Wist

My hatred is not bounded by time.

I take your words as drunken jest. I would have already shot you in the face had I located you prior, but, because the salty coastal air is so saturated with sodium, my synapses are slightly encumbered and my ability to employ long range telepathy imposed upon.

what the he ll ?do you want kill ? I will call my police you threst me you will be prisoner fuck yeah dead You dare to bare your fangs? I'm the most trusted mathematician and orator for the Belmont Clan, go fuck yourself. You're too much of a coward to attack the Holy Emperor. The night is young.

what the he ll ?do you want kill ? I will call my police you threst me you will be prisoner fuck yeah dead You dare to bare your fangs? I'm the most trusted mathematician and orator for the Belmont Clan, go fuck yourself.

what the he ll ?do you want kill ? I will call my police you threst me you will be prisoner

The bit that gives this story depth is the fact that the Zerg was my ally before I forced his sudden extermination.

My psionically gifted minions were tasked with an important mission. There was a plague upon the land and their fellowship of seven was to annihilate it before it might grow powerful enough to rival the might of my and my allies tanks and physics bending spacecraft. The land had to be cleansed of all infection lest our civilizations be consumed by swarms of darkness. My troops marched with great haste into peril, and indeed a great peril it was. The infestation had poisoned all the soil about it and soon the plague was to hatch from its larva vile spawn of terrible power. I wretched in agony as I beheld the corruption wrought by these foes. Without delay or remorse I ordered the immediate dispensing of my entire nuclear arsenal. It was my duty to all life to cleanse the universe of this plague once and for all. Sensing immediate danger, the vile fiend whose will guided the infection ordered the hatching of its first army. I could only hope that I had attacked quickly enough as to nullify any potential retaliation. The first warheads buried themselves into revolting structures of sludge and toxic earth, and their fissile matter exploded just in time to obliterate the hatching eggs. The assault continued without relent until nearly all of the swarm was destroyed. There remained yet much to clean up, but it was great relief to learn that my minions were successful in destroying the bulk of this evil menace. I expressed my glee with this unprecedented success. My minions were unaware that I had anticipated their mission was to prove suicidal. The malignant tumor that constituted the will of this repugnant infection expressed its malcontent with its failure to prepare for a timely onslaught of such brutality. It warned of an impending resurrection and dark days ahead, but it starved and withered into nothingness before my very eyes. The world was at peace once again and there was much rejoicing. But then... something happened. Something that I knew to be impossible but it happened anyways.

It is fallacious to attempt to suggest that comments you've read on-line evidence the suggestion that Modern Warfare 2 or similar games negatively influence individuals' behaviors in a meaningful way. You are drawing a conclusion from a perceived correlation without providing evidence of causation. I attempted to demonstrate the ridiculousness of your logic with the statement, "I've read it's probable that ninety percent of terrorists eat bread within the forty-eight hours that precede the perpetration of an attack." A perceived correlation does not constitute evidence. Whether or not there is any truth in your application of your proposition that the influences of media available to the public have significant implications in the case of the game does not constitute the base of my argument. I am clearly pointing out and only pointing out that your putting forth such observations as factual without a shred of evidence is stupid. Also, pardon my misrepresenting the statement, "In one of my earlier posts, I referenced some comments I've seen online about this scene," to mean you referred only to comments made on message boards. It was a grave injustice and of almost discernible relevance. Indeed you did not. In fact, I request you not try to rob me of the credit of having drawn the comparison on my own. A fundamental aspect of your beliefs as you've represented them in your posts in this thread is that you think the game in question is unsuitable and that game publishers should be censored as they are to be held accountable for the influence their media may exert over others. This is analogous to "protect the children" arguments in which something is argued worthy of restriction or censure because of unquantifiable, unstudied, or otherwise unevidenced harm it is suggested might be suffered by children. You should be able to guess the missing word. It's something I've arraigned you of not referencing when posing arguments. It's an eight letter long word and it begins with the letter 'e.' You did not answer the question I posed in the quote you were apparently responding to. Why is this relevant? Why is this a problem? Fuck me sideways Batman, why is the perceived desensitization of people to such things as death or certain syllables so inherently evil that you don't see fit to justify its being an issue? Only if by "explained two or three times" you mean that you've proferred opinions without evidencing any of your justifications can these quoted statements be considered accurate. This is a piss-poor excuse for a cop-out. Also, even though it's true, one generally isn't supposed to admit when his or her argued beliefs are incongruous. Would it trouble you greatly to expound on this imaginary line? It might not be socially acceptable for me to hit someone over the head with a copy of Modern Warfare 2, but I otherwise have little confidence in your comparison. I really, really, should not have to explain how these two matters you've tried to compare are incompatible in this context. I will if you profess ignorance, but I really shouldn't have to. Even if you potentially take issue with it, I do not fault you for exercising your right to free speech. No, I'm not arguing about incitement to crime. Please do not misrepresent me by pretending I've argued for or against a topic when I have done no such thing. I've argued only that your justifications for concern in regard to Modern Warfare 2 are rooted in assumptions and not facts. I also posed the following three questions: 1. How can one consider the abdication of rights synonymous with protection? 2. Do we need to protect all the "people who don't know any better" by imposing arbitrary restrictions on media available to the public? 3. Are you really arguing this? These questions are relevant both to the game in question and to free speech. They are also relevant to my assertion that your arguments being not at dissimilar to "protect the children" arguments. If such restrictions wouldn't be arbitrary, could you explain and cite with evidence from a relevant and credible study (hint: news articles, blogs, and YouTube videos don't count) what sort of restrictions would be reasonable, feasible, and have sufficient enough beneficial consequences so as to justify an infringement on free speech? If you can't, then you can lay claim only to baseless opinion. I'll admit I haven't played a Resident Evil game, so I'm not set up to make an educated comment. But I don't think there's much risk of people turning to zombies in real life. I'm going to leave my quote here because you misconstrued its purpose in my post the first time around. Maybe if your assumption that game publishers should be accountable for upholding a "social responsibility" to censor themselves (of what specifically you deem acceptable versus unacceptable you've done little to clarify) were to be realized.... Have you understood anything I've written? My posts have consisted nearly exclusively of my pointing out how your entire argument is based on errant assumptions (errant in that they are rooted in nothing other than opinion and unfounded personal observation, regardless of whether any of them could possibly be proven true or false by someone who bothers to conduct or cite unbiased research). You must surely have noticed at some point that I've been discrediting your arguments as fundamentally flawed. Feel free to break from this pattern at any time and point out where I've made similarly obscene leaps of logic as yours in my pointing out how nothing of consequence you've suggested is in any way substantiated. The inclusion of the attack "Frustration" clearly demonstrates that GameFreak is abdicating its social responsibility to put slavery and abuse in proper context for consumers. It's a pity there's no preceding warning which would nullify this game's being poisonous for society. Given that this game is targeted toward children, I might argue that it's more dangerous because it will influence children to think that dog fighting and slavery is okay (even though I've come to this conclusion purely from an embarrassingly uninformed perspective). I skipped some of your quotes because I think they were satisfactorily answered by statements put forth in other segments of this post. If this confers upon you the delusion that your arguments aren't complete rubbish, I can further demonstrate how incontrovertibly unfounded and borderline mendacious your claims are.

Same thing happened with copies of FE7 too, IIRC. If you run into this, it's unfortunately a different problem. Fire Emblem 7 doesn't use a save battery. I checked inside my cartridge sometime earlier this year to confirm it.

You betray a blatant logical fallacy with this correlation. Suggesting that "comments [you've] seen online about this scene" evidence the argument that such media as the scene in question introduces or bolsters tendencies towards violence or bigotry is absurd because it is untrue. Fact cannot be surmised from the extrapolation of a phenomena from a vague correlation of one's own surmising. I've read it's probable that ninety percent of terrorists eat bread within the forty-eight hours that precede the perpetration of an attack, but this correlation is irrelevant if there's no logical basis on which to assume there is a relation. What reason is there to think that a few people on message boards wouldn't act as you observed if they hadn't been exposed to games in which immediate objectives generally consist of firing guns at people? I disagree with your introducing an assertion kindred with "protect the children" arguments in which a work is portrayed as dangerous or otherwise disagreeable because not all individuals who may gain access to the media in question possess the subjective maturity, mental capacity, education, what have you, to appreciate or otherwise interact with it without perceived negative social influence. This is a step in infringing on free speech without making a coherent justification rooted in . You assume that familiarity and potential desensitization to fictional violence or barbarism is inherently a bad thing and compare it to the reduced offensiveness of uttered syllables like "fuck." Pardon my skepticism, but can you please elaborate on why you believe this is relevant and worthy of attention? The second above quoted paragraph is ridiculous, and I relate it to the following quote: This is a place where the argument "it's just a game" is actually relevant. Perhaps it'd be better to say "it's just a work of fiction." I'll ignore your statement regarding diplomatic relations because it's an unfounded assumptions. In regard to your apparent belief that a conveyance of sympathy for deaths in a story is obligatory, how many people do you think may have been personally affected by the destruction of the Death Star? Is Star Wars inappropriate for viewing because it portrays the voluntary and unnecessary destruction of an entire planet's population and ecosystems, and neglects to address the great pains and other array of consequences suffered as a result sans a brief exclamation from Princess Leia and Obi-Wan Kenobi electing to sit down for a minute to compose himself? Does a piece of fiction have to be anything other than entertainment which satisfies its intended market? Let's go to this quote now: Now you're arguing directly that it's okay to infringe on free speech because you find something tasteless or offensive. The nice thing about free speech assurances is that you can say things like "the people who designed the scene really deserve to get raped in prison for it" without having to worry about any penalties... aside from perhaps being ostracized by some. So as not to unintentionally imply that I'm trying to put forth a slippery slope fallacy, I'll post the question: How can one consider the abdication of rights synonymous with protection? Do we need to protect all the "people who don't know any better" by imposing arbitrary restrictions on media available to the public? Are you really arguing this? (I know I'm not responding to quotes as posted chronologically.) The first paragraph is evidenced by what? The fourth paragraph is evidenced by what? I could say that the Resident Evil series is shows that the game's developers support mandatory euthanasia of ill individuals, but without supporting evidence it's a completely empty claim. What defines this line? Why is there a line? Believe it or not, yes. Why does it matter? is, in my opinion, the pertinent question. The arguments put forth in this thread against this game being allowed on the market are devoid of supporting credible evidence. I'm going back to playing Pokemon now because I enjoy enslaving creatures and extorting their fighting prowess for the benefit of my divine quest to mug every child in Johto.

The only people immune to most all diseases are those whose genetics have been optimized so as to accelerate their metabolism. Only a few Japanese women (and I think some test rodents) can, at present, be accurately be classified as such optimized individuals[1] [2] [3]. In fact, some diseases have to be imported[4] to North America because vaccinations have made them extinct in certain regions. I've also been careful not to study any academic field too heavily so as to ensure I have sufficient memory space for daily activities[5], but to the extent of my knowledge the number of individuals immune to illness is restricted to these aforementioned few.In regard to your other point, the body usually isn't well equipped to fight off everything as you suggested. HIV makes its rounds by infecting cells which play an important role in the immune system itself[6], and Krillin[7] gets beat up by... most everyone, and there are also many other examples I can think of but can't be bothered to check. The Black Death[8] took place in an oxygen rich time between the eras of dinosaurs[9] and cars[10], both of which cause oxygen to break apart and turn into cancer cells, and yet deaths were many! Not getting vaccinated and then continuing to live is equivalent to consorting with a rabid baboon and hoping you don't get bitten. The statistics[11] are not in one's favor. References: 1. ^ Information on the Cure virus 2. ^ Example of an immunologically optimized individual - Lolipedia 3. ^ Another example of an immunologically optimized individual - Lolipedia 4. ^ I forget what this is 5. ^ Memory as understood by the Church of England 6. ^ Species of StarCraft #Zerg - Wikipedia 7. ^ Something I found with Google - Google 8. ^ Peer reviewed journal #1 9. ^ Jeremy's Halloween outfit 2007! 10. ^ 1926 Study on hybrid forms of transportation - Amish Online 11. ^ Peer reviewed journal #2