Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "TheQuartering"
channel.
-
12
-
11
-
9
-
9
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
As a hardline Christian, we expect it:
"Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets." - Luke 6:22-24
“Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you." - Matthew 5:11-12
“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: ‘They hated me without a cause.’ “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning." - John 15:18-27
It is all of us that persecuted Christ by our sins, but those who ignore make themselves Pontius Pilate, who was condemned in the moment he ignored justice. (whether he stayed condemned is not made clear, but in such moments God despised the actions of Pilate as he does all all our sinners like homosexuals and liars) Those who commit the acts of evil such as lies and persecution against God's servants, they are the ones who are like the soldiers and Hebrews, many who were cursed and destroyed. There had not been a stone left standing of Jerusalem, so of their houses will there not be a stone left for them, for they too will be condemned. This is a warning, your judgement has not yet come, it is for the sake of others that these things have been said, not for my own benefit, for I am no more saved by what I preach but instead I am given love to grant upon others, even when they seek my death, this is how a servant of God must respond.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tkps
"Since when did conservative political views equate to religious ones?"
All conservative principal is explicitly based on Christian evangelicalism, you can't have any concept of conservative principal without at least ripping off basic Christian precepts except if you lack other precepts you are a fake conservative, conservatism requires adherence to basic precepts that requires a large amount of Christian adherence even if you otherwise don't care. This is why conservative politicians always make very fake pleads to God as conservatism is inherently Christian-based. (even if its stupid how they try to secularize it, hence why I despise a conservatism) You can't conserve anything without that either.
"I thought it was a preferred style of government & economics."
They don't actually agree on economics and their civics rationalization is neither standard in any manner, there are plenty of socialist leaning "conservatives" and then many libertarian or anarchist leaning conservatives, they don't even entirely unify under "small government" that much, which is why libertarianism always opposes an association with conservatism, libertarians aren't all that conservative in most cases.
"The one thing I do note happening a lot there is the more outwardly loudly religious someone proclaims to be the more likely they are to be as human as the next person."
Anyone who claims self-righteousness is as immoral as anyone else, a honest person would tell you the only thing we are all equal in is how depraved we are and what our judgement for that depraved should be. Nobody wants equality however at that level because then we'd all be equally dead. However just because someone has a moralistic ideal they speak of does not inherently mean they are self-righteous, too many people confuse that and its frustrating, like when I tell people "I'm as bad as they come but here is this standard above us all that I still aim to be like and I'm telling you need to as well for your own good" and I'm told I'm being self-righteous. I'm so incredibly tired of people thinking having an objective ideal everyone should strive to fulfill is somehow self-righteous.
"The difference being they declare how disgusting the rest of us are if we act human."
You can criticize the degeneracy of humanity while still being part of it so long as your ideal isn't within yourself, if you aim for a higher ideal and admit to being a degenerate at times that's not a problem, the problem is if you're a hypocrite who openly and quite constantly speaks against something (specifically against the actions of people doing wrong) only to willingly partake in that exact thing in disregard to what you say. Like I mess up, I have things I won't directly criticize others since I do those things as well, I'll merely give a simple "here is what God says and here is how and why it is bad" and leave it at that.
"So when they invariably do the same they cry into their microphone & beg God's forgiveness."
I don't need to ask forgiveness to God publicly, those who do that don't generally care about God at all. What you do say is I'm sorry to those who you've hurt and publicly profess only that you screwed up without excuse. Anything more and you'll probably not be able to receive forgiveness.
"However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. They should not be confused."
Everything regarding how you live and what drives you to live is still relegated to politics, and conservatism is still based around Christian ideology, even if in many cases its a religious facade, its still stealing from the Christian worldview to justify itself, its however least more honest about it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
christopher bryan V Entitlement is bad because it means you believe you have the right to something. You don't have a right to anything, only the perception that you do exists and its the lie that creates the worst behaviors of mankind, its pride in its purest form, the most evil of man's nature.
Youtube is only damaging in overabundance, to which most people have a problem with, reality is that most people are crap and probably should just straight up be stricken dead, as once said "90% of everything is shit" and that just as much applies to people, however that's not a justification for acting or submitting to that shit. If you're too weak to pick yourself up and don't want help however, then perhaps it is justified to let you wither away weak and helpless like the crap you are. After all that's what life really is, getting beat down as everyone deserves, and only a small percentage are willing to get back up.
If you can't vote with your wallet and leave everything else to die then you are merely another weak man killing the rest.
Not everyone is hypocrites when it comes to politics and morality, but the ones in power, the ones with money, and/or the faces you see at the forefront generally are. Then again having grounded morals tend to make you a walking contradiction by mere existence, its either that or retarded nihilism who probably deserve the hell they'll get anyway.
No its not, and the only reason any "necessary evil" exists is because nobody questions them, nobody stands up or demands righteousness or justice, its compliance that breeds evil and it is your weakness that prolongs the death and destruction. I will hold you accountable just for rationalizing it as if its justifiable when it isn't. The only thing justified is the willingness to fight. After all if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Honestly, I couldn't give a damn about "sexual harassment" because you can't ever tell if the women instigated it, and, granted the dude portrayed himself as decent looking enough, there's a high likelihood they'd either not care or be into it since rich well off dudes with decent looks are the epitome of sexual desire for women. (whether any individual would admit it, that's just how it works, which is usually why women will almost never date someone below their economic rank in society) And even if they're married, that's a moral problem, but nobody treats it as a social one (despite the fact it is, but that's not what those people think) and leftist especially don't have justification to scream harassment.
Also I really would prefer if female characters would be feminine and female, desiring feminine things, being of the female mindset, thinking in the feminine way, and of course looking female as well, its hard to write that as a dude, a women is much more effective at feminine characterization simply because the female brain operates differently to a male brain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
All it takes for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing, Kyle didn't let evil thrive, not only did he have a right to be out there, he needed to be out there, if not for him, there would have been much worse things happening, and its also a good thing that unrepentant evil men were paid their dues thanks to Kyle, its a pity for life needing to be spilled, they should've been killed by the government, but since they wouldn't I am glad justice was served by Kyle at least. If justice won't be serviced by a court, it is by the arm of the community that they should die. (and I'm not asking for pyscho mobs to go around killing convicts and ex-convicts, I'm saying put them in a vigilante trial where if proven complicit in murder they are sent before the block and axe, they are still innocent till proven guilty and it should be only on the account of two to three independent corroborating witnesses, but those who do such evil things should be put down if proven without an minutia of doubt)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Never really understood how anyone with half a brain can regard the argument of a CEO making a massive wage, the executive is performing an executive business, of course he's to be payed highly, its not a job anyone can just do and its not a job that almost anyone working in the company can achieve. And that aside if the CEO was part of the founding members of the business that's what happens, you spend most of your business years at the beginning making no money and barely scraping by, even those that are lucky suffer much worse problems if this doesn't happen, this is such a dumb argument.
Also here's why they don't treat them better: Nobody is being taught that employment is a competition, and there is no expectation that the employer needs to compete, if people with experience would decide more to find better paying jobs from better companies (like EA as an example does) they'd be able to move up the financial ladder, gain more experience, get more money, and reduce their financial worries, and it would promote employers act so as to increase employee loyalty.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wait, how is Doom left wing? And how is any Japanese game left wing? Zelda and Mario are pretty damn conservative in essence, Mario and Zelda is about a dude working for, fighting about, and trying to overcome obstacles for a woman. Also how is Halo left wing? Its a militaristic, anti-resistance FPS with masculine super soldiers, outside of a few female secondary soldiers that rarely ever show up, its very much conservative in ideal, retards have called it xenophobic for less, and it doesn't necessarily argue that extermination isn't always the best to eliminating a problem, only that it is ineffective this time. Also spider-man is pro-police.
1
-
@Friendlyfirefish Why don't they ever use Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Wiccas, Shintos, Animists, Fetishists, Neonorse Paganism, Neohellenism, or any other religion then? These are all religions with religious leaders that can (and have had people) control populations and dictate societal directions, including in the US, and none of them are ever portrayed in Hollywood. Or how about non-religious cults like those based on the Unabomber? Yes luddite terror cults do exist too, that's literally what luddites were and they still exist. Or what about Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and Scientologists? All these religions have had these exact type of issues and are already categorized officially as cults yet no one ever associates them with villains. Also what Christian was a good guy in the TLOU show? There's been no other Christians in the show.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Friendlyfirefish
"I also didn't say there were good Christians on the show. I just said there were more people who weren't Christian who were bad than there were Christians who were bad."
That doesn't fix the issue, none of the other people had any religion or ideology they openly proclaimed (for which also relates to regular people) except for David, who had an open ideology and religion and made continuous reference to Christianity, and he's the only one.
"I mean, the show basically has little to no good characters. Even our main characters aren't good."
This is not a valid argument, this is intentionally misdirection, we know David is one of the worst humans in the show, he's a pedophile and a cannibal, and now he's a cult leader who indoctrinates people, relative morality is a copout, you don't get to hide behind such a vapid defense when he's the only one portraying Christianity in the show. Where is a decent Christian man if Christianity is supposed to be so prominent? Nobody sees Ellie and Joel as indecent, else they wouldn't care about them at all, it doesn't matter what they do if everything they do isn't a strict violation of morals because its self-defense to protect yourself from potential threats you can't assess, David does is actively torturing and harming people and is doing much worse now in the show.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Honestly TLOU2 deserves a worse score when you factor the only reason you play the game is the story, nobody plays Naughty Dog games for their gameplay, even more its not original nor interesting, and it doesn't do anything that deserves a better score. (and nobody should be arguing that making good graphics deserve a good score, unless you're sitting at the bleeding edge like Crysis was, where you're doing crazy imaginative things to innovate the market and experiment there, maybe you can argue it, but just saying it looks good is expected especially from Naughty Dog, it doesn't have an original aesthetic so looking good is still wholly unoriginal, and should not be praised for that, it did not innovate and does not deserve a higher score)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The problem with black Santa has to do with the fact that its anti-tradition, and that's the problem conservatives have, Target is doing things just to spite tradition. Now as a Calvinist I despise the very concept of Santa and the fairy tale lies we tell kids, but even despite that I understand the outrage because I can actually sympathize with the desire to preserve cultural tradition, and Santa is traditionally white, or if you're really gonna be a pedantic ass, Saint Nicholas was a Mediterranean, meaning he was bronze skinned like Romans, Tunisians, Egyptians, Jews, Greeks, and southern Spainards. Saint Nicholas has an interesting story as well because he actually went and punched Arius (the biggest heretic of the 3rd century) in the face according to tradition, for he was a zealous man for God. But the fact they are pissing all over western tradition is rightly gonna stir anger, if you can't understand that still I'd question if you really human to be honest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@XxTW0F4C3DxX Yeah, a lot of metal can be quite an acquired taste, though there are a lot of musicians and bands that think high technical skill or high complexity instantly gives them something better then anything else, which actually annoys the hell out of me because 9/10 times they butcher the soundscape and way over-bloat the headspace, (which is a shame when the ideas and sounds are otherwise quite interesting, looking at you Black and Death Metal) leaving nothing in the song itself to shine, as well as making it practically impossible for the audience (or least most audiences) to understand. A good public commercial musician, someone building music that they plan to release to the public commercially, should be looking for a balance on all these concepts as well. This is also why I say Djent is so poor comparative to music that we from the likes of Soundgarden, Avenged Sevenfold, or Dream Theater. (and I still think DT overdoes it) That's not dissing it, but if anyone in the genre does want mainstream appeal, they need to be more radical and revolutionary musically beyond attaching bits from music theory, or perhaps simplify it in a manner that expands its impact. If they don't they're fine where they're at now tho.
1
-
@ghostkilla931 Dude he shot the gun, it doesn't matter what he thought, or how involved anyone else was, he shot the gun, he killed the person, we could argue it was manslaughter, but its still manslaughter, even if its not a high degree of homicide. If you aim a gun at someone, pull the trigger, and a bullet enters the person you aimed at from your trigger pull, you killed them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kerosin Fuchs Actually no, law did not come into being requiring a victim, laws older then much of recorded history could be victimless and yet were still law, in fact it was common for victimless laws to exist, the Israelites and Persians, even the Babylonians, they all contained laws that didn't require victims in all cases, many of those laws were enforced separate from victim laws however that doesn't discount them as laws, and action was always taken towards them. The Romans and Egyptians also had victimless laws. (in fact the Greek Antiquity Egyptians were actually a practical socialist state before being invaded by the Romans, which does invalidate that claim even more)
That aside its clear you aren't willing much to defend your ideas, you proposed no reasoning towards them and instead try to claim it hasn't been done before. (which isn't a good justification either, its on its own a form of fallacy in fact) And then you tried to drag my name through the mud as if I'm a forced "moralist" who never came to my own conclusions, again trying to fallaciously dissuade my side of the argument. My hands have never been clean, and I carry no more shame for that because it disgusts me to be unclean and I have been reborn. No one has made me pure in life, I'm pure because I have been Chosen by God as a servant being a Follower of Christ. And I in fact carry joy because of that. Now if you'd like to stop trying to shame me for something I'm beyond in mind, body, and soul I'd prefer you'd stop pulling fallacies to support your arguments.
1
-
Kerosin Fuchs It hurts both society and the individual participating it, don't lie about reality and call it truth, we know what it does, refusal to face reality is ignorant delusion you willingly will take part in just to spoil yourself because you lack any discipline. And its clear how much it poisoned you given how much vile, fallacy, and weakness you've shown in this discussion. And consent doesn't fix the fact its encouraging pedophilia, I don't care if its behind closed doors or not, its evil thoughts which lead to evil actions. (whether you are conscious or aware of it, blindness does not fix a broken body and neither does it fix a broken mind) The only reason many people like you will defend free speech isn't because you care about what others say, its to protect your addiction, if you could figure a way to control the rolling scale I have no doubt in accordance with your actions already you would easily use it to silence opposition to anything, specifically degenerate behavior such as porn. You don't have the foreknowledge nor discipline to recognize anything beyond yourself and will refuse anything that shows you how wrong it is, it will never satisfy you and you will never stop hungering for a larger kick, there is nothing new under the sun, its all vanity, so don't you arrogantly think you've found something better. (we all try until we realize there is not but One Way, but you can try all you want to avoid it)
You're so undisciplined you aren't even willing to accept your fallacious claims weren't valid arguments, instead trying to berate a messenger of truth because you can't stand the light.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@khosrowzare8301
"whatever, that does not prove his argument"
Never said it did, if you read what I wrote, I literally told you fallacies are logically neutral, as in they don't change the argument at all. That was actually a strawman.
"The name of the fallacy doesn't matter since at this point we will be arguing semantics."
It very much does, the substance of the fallacy communicates how someone is to respond and to what degree misunderstandings of the subject are present, they also communicate possibility of incorrect perspective on the subject which is also useful for correction regarding the subject. This aside it was not a fallacy so its not semantics, (despite the fact it never was because two different fallacies can't be treated the same in most cases) it could be a direct demonstration of his argument so long as the proof exists, and he doesn't need much to do so.
"He (the poster the initial responce was toward) claimed the devs are saying it's a joke after the fact just like Canada's PM."
Which is pretty easy to prove if you retrieve the track record. This aside whether Justin Trudeau actually made a joke or not is irrelevant, the case of the matter is that it was politically infused, this is a reference to a capably similar (whether its actually similar is currently up for debate here, its capably similar, as in it could be comparable, this is not up for debate, hence why its not a fallacy) case.
"They have a track record of making these types of jokes and the community knows it as well. Just look at the comments on this video and see how many people are bashing Jeremy for his, somehow superisingly, stupid take."
A track record of these jokes does not change anything in the argument because the argument in this case has to do with whether the statement is politically charged. Even if the joke was accepted by the community positively that does not mean anything in regards to this argument, it also does not necessarily mean the specific case couldn't be politically charged, to a certain that has to be weighed by context, background, and environment, background as far as I see (not that it is, but that I have been revealed so far) doesn't say anything either way, environment says it is, (Belgium as an environment is ripe with left wing politics and game studios are excessively pandering to left wing politics as of these days) context I suppose could go either neutral or against that depending on the background. So far by these metrics I'd be hesitant to weigh in specifically on the argument itself, though personally I hate these type of jokes in every business and will always be biased against any business that does it regardless of desire or intent.
By the way the comments of the community are irrelevant for the argument as well.
"They never actually outright said it was a joke after the backlash..."
Not really sure how that improves your argument and that aside it was all useless information, most especially to me, someone who doesn't actually care all that much. You'd be arguing with the wrong guy anyone since my position wouldn't be changed by the specific of the incident all that much and I didn't make the argument.
Also that aside, this does not present any information on the related affiliation of the statement being debated over.
"This complaint is very common in DnD community, specially by GMs..."
Aside from not being an argument here still, a developer studio is not a DM/GM, as I said, I'd say it personally be disgraceful to act in that manner, but that's irrelevant.
"first, the devs never claimed it was a joke after the fact when he said they did,"
Implicitly they did according to your later reasoning, so technically this is an outright lie, you can't have them joking with the players and then also not in behavior making a joke. (interpreted as claiming it to be a joke by implication) There isn't even any reason to bring this up in all honesty since whether its a joke or not isn't relevant to what people are taking issue of.
"second, the devs have a track record of joking with players when he implied (through Canada PM's exmples) that they didn't."
Actually no, this conclusion of discussion is wholly incorrect, whether either of them were a joke or not is not relevant, its whether the statement itself was politically charged, which you've done nothing to counter. This aside there's already inherent strikes against the studio implicitly, however it is true that the burden of proof is on your opponent of the debate, however it would not take much to prove it true. And I shouldn't have to correct on this but I feel my words will be taken out of their meaning if I don't, this does not mean I'm implying things either way, I am not saying that the proof that is burdened exists, I am merely saying he is required to demonstrate his claim evidentially in some manner, in the least for the sake of context or background which would show a track record or implying the relation to the subject.
1
-
@khosrowzare8301
"Now I'm just confused. Can retrieving the track record act as proof or not? you can't have it both ways."
Because the jokes aren't relevant to the subject, its behavior, beliefs, ideals, and perspectives, which are also integrated in the projects they've developed and everything they've said, a joke doesn't incorporate context nor reasoning into the mindset in order to produce a conclusion. When I say track record, I'm not referring to one-offs and one-shots, its all about the track record of productions, most especially for what they're geared for or for what they speak to specifically on the subject. My context makes this clear, those two statements are not by each other and refer to completely different points under the same response. (its not an argument because I'm not arguing with you over a position I couldn't give less of a damn over)
"Context clearly shows it was not political, they were just showcasing accumulated data they had nothing with creating (the result was not something they could predict anyway)."
The context itself from what you gave doesn't clarify this either way which is why I told you its currently neutral. Speaking about data speaks nothing to nor against the subject at hand, making it argumentatively useless data as I said.
"Background is related to their track record as a company which also shows them never making political statements before."
Perhaps, but I don't see anything that should convince me either way.
"Environment has nothing to do with Belgium as a country since it wasn't made there, but insread on a public, international froum for the game's commiunity which, again hasn't been politically charged."
Larian is a Belgium company that developed and published the game, unless you're telling me that the majority of development for a Belgium studio does not take place within Belgium and the heads of the studio have no association with Belgium, this reasoning is wrong, that or you're telling me Larian doesn't own the rights to the third game, doesn't control the analytical data, likely did not develop the game at any point, and currently does not host the development's PR. Your refutation is the most pedantic manner in which you could be correct and yet it doesn't prove a single point about the environment of the company that owns the game, not where its development actually happened, which isn't actually relevant to this point. If you want to argue in a manner that doesn't make you seem unhinged, you really should learn to submit when your opposition is right, even despite the fact I'm not the opposition, I'm more comparable to a moderator at this point.
"And making these kinds of statements is just them being close to the players. Most devs were like that in 1990s and early 2000s before the rise of big gaming publishers and then the whole US political BS of mid 2010s."
I don't really care, a company is not a person, a studio is not a person, they should not act like one, and should not be treated as one. I despise that outlook, regardless, you are arguing with a vehement bias I have, you can't convince me against it, I didn't conclude this by rational argumentation and I don't care to discuss it with you, the only reason I brought it up was to make you aware of my perspective against studios that do it. It has no other bearing then to describe my bias against that specific subject, you really need to learn to limit your injection into topics that shouldn't be argued on, arguments are just as much clarification you can't or shouldn't argue as they are about opposing points defeating each other. (or in the least fighting it out) Only when the point is being made as a substance against the points at hand are they worth interacting with.
"At this point any further argument is pointless anyway. This is the reason why such click-bait articles (both Kotaku's and this video) are stupid. They force their context on to matters and then you will have one hell of a time convinding anyone not in the know about the whole matter that they were just talking out of their asses."
Either learn to deal with them properly or you should prefer silence, because you can only otherwise fail and harm yourself.
"After all, it's not very possible to prove the lack of a political agenda."
I feel like you saw what I posted, but read none of it, you understand nothing of what I wrote and decided to argue with the irrelevant stuff instead of making the case for your side, you tried to turn me into the enemy when I wasn't the one opposing you, I haven't argued once on the subject itself, if you actually read what I wrote, I haven't even tried to prove either side of the argument.
"the worst part is, these articles never correct themselves which goes to show how much integrity they have while claiming the other side has none (takes one to know one I guess)."
Who cares, its all vanity anyway, at that point better to enjoy yourself then regard those who make themselves suffer or to make you suffer. If people actually did this, negative clickbait wouldn't exist. I take joy in these (referring to this specific instance) type of things, teaching reason, making arguments, this form of intellectualism is a hobby of mine I partake in, outside of speaking my opinion on matters separately before I do such, this is the type of nerdist hobby I like to spread in understanding to others. And its why I love economics as well. (aside from the fact people need to learn basic reason and economics because nobody does, and its actually destroying society, but that's merely one justification)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Honestly TLOU2 was a linchpin for respect, I have lost respect for someone to mark this as a 6/10, that means it was at worst only slightly underwhelming which doesn't remotely fit with the experience. Also I hate how people say "the graphics are great and the gameplay is good" as if its a valid statement for this game, if a game is primarily about being a game, then having good gameplay is what carries it, (underwhelming story or subpar graphics would then have literally no effect on how good a game it is) but that's not what carries TLOU, nobody gave a damn about the gameplay. As for graphics, there is never a reason to compliment graphics in a game and there is never a reason to improve a game's score over graphics excepting the case that maybe its a demonstration of advanced tech, which TLOU is not, its not Crysis, it does not demonstrate George Lucas innovation in the medium nor was it intended to, so that should not improve your outlook. I hate that people see a new game looking better then the games of last year, say "it looks pretty" and then modify their opinions based on that, if you don't expect such an improvement you're just plain stupid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Debonair.Aristocrat Because the proliferation of mental derangement does not create a healthy society nor procreate an effective continuation of good, but instead only injustice and immorality, the exact reason we have all these social, mental, and even physical problems we have today is specifically because we opened the door to the tolerance of mental derangement and evil ideals. People are neither independent beings nor fully individual (neither are they fully units of a collective, they are both an individual and a unit, they are essential for the existence of both) this the balance of humanity, by subsidizing and proliferating degeneracy of a society (whether by absence of opposition or active promotion) you promote destruction of the society at large and in turn shall receive collapse, that is what we are currently experiencing, the capability to turn it around is purely based on the awareness and consciousness of the people who seem to be opposing it more and more, but I doubt that they're going far enough. The idea of the Constitution was not to let bygones be bygones for those of a lesser ideology, government dictation does not equate to citizen obligation, the latter of which is required to ensure the Constitution, which requires opposition to evil and the promotion of objective absolute good, which is founded on Christian ideals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1