Chiki

You're kidding, right? Absolutely not.

"It's optional" is never a legitimate defense. Imagine the game had optional hardcore gore (real life, not graphic gore). Would that be ok? No.

WHERE IS THIS FROM?!

So Javelins and Hand Axes and such can't double anymore... This is a pretty big deal since we had a lot of people wanting to nerf these weapons. This is like my worst nightmare.

That's not what I said. I said different parts of the group would vote both yes and no.

He has a small penis.

You voted for yes on the poll, as expected. Nothing else. I think Japanese people are much more open to fanservice because sexuality is much more accepted there.

Only because, as you point out, those guns are purchased in places like Indiana. If they banned guns nationwide in the US, maybe the result would be different.

What's real?

Masanobu Sato, the world champion of masturbation, put it best: "A real female, of course, smells, and is dirty... so we have this anime; isn't it clean and pretty?"

Oh yeah, totally, if it's tasteful. I'd be okay with putting stuff like nipples and penises into the game as long as it was done well. We have nude scenes in Hollywood movies, why not in video games? Instead of having stuff like an Angelina Jolie nude scene, we could have a Hana nude scene. It is.

It's not that seeing Camilla's full, bouncy ass and boobs is inappropriate, but it's zooming in that is ridiculous.

Yeah, I agree that this is the only fanservice that bothers me. =_=

This is all explained by the fact that a lot of FE players are virgins. A lot of people who love fanservice are horny virgins, and I think just about all the people whining about the fanservice are prudes.

So what? Also, judging from my observations and other people's experiences, I'm pretty sure that bashing Fates is much more common in Reddit than in here. I'd really like to take a poll on Reddit to verify this though. Because it's funny. they appealed to the sex aspect of weeb games and nothing else.If not for that, Fire Emblem games would've been canceled for good after Awakening anyway.

Damn it, someone should've donated their Japanese 3DS with a capture card and FE14 to me so I could finish and stream it in a couple hours.

Ermmm...

We've already had plenty of discussion about Camilla. Why don't we talk about the new mechanics instead? What do you guys think of the rubbing?

Now that we've seen the (not sure if these are spoilers): This game seems to be really focusing on the relationship aspect of the game to appeal to fans. Does this bother you at all? I personally love it, but a lot of people on Reddit are pissed: To be honest though, the people on Reddit are really whiny and immature virgins.

In philosophy, almost every argument is based on a priori intuitions. Ethical theories and other philosophical theories are always, or almost always, based on a priori intuitions. Biological ethics is crap for reasons I can illustrate on if you want, but that's going off topic. The "issue" that feplus raises is a little different. He says that people should act despite the threat of moral paralysis, because it's probably right to save a person's life, ceteris paribus (all things remaining equal). For example, suppose two people exist in the void of space, and one is about to die of an illness, and you have a way to save them. You should go save them since there's no negative consequence in doing so. But that's not how it's ever going to work in real life. You'll never know what's going to happen as a result of your actions simply because everything is so overly complicated. And I was obviously right in raising this issue. I also think that utilitarianism can be saved from moral paralysis objections by adopting different versions of it while at the same time denying that move to theists who don't want to be morally paralyzed, but ethics is not my area of specialty, and I'd have to read up on this for a couple hours before making a post.

Bolded part: Wrong. http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics? Other 301 / 931 (32.3%) Accept or lean toward: deontology 241 / 931 (25.9%) Accept or lean toward: consequentialism 220 / 931 (23.6%) Accept or lean toward: virtue ethics 169 / 931 (18.2%) I don't really care if utilitarianism is rejected because of this, personally, since I'm an error theorist.

Uh.. then what on earth were you trying to argue against? Moral paralysis is a serious problem for utilitarianism, and it poses a serious problem for the existence of God. If you can't come up with a counterargument for this point, please stop posting in this thread with your empty, mysterious and evasive posts. 1. Yes, we agree that it is better to save a life from natural evils. Yes, they are natural disasters. 2. The statement that it's better to save a life from natural evils cannot be defended at all if you believe in God, since God lets people die all the time. 3. Something is natural evil iff it is an event uncaused by people that decreases the overall utility in the world (assuming utilitarianism). I have no idea what feplus is trying to argue anymore.

As I thought, this is a serious problem for utilitarianism :P http://people.umass.edu/ffeldman/WTD.pdf http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3663976 I hope this debate doesn't degenerate to me having to copy paste titles and opinions from professional philosophers again. =_=

Does she wear socks with her sandals?

Does Hana wear socks with her sandals?