...do you really want to be able to kill children

[Per]

I have yet to see a murder, or kill that lacks a motive. I believe there has never been such thing in RL, or in a game.

You don't believe anyone ever dies in an accident? Involving cars, for instance? Sure, you can say "But the guy in the car wanted to go somewhere really fast!", but then you're just proving you've spread your position so thin as to be meaningless. Not that anyone really seems to be agreeing with you now.

but the topic is ...do you really want to kill a child

You fail. The topic is "do you really want to be able to kill a child".

 

[Caldera]

I have yet to see a murder, or kill that lacks a motive. I believe there has never been such thing in RL, or in a game.

You don't believe anyone ever dies in an accident? Involving cars, for instance? Sure, you can say "But the guy in the car wanted to go somewhere really fast!", but then you're just proving you've spread your position so thin as to be meaningless. Not that anyone really seems to be agreeing with you now.

Actually.... I'm not doing that at all.... I believe the one that setup this forum did. I'm merely following common forum rules and talking about Fallout, or at least games and trying to keep out of (Although unsuccessfully so in the past, that was reckless of me and I apologise) real life matters.

Now, I do remember that there is an actual car accident in FO2, but the victim doesn't die. Besides, accidents in general renders the actual motive meaningless, so I could say the same accusation to you as well.

I'm not completely sure where you're aiming with that statement though... it doesn't... really add anything to the conversation, or even answer to the question.

but the topic is ...do you really want to kill a child

You fail. The topic is "do you really want to be able to kill a child".

*shrug* Hardly a cardinal mistake, but nontheless ignorance on my part. I believe that doesn't really affect a thing though in the post you took that reference out from.

But you're not completely wrong either. I do set my own boundaries to my claims so that they are true and holding. But I fail to see how broadening them would really change the matter itself. If there is such a point... I'm not sure how I'd react to it myself at all.

[edit]Wait, I just self contradicted myself.... but yet again I believe what I said later holds more truth to it than the last. So.... ignore the first one?

Ummmh, how do you add that crossline on top of sentences? Can't remember the command for it off the top of my hat. Ugggh, couldn't find it... I bolded the portion that should be ignored. Can't find a replacement for it either that would actually make sense.[/edit]

Cheers,
Cal

 

[Per]

Besides, accidents in general renders the actual motive meaningless, so I could say the same accusation to you as well.

Surely your point is not that "there's always a motive, except when there's no motive".

I'm not completely sure where you're aiming with that statement though... it doesn't... really add anything to the conversation, or even answer to the question.

I'm afraid I can't help you there.

*shrug* Hardly a cardinal mistake, but nontheless ignorance on my part. I believe that doesn't really affect a thing though in the post you took that reference out from.

The point is not that a game must make concessions for players with an itch to kill children. The point is that if a howitzer shell is launched at random over a town and lands by a child, it makes sense for the child not to survive the occasion. There's a difference.

 

[Caldera]

The point is not that a game must make concessions for players with an itch to kill children. The point is that if a howitzer shell is launched at random over a town and lands by a child, it makes sense for the child not to survive the occasion. There's a difference.

Owww... that's true... didn't think about that at all. But then again that is quite comparable with detonating that nuclear bomb.

What I said in my very first posts was that targeting for a child exclusively is intention wise very different from blasting a city and everything in it.

But really, review my first, very initial posts and tell me, how does that affect anything I mentioned there? The only thing it really affects is what I talked about in my previous posts, which was about one portion of the whole of what I talked about in the initial post. But what does it matter if it affects only one portion of my whole statement when it neglects everything else I stated originally?

[edit2]Actually, now that I re-read your quote... it is essentially exactly what I have been saying the whole time. I'm quite glad that we can agree on something. What I don't understand is that why you argue when we share the same idea...?[/edit]

[edit]I'd like to quote a person from my initial posts, whom from my opinion interpreted what I said correctly, or at least contains the essence how I intended my posts to be interpreted as.

How so? Murder is planned out...deaths in war aren't spawned from the same minds (usually...). Isn't intent what we're talking about here?

[/edit]

Regards,
Caldera

 

[Per]

But really, review my first, very initial posts and tell me, how does that affect anything I mentioned there?

I took your reasoning (or one line of it) to be that it makes sense to allow town-killing in the game, because we can conceive of "rational" (however tenuous or abhorrent) motives to destroy a town, but not to allow child-killing, because any motive for that would never be seen as rational by well-adjusted people. As others pointed out, I think this misses the point of why, if there are children in a Fallout game, they should not be incapable of expiration. (Which doesn't mean I don't also disagree that the deliberate, knowing act of wiping out of an entire town could be seen as amoral just because motive/responsibility can be shunted off to a third party. I'm a bit of an existentialist that way, I guess.) What Stag wrote seemed to be aimed more at Sorrow's generalization than the general argumentation of Sander and others.

 

[Sander]

You see, this is something I never said. I never said (Or at least meant to say) that killing a child is a bigger crime morally. All I said is that it's impossible to compare these two things.

I'm talking about motivation and state of mind rather than which is morally more "evil", or anything like that. The other is triggered by political reasons, or greed, while other is triggered by sadism, or revenge.

And yet again: horseshit. You're only *assuming* that that is the case. For the nth time: it is entirely possible that there are ulterior motives behind killing children. It does not need to be purely sadistic, and again: The Den provides a perfect example where you have a clear motive to kill children.

That's weird when you brought this issue up with:

You're also misrepresenting the possible motives for killing children in a game. Just because you can kill a child, doesn't mean that every child death would be the result of a sadistic fuck who just wants to kill some children. There can be reasons behind it as well. The moral implications are *not* any different from killing a grown man.

Maybe i misinterpreted you on this? *shrug*

Yes, I was never talking about *necessary*, while you were. There's a big difference between 'possible' and 'necessary' (note: almost nothing in Fallout is actually necessary).

Anyways, when I met those thieving kins I just stole my own stuff back and avoided them in the future. There was no need to go all the way to kill them. So what other reasons could there be? But I remember stating "Taking out the moments when there's excessive adrenaline running through your veins", or something similar and a revenge kill for stealing definately fits that category.

So what I'm saying is that there are 2 reasons to kill a child. Sadism and revenge in a form, or another. I wonder if you overlooked, forgot, or just didn't understand that statement.

Nice veiled insult there, pal.
In any case, you are still missing the point. You are now saying 'I could steal it back, so killing them is automatically sadistic!!!'
So? Since when does any problem only have one solution? For a character who cannot steal, killing the children is a shitload more easy and efficient than stealing back the stuff. Fallout is about different choices and their consequences, not about the one 'right path' you can choose. Just because there's one choice that is morally better, doesn't mean that every other choice suddenly gets invalidated.

The keyword in your quote is definately "Could". Yes, it is completely possible to do that, but those are not the only reasons in FO to do so. While the game offers no "official" reason to kill children, it does so to kill other personnel.

No it doesn't. It doesn't offer any reason to obliterate Shady Sands, or to start randomly killing people in The Den. Yet you could do both of those things. Again: i fail to see how this is different from being able to kill children.

Completely technical and slightly sarcastic answer, although absolutely true.

And now that I think about it... there actually is at least a reference to some Brahmin poking in FO2. But are you sure that Interplay saw this to be too unmoral as well?

Ehm, no, and I never suggested anything of the sort. Again: child-killing in the game has jack-shit to do with morality, it is purely a consequence of killing and children both existing in the same game. If rape had existed in the game, then it would make sense to be able to rape children as well. Of course, rape doesn't exist in the game, because it doesn't add anything useful.

That is my actualy question that you didn't provide an answer to. Of course I didn't really expect an actualy answer to that at all, just mere discussion.

This sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

Errrr.... which is unsadistic.... how? Sadism was definately one of the prime reasons to kill a child in the game in this whole thing, so what is the point of that statement?

That you are twisting the statement of random killings only existing for children, while they also exist for normal people. Yet you continually gloss over that, only to go 'But killing children cannot have a valid reason!' (which is, again, horseshit).

You make me sound like Jack Thompson when I completely with the bottom of my heart disagree with such logic.

I just can't remember saying anything like that during this whole discussion at all. If I did, please point them out.

This whole topic is about specifically killing children. Not killing in general. Doesn't it make pure sense to then speak about killing children instead of something else?

It makes sense to keep the *context* of the game around. You are throwing out any context.

 

[Kahgan]

I have yet to see a murder, or kill that lacks a motive. I believe there has never been such thing in RL, or in a game.

actually, there has...Bård "Faust" Ethiun killed a man he had never met before on mere impulse.

 

[Per]

actually, there has...Bård "Faust" Ethiun killed a man he had never met before on mere impulse.

Stop talking about yourself in third person, Kahgan.

 

[Kahgan]

*looks innocently from side to side*

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

If there are children in the game, and they can be killed, than there could be instances where you kill them without a motive. For example in large gunfights a stray bullet could (and should) kill a child. You would (and should) than be faced with consequences of killing a child, thus making for a richer (IMHO) and better gaming experience.

 

[Caldera]

For the nth time: it is entirely possible that there are ulterior motives behind killing children. It does not need to be purely sadistic, and again: The Den provides a perfect example where you have a clear motive to kill children.

For the ninth time, killing the child to get your stolen stuff back fits the term of revenge kill perfectly. I'm still waiting for an example that doesn't fit in either revenge kill, or sadism.

Yes, I was never talking about *necessary*, while you were. There's a big difference between 'possible' and 'necessary' (note: almost nothing in Fallout is actually necessary).

Could you elaborate on this? I have no idea what this has to do with my initial post.

That you are twisting the statement of random killings only existing for children, while they also exist for normal people. Yet you continually gloss over that, only to go 'But killing children cannot have a valid reason!' (which is, again, horseshit).

Where did I say that sadism, or revenge kills ain't valid reasons? Also where did I state that random killings existed ONLY for children? These two exists only in your head and I have no idea what goes in there, so I'll let this one be.

Nice veiled insult there, pal.
In any case, you are still missing the point. You are now saying 'I could steal it back, so killing them is automatically sadistic!!!'
So? Since when does any problem only have one solution? For a character who cannot steal, killing the children is a shitload more easy and efficient than stealing back the stuff. Fallout is about different choices and their consequences, not about the one 'right path' you can choose. Just because there's one choice that is morally better, doesn't mean that every other choice suddenly gets invalidated.

I went through my post around 5 times and I cannot see anything that could even misunderstood as an insult. If there is one, I apologise, never intended to insult anyone.

*sigh* However I never said that killing a child whom stole your stuff was sadistic. I always counted this kind of situation as revenge kill. I also never made any accusations of killing the children. For the fifth time, I am not judging child kills in games, why would I when I whack'em myself just to amuse myself? I never said anything about taking a "right path" either. Proven by the fact that those two words were presented for the first time in this whole thing by YOU! See? You're just seeing things in my text that was never truly there. I am not judging, accusing, or insulting anyone of anything.

No it doesn't. It doesn't offer any reason to obliterate Shady Sands, or to start randomly killing people in The Den. Yet you could do both of those things. Again: i fail to see how this is different from being able to kill children.

You decided to take my text to the extreme by yourself again. I never once again said anything about the game offering an official reason to blow a city. I said that the game offers an "official" reason to kill individual people and even whole groups.

One person that is quite hard NOT to kill is Frank Horrigan. Other cases that has an "official" reason to kill them are slavers, robbers and other assassination quests to take out some guys that does no good for anyone.

Ehm, no, and I never suggested anything of the sort.

Once again, that was a pure question, not about what I thought you meant. How can you be so sure that there were no plans for some of that that got later scrabbed as they thought it's "too over the top"? Unless you were making the game of course, which is a different thing altogether.

It makes sense to keep the *context* of the game around. You are throwing out any context.

Could you rephrase that? English ain't my native tongue and I really don't understand what you actually mean by that. Sorry. ^^'

Cheers,
Caldera

 

[Sorrow]

For the nth time: it is entirely possible that there are ulterior motives behind killing children. It does not need to be purely sadistic, and again: The Den provides a perfect example where you have a clear motive to kill children.

For the ninth time, killing the child to get your stolen stuff back fits the term of revenge kill perfectly. I'm still waiting for an example that doesn't fit in either revenge kill, or sadism.

Or a prevention of thievery. Why should poor innocent wanderers fall victim to thievery, when thieves can be removed with one pull of trigger ?
Imagine world without thieves, slavers, Jet dealers and murderers, a beautiful, safe world .

 

[Caldera]

Prevention of thievery? I have no idea which category that would fit. It's not sadism, but it's not exactly taking a revenge either per se. It cannot be counted as a random kill either.

Pro-active kill? That's a new one on me... does anybody actually do this, or has anyone done this? I've never even thought about this possibility.

Ohhh wow.... I just have to apploud that post.

First example of there being other motives to kill a child other than just feeling like it, or due the tick did something.

Guess I was wrong about that thing afterall.

Cheers,
Calcal

 

[Sander]

For the ninth time, killing the child to get your stolen stuff back fits the term of revenge kill perfectly. I'm still waiting for an example that doesn't fit in either revenge kill, or sadism.

Killing a child to get your stuff back is *not* revenge killing, it is killing *to get your stuff back*. Revenge killing would be killing the children because they stole from you. See, the motive is *to get your stuff back*. Killing the children to do so is only a means to an end. Yes, you could steal the stuff back. That is not the point, because that's an alternative solution.

Could you elaborate on this? I have no idea what this has to do with my initial post.

Could you please attempt to remain somewhat intelligent and keep in mind the context here? You claimed that I had brought up *necessity*, which I did *not* as I just expounded.

Where did I say that sadism, or revenge kills ain't valid reasons? Also where did I state that random killings existed ONLY for children? These two exists only in your head and I have no idea what goes in there, so I'll let this one be.

Either you suck at expounding your positions, or you are blatantly lying. You started commenting in this thread by juxtaposing the killing of children to the killing of ordinary people using an atomic bomb. Somehow, you tried to argue that killing the children is automatically much worse since there *cannot be an ulterior motive*. However, you failed to realise that the exact same thing can go for detonating a nuclear bomb. You also failed to realise (still now) that there are ulterior, non-personal motives for killing children just as those reasons exist for killing adults. How you continue to try to twist around that is beyond me.

I went through my post around 5 times and I cannot see anything that could even misunderstood as an insult. If there is one, I apologise, never intended to insult anyone.

*sigh* However I never said that killing a child whom stole your stuff was sadistic.

True, you said it would be a revenge kill. Whoop-dee-doo, what a fucking difference. For your argument, the difference is 0.

I always counted this kind of situation as revenge kill. I also never made any accusations of killing the children. For the fifth time, I am not judging child kills in games, why would I when I whack'em myself just to amuse myself? I never said anything about taking a "right path" either. Proven by the fact that those two words were presented for the first time in this whole thing by YOU! See? You're just seeing things in my text that was never truly there. I am not judging, accusing, or insulting anyone of anything.

Yes, you are. You have been going on, since the start of your comments in this thread, about ulterior motives behind killing children. I have shown you those ulterior motives. You continue to twist around trying to say 'no, they're just sadism/revenge'. You now took the road of 'killing children is always a revenge kill, since there are other ways to get your stuff back'. This is the equivalent of condemning the killing of the child for the reason of getting your stuff back. Which is exactly what you did, and exactly what I am commenting on.

You decided to take my text to the extreme by yourself again. I never once again said anything about the game offering an official reason to blow a city. I said that the game offers an "official" reason to kill individual people and even whole groups.

Yes. You said this as a response to a statement showing that there are plenty of sadistic/revenge kills throughout the game. Because you said it *in response to that*, I assumed that you meant that somewhere, this is different from the situation with children. Yet the situation for children and most adults in the game is exactly the same: there is no reason to kill either of them. The fact that there are some people in the game that have reasons to be killed does nothing to change the fact that most of those people do not.

Once again, that was a pure question, not about what I thought you meant. How can you be so sure that there were no plans for some of that that got later scrabbed as they thought it's "too over the top"? Unless you were making the game of course, which is a different thing altogether.

Learn basic sentence structure. Here was your sentence:

"But are you sure that Interplay saw this to be too unmoral as well?"
This sentence suggests very heavily that I suggested that Interplay saw 'this' as too unmoral. If you had asked 'Did Interplay saw this.....', then it would not. However, you purposely structured the sentence as 'But are you sure that....'. If you didn't mean to imply that I did say such a thing, then learn to use the English language properly.

Also, I've already answered your question. The answer is 'No, I do not know if Interplay considered these acts but threw them out due to morality'. And I fail to see how this is relevant.

Could you rephrase that? English ain't my native tongue and I really don't understand what you actually mean by that. Sorry. ^^'

Cheers,
Caldera

Context. Look it up. You are ignoring the *context* of this discussion.

 

[Caldera]

Killing a child to get your stuff back is *not* revenge killing, it is killing *to get your stuff back*. Revenge killing would be killing the children because they stole from you.

What's the difference between these two? It's the same one presented in slightly different fashion. The situation is exactly same in both.

A child stole something from you, you kill the child and take the stuff back. Ain't that the case in both? So what's the difference between them?

Could you please attempt to remain somewhat intelligent and keep in mind the context here? You claimed that I had brought up *necessity*

Then who did? Necessity is not something I brought up in my initial post at all.

Either you suck at expounding your positions, or you are blatantly lying. You started commenting in this thread by juxtaposing the killing of children to the killing of ordinary people using an atomic bomb. Somehow, you tried to argue that killing the children is automatically much worse since there *cannot be an ulterior motive*. However, you failed to realise that the exact same thing can go for detonating a nuclear bomb. You also failed to realise (still now) that there are ulterior, non-personal motives for killing children just as those reasons exist for killing adults. How you continue to try to twist around that is beyond me.

Honestly, I am slightly offended by that one. That's a direct personal attack on a matter that is completely misunderstood by the attacker. Here, I'll quote a sentence from my original post, which quite well explains what I have been talking about this whole time.

Nuking a city and killing a child are morally UNCOMPARABLE.

That has been the theme of my posts from the very beginning. I didn't accuse people of killing children, I was merely talking about my thoughts on the morality aspect of how different these two are.

Why I did so? Because so many people here were comparing these two together when they are completely different things. NOTHING ELSE AND NOTHING MORE! If I give out the image that it's in my opinion that killing a child is morally more wrong than nuking a city, you've already misunderstood my posts since from the very beginning I've said that they are in moral standpoint UNCOMPARABLE!

True, you said it would be a revenge kill. Whoop-dee-doo, what a fucking difference. For your argument, the difference is 0.

The first point where you are right. It doesn't truly matter at all in my initial post. But the reason why I have been going on about it, is because you've been clinging on it and I've only been trying to elaborate / explain what I meant by what I said, or just standing behind my own thoughts. Since you agree that it doesn't really matter, could we just forget it then?

I have shown you those ulterior motives. You continue to twist around trying to say 'no, they're just sadism/revenge'. You now took the road of 'killing children is always a revenge kill, since there are other ways to get your stuff back'.

I have no idea where you got that from. All ulterior motives YOU have shown has perfectly fitted the revenge, or sadism categories. I have never decided, or told, or even intended to say that ALL child kills were revenge kills. Heck, if you can find even one sentence in my claims where I even use the word "all". Talking about your comments doesn't of course count. If it's not there, why you keep seeing it?

You decided to take my text to the extreme by yourself again. I never once again said anything about the game offering an official reason to blow a city. I said that the game offers an "official" reason to kill individual people and even whole groups.

Yes. You said this as a response to a statement showing that there are plenty of sadistic/revenge kills throughout the game. Because you said it *in response to that*, I assumed that you meant that somewhere, this is different from the situation with children. Yet the situation for children and most adults in the game is exactly the same: there is no reason to kill either of them. The fact that there are some people in the game that have reasons to be killed does nothing to change the fact that most of those people do not.

Errrr..... yes? What do you mean "yes"? Where did I state that the game offers and official reason to blow up A CITY?! I can't remember ever, NEVER saying that. All I can remember saying is that the game offers some "official" reasons to kill in general. If I did however say the previous, could you please find it again and quote it for me?

Learn basic sentence structure. Here was your sentence:

"But are you sure that Interplay saw this to be too unmoral as well?"
This sentence suggests very heavily that I suggested that Interplay saw 'this' as too unmoral. If you had asked 'Did Interplay saw this.....', then it would not. However, you purposely structured the sentence as 'But are you sure that....'. If you didn't mean to imply that I did say such a thing, then learn to use the English language properly.

Also, I've already answered your question. The answer is 'No, I do not know if Interplay considered these acts but threw them out due to morality'. And I fail to see how this is relevant.

It is good that one of us actually knows what I mean to say. How do you know that I purposely structured the sentence like that? You are seeing ghosts. I meant that as a direct and straight questions. I NEVER, I repeat, NEVER EVER speak between lines. I say what I mean and I never cloak them. If you can't read my words without looking between them, you'll never understand a damn thing I say, because there are no hidden messages. Believe it or not, that's how it is.

If I had meant that "you suggested that Interplay saw 'this' as too unmoral" I would have said so, I would have not structured it as a question.

Plus, it wasn't relevant to my initial post at all. It was just a plain idle question. That's all.

Look it up. You are ignoring the *context* of this discussion.

Nno I'm not.... quite the opposite I'm trying to get you from ignoring the actual meaning in my posts. You look way too much between the lines. You say that I say things that I never said... just focus on what I actually say rather than if there are hidden insults, or a crypted message. *sigh*

-C

 

[Sorrow]

Prevention of thievery? I have no idea which category that would fit. It's not sadism, but it's not exactly taking a revenge either per se. It cannot be counted as a random kill either.

Pro-active kill? That's a new one on me... does anybody actually do this, or has anyone done this? I've never even thought about this possibility.

I think I've done this a few times when playing noble, heroic characters.

Which reminds me about one thing I would like to see - raider kids - imagine a raider kid aiming at you with a handgun . Black Hawk Down, anyone?

 

[Caldera]

Which reminds me about one thing I would like to see - raider kids - imagine a raider kid aiming at you with a handgun .

That's not out of this (Nor FO's) world at all. Child soldiers is a common thing in war and I wonder why especially raider gangs don't use children? It's not like it's a theme not done in any other game either.

At least MGS has had child soldiers in it... well... at least they used to till the grew up.

Thinking about Frank Jaeger in MPO really makes me want to see this. It makes perfect sence. They're damn fast and agile and seem more "innocent" as well. Would be quite perfect for surprise attacks.

I'd say HECK YEA!! I think I really like how your mind works Sorrow!

Cheers,
Caldera

 

[Per]

What's the difference between these two? It's the same one presented in slightly different fashion. The situation is exactly same in both.

Wtf? You were the one who said the act of murdering everyone in a town changed fundamentally if whoever does it gets a sack of gold afterwards.

Frankly, your entire argumentation seems confused, evasive, or both. It's like you're walking along two lines and for every point raised against you, you say either "That doesn't have anything to do with what I said before!" or "That doesn't have anything to do with what I said now!" If you can't communicate your position it's not our fault, it's your fault.

 

[Caldera]

Wtf? You were the one who said the act of murdering everyone in a town changed fundamentally if whoever does it gets a sack of gold afterwards.

Are you sure that you don't have things mixed up? I have always said that KILLING A CHILD AND NUKING A CITY IS MORALLY UNCOMPARABLE and you seemed to agree with it. So why would you now compare these two events?

In the post you quoted I was talking about different situations of killing a child, not detonating a nuke. Really, are you talking about the nukes, or the children?

I'll try to explain what I meant for you in 2 different cases. Nukes and children, first the children since they seem to be the main subject here. >_>

So yes, murdering everyone in a town changes fundamentally if whoever does it gets a sack of gold. This however does not apply to a case where you kill one single child. This is because in the child case you do it for yourself, instead of for someone else.

What's so hard to understand about that? >_<

I can understand that what I talk about is quite hard to understand as it is quite philosophistical as well as quite complex matter and I stated even this in the very initial post as well.

In the case of children, I mainly claimed that there are only 2 cases of where such thing happens. Revenge, or just feeling like it (Known also as sadism). In the revenge situation it can be a sack of gold, or other valuable item and on the other more impulsive situation... well... it doesn't really take a real reason.

However then this Sorrow guy came and told me that there is a third option. Pro-active killing to prevent the child to take your posession. This doesn't fit to either sadism, nor taking revenge. So I must see it as a third reason (If there are more, please tell me about it).

However, in the case of nuclear blast, it is VERY different. Even you gain a sack of gold, the ulterior motive is still not that sack of gold, but more likely political reason. This is greed on the persons morality whom does the detonation but on the point of the one whom ordered it, it's most likely political and since you are by recieving the sack of gold doing the detonation FOR that guy, it should be seen from his point of view.

So you weren't completely wrong when you stated that I go on two different paths, since I kind of do. I go a different path when it comes to nukes, and different when it comes to children. Doesn't this make only sense when they are completely different things afterall?

I can also understand that what I say might sound like that I oppose killable children in games, but that is not the fact. That is twisting what I say and nothing more.

Regards,
Caldera

 

[Sander]

What's the difference between these two? It's the same one presented in slightly different fashion. The situation is exactly same in both.

A child stole something from you, you kill the child and take the stuff back. Ain't that the case in both? So what's the difference between them?

*Motive*. We're talking about motives, we've been talking about motives constantly. If you can't see the difference between killing someone as an act of revenge, or killing someone to regain stuff, then I really don't know what to tell you.

Then who did? Necessity is not something I brought up in my initial post at all.

No, you brought it up in a *later* post. To which I responded, upon which you accused *me* of bringing necessity up.

Honestly, I am slightly offended by that one. That's a direct personal attack on a matter that is completely misunderstood by the attacker. Here, I'll quote a sentence from my original post, which quite well explains what I have been talking about this whole time.

Nuking a city and killing a child are morally UNCOMPARABLE.

That has been the theme of my posts from the very beginning. I didn't accuse people of killing children, I was merely talking about my thoughts on the morality aspect of how different these two are.

Why I did so? Because so many people here were comparing these two together when they are completely different things. NOTHING ELSE AND NOTHING MORE! If I give out the image that it's in my opinion that killing a child is morally more wrong than nuking a city, you've already misunderstood my posts since from the very beginning I've said that they are in moral standpoint UNCOMPARABLE!

ue that by arguing that there cannot be an ulterior motive to killing children. Your argument has consisted *solely* of claiming that killing children never has an ulterior motive. And that's what this has been about.

I have no idea where you got that from. All ulterior motives YOU have shown has perfectly fitted the revenge, or sadism categories. I have never decided, or told, or even intended to say that ALL child kills were revenge kills. Heck, if you can find even one sentence in my claims where I even use the word "all". Talking about your comments doesn't of course count. If it's not there, why you keep seeing it?

And yet again, revenge kills and sadism kills are equivalent for your argument.

And, again, just because an action could be motivated by revenge or sadism *doesn't mean that it can't be motivated by something else as well*. Such as, you know, getting your stuff back.

Here, I'll say this yet again: killing children who steal from you can get your stuff back. If your goal is to get your stuff back, then this works perfectly. This has jack shit to do with 'revenge' or 'sadism', it is a *means* to an end. The end being getting your stuff back. Do you understand this?

Errrr..... yes? What do you mean "yes"? Where did I state that the game offers and official reason to blow up A CITY?! I can't remember ever, NEVER saying that. All I can remember saying is that the game offers some "official" reasons to kill in general. If I did however say the previous, could you please find it again and quote it for me?

You did say so for Fallout 3, and that is very obvious too. I nowhere claimed that you said there's an official reason to blow up a city in the original games, because you never did claim that.
It's also not really relevant to the argument that killing children has no ulterior motive.

Now, again, you claimed that there were official reasons to kill some people in the game. This has no relevance for the comparison to killing children, since even though there are no official reasons to kill any of them, there are no official reasons to kill most of the other people in the games either.

It is good that one of us actually knows what I mean to say. How do you know that I purposely structured the sentence like that?

What, do you ever structure sentences unpurposely? Because if you do, I find it quite admirable that you end up with intelligable sentences. Yes, that is sarcasm. Every sentence has a meaning, and the structure of a sentence can completely change that meaning.

You are seeing ghosts. I meant that as a direct and straight questions. I NEVER, I repeat, NEVER EVER speak between lines. I say what I mean and I never cloak them. If you can't read my words without looking between them, you'll never understand a damn thing I say, because there are no hidden messages. Believe it or not, that's how it is.

If I had meant that "you suggested that Interplay saw 'this' as too unmoral" I would have said so, I would have not structured it as a question.

Plus, it wasn't relevant to my initial post at all. It was just a plain idle question. That's all.

Okay, try to fucking understand this: this is basic, English language structure. You phrased the sentence suggesting that I had somewhere claimed something. This has jack shit to do with subtext or reading between the lines, *it's how the fucking language works*. It's that simple. Any sentence starting with 'But' means that you are *opposing* that sentence to something that came before, in this case my statements. Stating 'are you sure that' in combination with that opposition *always* means that you are asking that person if he is is sure that his previous statements are true. This is how the language works. It really is. This is not subtext, this is not me reading into things, this is the basic of sentence structuring in the English language. If you *meant* to say something else, then you should have structured your sentences differently.