[[From hack to indie] Path of the Midnight Sun]

...what. I hope you're not serious. I'll have to start all over then because I did not talk to the dude.

I think Alfred said that you'll still be able to get the character, just that it'll be much harder.

[[From hack to indie] Path of the Midnight Sun]

On chapter 6 is there a way to get knight that talks when he dies?

No. You can talk to him with Sae'rah and get a voice command that will supposedly help you recruit a character in the next patch, but you can't recruit the knight.

[anyone know any good gen 3 rebalance patches?]

I personally enjoy this one very much. It's not for everyone, however: http://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=322110

[[From hack to indie] Path of the Midnight Sun]

Just a heads up: The Devil's Eye description still says Mogall instead of Big Eye.

[My life is officially...]

Borz, you had suicidal thoughts? Well, look you're alive, and you don't have those thoughts anymore, do you? This is exactly what I WAS SAYING. You have survived and got through that. It should make you a stronger person.

I actually still do have the thought of suicide and death in general in the back of my mind, and probably will for a very long time. My wording was misleading.

Fine fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion but it doesn't mean we have to agree with what you are saying.

Most of the replies directed at me were not simple disagreements, they were attacks on my character.

You say not to make assumptions about your character yet you did the same exact thing about everyone else posting here assuming we are all just insenstive and ignorant of what people with suicidal thoughts or intentions are going through

When? I re-read what I wrote, and I don't see any assumptions about the people in the thread. The closest I get to that point would be in the segment about "Talk to your loved ones about it!" and those were rhethorical questions at the hypothetical person saying that.

And then you try to compare people with suicidal intentions to what people in concentration camps may or may not have been even thinking going through things like the holocaust. Not only is it wrong for us to say what may or may not have been going through the minds of those unfortunate enough to be in concentration camps its even more wrong for us to generalize everyone with suicidal thoughts or intents.

Lots of people attempted and succeeded in committing suicide in concentration camps during the Holocaust. Why is my comparison illegitimate?

Why is it wrong to make educated guesses? Why is it wrong to use generalizations when you are speaking generally? And when did I generalize people with suicidal thoughts or intents? My argument was that people use generalized, pre-packaged responses when dealing with individuals with suicidal thoughts and intent, treat it like most people treat tech support, except we're dealing with something much more complex - people's lives.

You say that serious disscussion is not a personal soapbox but on the same hand not every topic has to be about a political tirade or a debate about the morality of one's actions. Obviously this was a serious incident that one of the members of the community had to go through and they are just trying to reach out for support no matter how small.

I did not say this, it was written in this subforum's...guidelines, apparently. This is not the place for this type of thing. While I understand Anacybele's judgment, it was incorrect.

If you're so eager to discuss about the matter and want your opinion to be heard, why not just make a separate thread? By posting here, you're only making the situation worse for the OP and receive negative feedbacks in return.

The negative feedback is something that I was aware I would receive, which is the reason behind my first semi-sarcastic statement in my original post. I was aware that people would throw vitriol at me, and that typically discourages me from posting. This time I decided to post anyway because I deemed this too important not to respond to. OP made a mistake in posting this topic here, and I was not disrespectful to her. I just did not acknowledge the tragedy in my post. I had no obligation to. You may think that makes me a bad person, and fine. Hate me. It saddens me that you feel this way, but feel free.

The forum sticky are more guidelines than rules, and Balcerzak agreed with me when I said that.

It says "RULES" right there. Twice.

This is how some people mourn and deal with suicide. This was also posted presumably not long after the incident.

I understand this. However, you answered my question very covertly and way too "open to interpretation"-y. What specifically are you talking about when you say "this"? And again, this was posted in the wrong place. It says rules right there. Even if you say they are only guidelines, how is my interpretation of them flawed?

I'm not asking you to validate her statements. I'm asking you to show sympathy instead of trying to prove her wrong. .

I have sympathy for her loss, but I am not under any obligation to show that sympathy. I have my reasons(if you really want to hear them, ask).

She put herself in a public forum, knowing people will be able to voice their opinions and make arguments against her's. Her agency did not disappear when she was traumatized. She is still responsible for her actions, just like I am.

Right now you come off as a know-it-all 14 year old who is just trying to win a debate

More on that in a bit.

instead of make a point.

I made my point just fine in the OP. Pre-packaged feel-good thought-terminating cliches are insulting to the intelligence of suicidal people. I suppose this is the generalization LordTaco was talking about, now that I've written it again. I won't rewrite that point for transparency's sake.

You invoked Godwin's Law for Christ's sake.

Ah, fantastic. I've wanted to talk about this with someone for a while now, so thank you.

Invoking Godwin's Law is not some sort of logical fallacy. For reference:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"

This is Godwin's Law. I know that:

there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.

...but that's incredibly silly. Legitimate comparisons are legitimate comparisons. It does not matter to whom or what the comparison is made. The reason people make analogies involving Nazis so often is because:

1.The Nazis are universally seen as evil, so people make comparisons to the actions of the Nazis to make a moral appeal without establishing the objectivity of morality, and point out hypocrisy.

2. The Third Reich is universally seen as a horrible period in history, so people use the things that happened during it as an example of extreme suffering.

I think these are the two main reasons, but of course there are other, potentially illegitimate ones.

So yeah. My comparison is not illegitimate because it involves Nazis. In fact, in this situation the Nazis could be completely removed from the comparison. Let's replace the Nazi concentration camp with an Ustashen concentration camp. Nothing changes.

You missed my point. There's no "difference." I'm stating that this lack of care is what makes your post a lot worse, because it gives credence to the insensitivity of your point.

I did not miss your point, I made a counter-point, and yes, there is a difference between actually doing something bad and being viewed as doing something bad. Unless you believe in subjective morality or something along those lines, in which case you have no ground to stand on.

it is more clear to me that you don't care that much. You seem to be aware why what you posted is not a good thing to post, you just don't seem to care.

No, I think what I posted was a good thing to post because I've come to the conclusion that suicide is always an option, and sometimes the only answer. I don't care if people disagree that it was a good thing to post because in creating the topic Anacybele accepted that people may say things she does not like as long as they don't break the rules.

This thread's about someone reaching out for support, it's not supposed to be an anti-suicide commercial.

Suicide is NEVER the answer, people. Somewhere, there are people who care. All our neighbors are supporting us right now through this pain. Suicide only causes others pain. DON'T FUCKING DO IT.

How is this not an anti-suicide sentiment? Everything she wrote was not an anti-suicide sentiment, but I was not replying to everything she wrote. And again, she put this in Serious Discussion.

The key word here - in all honesty - is seem. I really don't know you at all, so I'm not one to make this claim that you are uncaring.

See, most of the people who replied to me talk about how what I wrote seems and consequently, how I seem. This is something I call "Death Sentence of the Author"(coined by Youtuber "Harmful Opinions"). It's when you invoke Death of the Author to make up an interpretation of what I said, then getting pissed at me for your interpretation, claiming what I wrote is wrong, typically "harmful". I've stated my intent already, and it was not to disrespect or "stomp" on OP's tragedies. Nowhere in my posts have I done so. Yet you still get angry at me, claiming I'm responsible for your interpretation of what I said and that your interpretation reflects on me somehow. You acknowledged this to some degree in your edit, but others have not.

Severian, I'm sorry for the extremely late reply. I had a lot to write.

I know you mentioned the possibility of someone who has no loved ones or people close to them, but in this case, don't you think that committing suicide regardless of the feelings of those around you can be construed as "self-centered" as well? I'm not necessarily opposed to suicide in every case, but I think it's OK for people to be self-centered to a certain degree. At the same time, it's natural that people have responsibilities for each other. I think the conflict between the individual's responsibility to the family and the family's responsibility to the individual isn't well articulated enough in your post for you to be so committed to your conclusions.

Yeah, I should have used the word selfish instead. I agree-people should put their needs first. This is a pretty complex thing, so I'll leave it at that.

What I don't agree with is that people have automatic positive obligations to their parents. It robs them of their liberty, because the choice to be born is not theirs. Parents, however, have a positive obligation to their children to fulfill their needs until they're self-sufficient, because they brought them into the world. They made a choice and have to take

responsibility for that choice. Bringing a child into the world while not being ready and certain you will be able to fulfill their needs is immoral...I'm getting sidetracked.

Also, finding rare exceptions to the rule (nazi concentration camp) is not really an effective way to deal with this issue. Ana did say "NEVER" but you seem to be acting like just because you thought of a tough case, you've completely demolished arguments against suicide.

If you haven't read the final part of my reply towards Raven, do so. You are using Death Sentence of the Author.

My intention was not to demolish arguments against suicide when I wrote that, my intention was to demolish the feel-good thought-terminating cliche "Suicide is never the answer!". This is pretty obvious because of this:

Would you say that to a person trapped in a Nazi concentration camp? If not, then you draw the line somewhere and the only debate you can have is where to draw it. Ergo, suicide can be the answer.

I acknowledged there is further debate to be had.

All professionals I've worked with for more a substantial period of time (more than one or 2 sessions of some kind with them) actually did talk about the environment around me, especially how I get along with family, friends, etc. They often encourage people to seek out support, but when I've seen others working with professionals in group settings, the professionals are typically cognizant of the fact that the environment may not be germane for the person they are dealing with, and they try to help change that.

That's a valid anecdote I suppose, but my personal experiences are far different, and I've had a considerable number of psychotherapists for a long enough time to come to my conclusion.

The objective way to prove my point would be to talk about the DSM, but that would take a while and I've been writing this post for hours. If you want me to do so, ask and I'll try.

Finally done. Took me 3 hours to write this.

Edit:

Borz, what are you trying to accomplish here? Being a contrarian twat isn't making you look any smarter or 'realist'.

I have already stated my intent in writing my original post and the posts after it. I am not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. I think that is pretty obvious considering how much time I've spent on writing my posts. Using the word contrarian as a buzzword will get you nowhere.

[My life is officially...]

Balcerzak's thread may as well be renamed "Debate pointers" because Serious Discussion isn't purely about debates nor are there any additional "rules" posted in there. Serious Discussion is actually about the following:

Where is that quote from? Because it's not in the forum sticky. In the forum sticky, he says:

"This subforum exists for reasoned and logical discourse over some of the heavy, more "serious" topics of our times. That said, extended and mature discussion on almost any subject can conceivably fit in, provided it's well-presented and well-maintained."

According to this, Serious Discussion is only for discussions, so all your nonsense about this being the wrong place is not true. The person who is in the wrong place is the OP.

Even if it were not only for discussions, the rules still apply. Including:

- This subforum is no substitute for trained medical professionals. For any serious personal medical or psychological issues there are better places to get advice than from strangers on the internet. Get in touch with your primary care provider if you have one, or a relevant hotline (Suicide Prevention, Domestic Abuse, Substance Abuse, etc.) if you do not.

Coulda fooled me. I've never heard of anyone going into a thread about a tragedy and basically writing an entire essay on why her way of mourning was flawed.

Where did I say her "way of mourning" was flawed? I took issue with the things she and others in this thread have said about suicide.

You are also trivializing her emotions to a pretty considerable degree

By taking issue with what she said about suicide? Someone's trauma does not validate their statements.

and you are also stating that you don't care that you are acting as the villain or the bad guy which makes your post seem 10000x worse.

No. I don't care if I am perceived as the bad guy. There's a difference. Nobody here is a "bad guy" as far as I'm concerned.

Ah yes, but you see. We know your character just from your post.

You're a 14 year old who has no heart and thinks he's mentally superior to everyone and doesn't care about stomping on peoples tragedies because he has never experienced anything like this and thinks he has "knowledge" to.

So get the fuck out.

It's absolutely ridiculous how you can call me heartless based on a post where I talk about people's experience with suicidal thoughts.

I have never experienced someone close to me, physically or emotionally, committing suicide. I didn't talk about that, though, did I? I talked about suicidal thoughts, which I have experienced. It's just disheartening that you can see yourself as being in the right when you're presuming all these things about me simply because I made a post that didn't acknowledge the tragedy. I did not stomp on it.

[My life is officially...]

I'm curious if you understand the idea of right place and right time, because you've gotten both horribly wrong.

There's a time and a place for this kind of post. A thread about a woman mourning her brother's suicide is not either. If you wanna be an emotionally detached and callous 14 year old, by all means, just don't do it to kick someone while they're down.

If you haven't noticed, this is in Serious Discussion.

- Serious Discussion is not your personal soap-box to come to for validation, do not hope nor expect to "preach to the choir". You will be interacting with others, many of whom may not share your viewpoint. If you cannot handle disagreement in a respectful and mature fashion, this is not the place for your post.

- If you want to contribute to an ongoing discussion, please make sure you can provide some logic to back up your case. This isn't the place for groundless claims, no matter how impassioned you can make you pleas appear to be.

The only thing you could argue I did wrong was not striking the middle ground between sugar-coating and hostility.

Emotionally detached? The reason I replied was because this means so much to me. Don't assume my intentions and character.

[My life is officially...]

I am going to be the horrible, evil person who commits forum social suicide by strongly, strongly disagreeing with something someone has said while they were going through a traumatic experience without coating it in heaps of sugar.

This post is directed at everyone who posted so far, however.

"Suicide is never the answer." and other such disgusting, feel-good, thought-terminating cliches are incredibly insulting to the intelligence of actual suicidal people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrzuKgm1VUg

"Having been there, I've since talked to people who have either been suicidal or in one person who was actively considering suicide and I found that the most...how should I say...the most productive conversations I've ever had with them were the ones where I wasn't the next presumptuous prick trying to impose an interpretation of their feelings. I think that's what made the conversation productive because that's what I was looking for when I was in my moments. I just wanted to meet one person, one other person that could express a level of compassion and understanding that...I guess could only be described as hitting the right frequency. It's communicating in a way that conveyed a genuine desire to understand as opposed to...I guess...just trying to be the next stock concern-face that comes off the factory line. Not trying to be the individual that tries to play the hero without actually listening to you, I guess you could say."

"What makes, I think, suicide such a foreign concept to so many people is that people don't really see it as a rational decision reached by rational people. But that's the scary part-it is, in many ways, rational. It's a horrible decision, but it's a horrible decision reached by a rational train of thought.

That's what makes it terrifying. The decision to not exist anymore has to be by nature one you think through very carefully. And the decision to not exist anymore is also something foreign to other people because a lot of people do have lives they enjoy..."

"It's very much a cost-benefit analysis where you look at the world around you and you say: "I could continue living in an enviroment that I'm not compatible with and deal with the drudgery of life for god knows how many years or I could take this one extra step off the building and none of it has to be my problem anymore."

"Suicide is never the answer!" "Somewhere, someone cares!" "It gets better!" "Talk to your loved ones!" "Seek help from a professional!"

These are all naive, ignorant, thoughtless canned responses. It is better to say nothing than spout this tripe in the presence of a suicidal person.

"Suicide is never the answer!":Would you say that to a person trapped in a Nazi concentration camp? If not, then you draw the line somewhere and the only debate you can have is where to draw it. Ergo, suicide can be the answer. If you would, you're an immoral person who would prefer that they suffer instead of ending their misery. Next.

"Somewhere, someone cares!": Let's assume for a bit that that's true. What then? If they're on the other side of the world, it doesn't matter. They can't do shit unless they care enough to put their life on hold for one person, and even then they might not be able to help you. If this caring person is physically close, then why don't they help this suicidal person who they care so much about? Because they don't know? If they aren't at least aware of the emotional state of the person they care so much about to some degree, then they haven't formed a connection with them and probably can't, otherwise they would have by now. Because they can't? Then their presence is almost irrelevant when it comes to the decision to commit suicide.

Now let's remove the false assumption. It is naive to believe that every person is cared about. It is very, very likely, almost certain that there is a person in the world who could care about them, but if they'll never meet them and form a connection with them then it doesn't matter. I could probably say more and express myself better, but I don't think I need to. Next.

"It gets better!": Let's assume this is true. So? If it doesn't get good, then it doesn't matter. Discarding the assumption, it could very well get worse. You're telling them to gamble with their suffering. Next.

"Talk to your loved ones!": Have you absolutely no sense of perspective? Are you just that ignorant? Has it ever crossed your mind that they might be suicidal because they have no loved ones? Maybe you're under the misguided assumption that being related by blood automatically makes someone a loved one? Their family could very well be the problem, but that doesn't cross your mind because you just reached for a canned response. You assume something is wrong with the suicidal person. The world around them is just fine! Something is wrong with them, and that's why they should...

"Seek help from a professional!": "Professionals" often make things horribly worse. They will always assume that something is wrong with you and not the world around you, and even if you explain to them the problem is not with you, they will insist you change yourself. Bothered that you're forced to cover your entire body except your eyes when you go outside? Learn to like it like the other women.

I'm not saying mental health professionals are bad people. I'm just saying they can't do shit when the problem is not with you, as it more often than not isn't when it comes to suicide. When they thoughtlessly try to fix something by attacking the symptoms instead of the cause, they cause harm, sometimes to a great extent.

And finally, the OP's two statements are just horrible. " Suicide only causes others pain. DON'T FUCKING DO IT."

Suicide relieves them of their pain. That's the point. You're telling them they should suffer further just so others don't have to suffer for a while. It's self-centered.

[Moral Question, woman tricking a man into having a baby]

Because they don't really GET anything out of it.

They can break up the relationship and extort money from the man via child support, basically enslaving him for 18 years for a passive source of income.

In fact, they don't even have to trick the man, they can also just steal the sperm from a used condom or something and impregnate themselves with it and the man can't do anything about it.

[Moral Question, woman tricking a man into having a baby]

You need to look at it from her (extremely flawed) point of view. She's using female biology to support her argument. Thus, she'll handwave that with female biology (which is. . .true, because pregnancy isn't physically easy).

What about using male biology to justify rape? Maybe that would get the point across.

[Moral Question, woman tricking a man into having a baby]

that men have to pay a lesser cost in the event of an unwanted pregnancy (since he doesn't have to carry the fetus) neither invalidates phoenix wright's analogy nor does it one bit make the act of deceit less immoral. raising a child still entails substantial cost even if the man doesn't have to push the baby through his pelvis.

I see. Thank you. I was confused on whether you were being sarcastic.

[Moral Question, woman tricking a man into having a baby]

no, it's a great counter. the man has to help take care of the child, which is usually uncomfortable, at best.

women have to bear greater burden of child rearing as a result of biology, but don't let's pretend that saddling a man with care of an unwanted child is less significant.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say.

[Moral Question, woman tricking a man into having a baby]

Isn't that illegal ? In some country I mean.

Not in the US, or the UK.

[Moral Question, woman tricking a man into having a baby]

...No that is incredibly deceitful, immoral, so on so forth. Your mothers views are simply sexist in nature. Women do have a choice to trick their lover into making a baby.

Just about what I wanted to say. Her views are sexist towards both men and women, and more importanly, women who act on these views can completely ruin men's lives.

[sea urchin thread]

it sees all

it knows all

iirc yes it is an eye

It's actually its anus, and it deflates.

[Is there an objective morality?]

No, just consider: compare the overall value of a world filled with 1000 sociopaths who experience no pain or happiness, and the overall value of a world filled with 1000 people who experience extreme happiness and no pain whatsoever.

Negative utilitarianism says both worlds are equally valuable. No, that is unintuitive. The latter world is far more valuable. Thus negative utilitarianism is false.

I suppose I agree with that, but for there to be value, there has to be a valuer. Who is the valuer in this case?

[Is there an objective morality?]

They don't deal with actions taken to achieve goals. For example, to say "this child has sepsis" does not mean that the doctor is taken any action to achieve any goal whatsoever.

No, they both deal with propositions such as the following:

"This infant is suffering from sepsis."

"It is moral to save a dying person's life.

And so on. Both kinds of intuitions deal with the truth value of propositions such as these.

But how do we determine who is an "expert" in morality and who isn't? You say that all humans are, but then why would some people's intuitions regarding morality contradict those of others(like the cannibalism example you've talked about)? I have an idea, but I would very much appreciate if you expand on this. Also, could you explain to me what the difference is between relative and subjective morality?

I made a typo in my second post. I meant to write "some utilitarians also avoid this". Sorry for any confusion.

Where did you read this? Has this view actually been defended by a professional philosopher? It sounds like a complete joke to me.

This view was expressed by Karl Popper in his series of books titled "The Open Society and Its Enemies", though the term negative utilitarianism was not coined by him, but R.N. Smart when he wrote a response to it:http://www.utilitarianism.com/rnsmart-negutil.html

Imagine a world which has no pain or happiness whatsoever. Like a world with no sociopaths. Is that the best possible world? Negative utilitarianism would say so, but ABSOLUTELY NOT. That's a horrible world to live in lol. It'd be like living in Singapore or something.

Don't you mean a world with nothing but sociopaths? I assume that's what you mean, but if not I'm confused. Well, it would be a horrible world to live in for a person who is not a perfect sociopath, but if every person was a perfect sociopath, I can't see why it would matter.

You're awfully young aren't you? Glad to see some smart kids interested in philosophy. Feel free to PM me any questions you want.

Thank you. I appreciate it.

Irysa, I would respond to you as well, but I haven't collected my thoughts on what you've said yet.

[Is there an objective morality?]

Objective moral imperatives exist. Innately, it is wrong to harm an innocent. The act does not become "right", regardless of what ridiculous hypotheticals one cooks up surrounding the situation.

That's just a claim, is it not? Can you substantiate it?

Think about a society where, for the sake of keeping a majority happy, a minority is explored, subjugated and mistreated. Such a society would be morally acceptable under utilitarian morality views, because the amount of happiness is maximized. This is one of the most basic problems I can see with utilitarism. It only cares about making the maximum number of people happy, despite the unhappiness that a minority might suffer from such action. Like Emiya Kiritsugu, I guess.

Not all variations of utilitarianism would accept this. Negative utilitarianism(instead of maximizing happiness, minimizing pain is the goal), for example. If I recall correctly, some utilitarians also avoid this by having the goal be maximizing average happiness per person, but I cannot remember what this variation is called.

[Is there an objective morality?]

This is a subject that is very important to me, and when it was brought up in the topic "Is science incompatible with religion?" I decided to make a separate topic for it. A similar one already exists("assuming that [they believe] objective morality is true, which I don't think so"), but it's old and I feel there are still things to be discussed.

Response to Chiki's post from "Is science incompatible with religion?":

It's based on common sense intuitions.

Hey, bolded part is actually a pretty great question that made me think for a while. I never thought of that. It sure seems like relying on common sense intuitions is appealing to the majority. But I think common sense intuitions aren't valid simply because the majority of people have them. http://plato.stanfor...ries/intuition/

We do have good reasons to trust them, as science shows:

Consider recent research on “intuitions” in naturalistic decision making (Klein 1998). Such research has shown that agents with sufficient experience in a given domain (e.g., neonatal nursing, fire-fighting, or chess) make decisions on the basis of a cognitive process other than conscious considerations of various options and the weighing of evidence and utilities. Such expert “intuitions” that some infant suffers from sepsis, that a fire will take a certain course, or that a certain chess move is a good one, appear immediately in consciousness.

We can consider all humans as experts on basic morality (like flying a plane into a kindergarten) and on things like the existence of the external world, so we have good reason to trust them.

There appears to be a fundamental difference between moral intuitions and the intuitions described in the quoted part of the pdf. The latter deal with actions taken to achieve goals(taking care of infants, saving people from fires, and winning a game of chess), while the former deal with what goals are moral and what goals are immoral. Due to this, I do not think this is a good reason to trust moral intuitions. I am not confident in my wording, but I hope I got my point across.

Response to Rapier's post from "Is science incompatible with religion?":

If murder, rape, theft, flying a plane into a kindergarten etc. are to be considered morally right, society would be driven into chaos. Those are behaviors that are detrimental to the continuinity and well being of society overall, so they MUST be disencouraged and prevented. This is why ethics need to be objective, at least to a certain point (because defining more advanced ethics is hard). If we can't determine (at least the most basic behaviors, like the ones stated before) as right or wrong, we're done for.

Perhaps society would be driven into chaos, but on what basis is that immoral? You seem to be committing an appeal to consequences.

I might not post very much, as I am reluctant to post something unless I am sure it is an accurate representation of my thoughts, but I will be watching the topic closely.

[Is science incompatible with religion?]

Is it really that clear? Ask anyone out there in the world who isn't a complete loon (or a philosopher): is it wrong to fly a plane into a kindergarten full of innocent children? I'm pretty sure everyone will say no.

On what objective fact is "Flying a plane into a kindergarten full of innocent children is wrong." based on? I would love to know, because determining if there is an objective morality is very important. In fact, I might make a topic about it.(if it does not exist already)

Also, are you not appealing to the majority?

[Anyone up for petitioning NoA for some minor gameplay changes?]

(Nintendo already went to great risks in their own country by putting 2)

Did they? Homosexuality isn't opposed nearly as much in Japan as it is in the West.

[Let's talk about millennials.]

Thank you for this lovely contribution to the thread.

I found it silly, so I commented on it. It was not an argument against your claims, so I don't see the problem. It didn't detract from the conversation at any rate.

[Fire Emblem: Requiem - V1.4 is up]

so far i like this hack. one question. is it important to get andrei's sword in ch 1? i took the lockpick instead.

You'll get another one considerably later. It isn't that great as it slows him down...though the lockpick isn't useful at all until much later as well.

[Let's talk about millennials.]

Using social media as a platform, they are screaming bloody murder, when they arent making hilarious memes.

That sounds like something someone trying to parody people praising millenials would write.

[Let's talk about millennials.]

I agree with this just about fully. I'll share some of my thoughts.

I am a person who values meaningful social interaction a lot, and despite my bias towards the Internet, I admit that social interaction is more superficial than ever with it around. It's disheartening.

While the Internet definitely emphasized "image over substance", it seems to me this idea has been prevalent for a long time, though perhaps it's just my view on what "substance" is as well as my personal experiences with my family that makes me believe this.

I absolutely agree: this fake self-esteem that is still promoted by psychotherapists today is very damaging. It's self-delusion. A view of oneself that does not reflect reality. I think it's quite obvious that pretending reality is something it isn't will hurt you, if not in the short run then definitely in the long run. True self-esteem is based on facts, not delusions. I'd say more about this, but I can't seem to find the words.

Forsooth, shallowness is a good word to describe it. However...This is likely simply because I never got to experience the world before the year 2000, but I have a hard time believing the previous generations were much better in this regard.

I apologize for the awkward structure. I'm not good at wording my thoughts.