Quote:These muslims WERE victims by their own standards.

Then let them stay ( or return ) to where those standards apply. In their own countries they can merrily bombard blasphemers with rocks till their hearts content.

However, when they come west and seek to impose their bullshit on us well, they can go fuck themselves and their god.

Oops.... I'm a blasphemer!

it seems bizarre to me. SI have gained a fantastic reputation over the years for making the game as minimal and realistic as the current technology allows, holding back 3D for so many years in order to put full time and effort into the much more important feature of making a realistic game of football play out. it showed great integrity and modesty.

so why didn't they keep this philosophy for the player conversations? we are decades away from the kind of technology that can accurately replicate human interaction at anything like a realistic level. it is absolute folly to try it now! of course it is a failure. it would be fantastic to have a feature like this that worked well, but nowhere in the world has it been achieved: accurately portraying not just the depth and range of one human's emotions, but the whole spectrum!

SI have got a bit too big for their boots. the sooner they take this out the game the better.

What on earth are you talking about?!?

isn't it obvious? if you can't find the message within that then that's your problem.

No, it is not obvious.

(November 7, 2010 at 12:05 pm)Paul the Human Wrote: I disagree. They were not victims. They had been disagreed with and it displeased them, so they cried victim. Disagreeing with someone's views openly does not equate to victimization unless it inspires some sort of action against them directly, in which case it has only lead to victimization.

I just disagreed with something you believe. Do you feel victimized? Of course not. The scale may be different, but the concept remains the same.

No, it is not "disagreeing" on the existence of God or not. Blasphemy is not only saying that God does not exist, it is also speaking AGAINST God. Both of these things, to them, are insults. It is insulting their way of life, their culture, and the God who they worship. You have to realize that different things offend different people.

If you had said "i disagree, and you are an idiot for thinking that", then i may have been offended in some way: this is what i am talking about. It is not just a simple argument like a political party or the new Star Wars movie where people can hold different views: in religion, insulting your God is insulting you, and saying your God doesn't exist is an insult to Him.
If you can't understand that, there is nothing i can do for you.

---

also, i think ScienceIsTheOnlyLord has finally gotten insane.

(November 8, 2010 at 8:40 am)Rwandrall Wrote: in religion, insulting your God is insulting you,

No, it isn't. It may be perceived that way by the members of said religion, but that is a sign of their own arrogance and insecurities. Not my problem -or- my fault.

(November 8, 2010 at 8:40 am)Rwandrall Wrote: and saying your God doesn't exist is an insult to Him.

Oh noes! I have insulted a fictional character. I also think Jack Sparrow's hair is disgusting. I hope he isn't too upset about my saying so.

(November 8, 2010 at 8:40 am)Rwandrall Wrote: If you can't understand that, there is nothing i can do for you.

I understand it just fine. I simply disagree, and there is nothing either of us can do about that. Heheh.

(November 8, 2010 at 8:40 am)Rwandrall Wrote: also, i think ScienceIsTheOnlyLord has finally gotten insane.

On that we agree completely.

Yeah I'm seeing a lot of black pots.

(November 8, 2010 at 12:55 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Yeah I'm seeing a lot of black pots.

Care to elaborate, fr0d0? As far as I can see, that statement, as it stands, doesn't add anything whatsoever to the discussion.

People whine like babies unless it's them throwing the stones. Kinda par for the course here lately.