit watermark
>reddit watermark
>link to instagram, twitter and patreon
The four horsemen of the art apocalypse
Dogs are a reddit animal and anyone who obsesses over them has overdosed on estrogen.
i really do feel like pets are here for low tier human beings
what a waste of time, money and emotion, just a fricking waste
What a surprise, another thread that's full of basement dwelling morons talking about politics and religion as if they know shit about anything.
The free forum is the only place truth can flourish.
You love the lie and so you love the artificial walls of academia and the consensus of authority.
Humans are complex irl and animals are simple irl
Humans are simple in games and animals are simple in games
I'm not choosing between a dog and a human, I'm choosing between a dog and pic related
Feels good knowing I don't have a walking shitting emotional time bomb crutch walking around in my home.
I've never met a pet owner that was worth keeping around.
Human life is more important than any animal. Remember.
Black person lives don't matter, sorry
I could torture you to death and immediately befriend your dog by feeding him chunks of you.
Kill yo selves
you can't even find your dick while standing edgy boy
My ghost will be on a floor, wheesing, while your scitsophrenic ass will be trying to feed chunks of me to my non-existent dog.
No matter how bad your life is, you aren't this psychotic moron lmao
>petgays seething after being reminded nobody but them cares about their extra job
>you’re and edgy psycho if you make a point of human life and companionship being more valuable than a dogs!!
Quite the opposite actually!
No, you're an edgy psycho talking about cutting up animals and feeding them to owners and finding every excuse to try and insult them for having a pet
have a nice day. Your life isn't worth a tenth of what you claim all human lives apparently equally are
Too low IQ to even repeat what I actually said, or deliberately avoiding the point he can’t refuse?
ITT: neglected moron screams at his monitor that society has to love him more than something that actually benefits the people he's screaming at because he says so
lol
cope
>psychotic moron measures the value of the world by it’s personal utility
My doggo is so cute and innocent once I satisfy all it’s needs and bankroll it’s survival…