Kiera

@example1013 said:

@Fajita_Jim: I obviously didn't, but let's take your word for it: how, then, do you get around unmolested, if nowhere is safe to walk through?

You remain inconspicuous. You don't make eye contact, you don't wear sports clothing, you don't wear 'colors', you don't blare out music, you don't fly any flag, and you don't say a word to the gang members.  And, no matter what, you don't let anyone see you get your prescriptions. THEY WILL FOLLOW YOUR ASS HOME. If they show up at your house you're probably safer to just start shooting, however.

@dudy80 said:

@example1013 said:

@Fajita_Jim said:

@example1013 said:

@dudy80 said:

@Fajita_Jim: You give permission to let people put there hands in your pockets? Sorry i couldn't resist, no harm ment, that said i would do the same. A kid stealing money needs a good punch in the face anyways.

Public justice > private justice

Public justice isn't responsive enough to get my wallet back with everything in it. Besides, the police who responded said they wish they could do the same (this Brat was known to them) so it can't be that bad.

The police are being irrational. Justice is supposed to be rational. Punishment fits the crime, and all that. I'm not arguing with getting your wallet back. I'm arguing with the guy who said the kid deserved to be punched in the face, like he'd just walk up to anyone who he knew pickpocketed and punch them in the face. We have public justice to prevent private justice from being enacted, because private justice causes problems like blood feuds, fights, and wrongful lynchings.

So if i walked up to you and stuck my hand in your pocket you wouldn't punch me in the face? i diden't mean i would do that to anyone i thought did that but if a crime is committed on me im going to take it into my hands to stop it until the police can actually do something.

No. I'm not going to specifically look to punch you in the face. I'd likely grab your arm. Punching someone in the face is extremely violent. Why would my first reaction be to attempt to break somebody's nose? Now, if in the ensuing struggle your nose got broken, that'd be okay. But I don't walk around saying "if someone reaches into my pocket, I'm aiming straight for the jaw." If you look to break noses for pickpocketing, I'd hate to see what you'd do to somebody who spilled a beer on you or something.

@Kiera said:

@Napalm said:

@Kiera said:

@ArbitraryWater said:

Is this some sort of joke post? Why don't we just ban anything objectionable ever from everything while we're at it?

You're taking it to an extreme.

Your OP was unnecessarily extreme. Jussayin'.

I never said we should take out morality choices. I was asking if people thought we should. "Jussayin"

Err... that's pretty much the same thing. You even said "so they can't be bad." The assumption is that you thought that was a good idea, or something you were in favor for. I mean, I'm just calling it like it is. Even asking that question is still unnecessarily extreme.

Just checking in. Looks like the OP is trolling you guys hard. 

@Kiera said:

@Fajita_Jim said:

@Kiera said:

@Fajita_Jim said:
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. There are so many variables. You're as black and white as the morality choices in Mass Effect.

Am I really? Is that why in the story of someone breaking into my house I related, I clearly stated I could have killed them but didn't? Doesn't this kinda fall into your argument above and therefore making you look stupid for stating something I've basically already said (in not so many words) and trying to attack me with it?  Try harder.

First you walk away from a fight then you don't shoot someone breaking into your house? Do you have a deathwish?

Idiot.  1. I fought, THEN walked away.  2. I DID shoot him. As in THE AFFIRMATIVE. But I wouldn't expect you to understand since your reading comprehension seems to be...lacking, to say the least.

@Kiera said:

@example1013 said:

@Fajita_Jim: Smaller city means it's more concentrated, too. The city right next to me has only 16,000 people, and has almost as high incidences of crime as Knoxville in many categories. It's not even that big, but there are plenty of places not to go.

You better carry a gun on you then.

See, I knew you didn't read the thread or you'd know that I ALWAYS CARRY A GUN AND I HAVE A CONCEAL AND CARRY LICENSE. As has been stated...repeatedly...but some people don't learn the first dozen times.

@Kiera said:

@ArbitraryWater said:

Is this some sort of joke post? Why don't we just ban anything objectionable ever from everything while we're at it?

You're taking it to an extreme.

Your OP was unnecessarily extreme. Jussayin'.

Christ almighty, you guys are being quite harsh.  At least on the first page.

@Kiera said:

@Fajita_Jim said:
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. There are so many variables. You're as black and white as the morality choices in Mass Effect.

Am I really? Is that why in the story of someone breaking into my house I related, I clearly stated I could have killed them but didn't? Doesn't this kinda fall into your argument above and therefore making you look stupid for stating something I've basically already said (in not so many words) and trying to attack me with it?  Try harder.

@Fajita_Jim: Smaller city means it's more concentrated, too. The city right next to me has only 16,000 people, and has almost as high incidences of crime as Knoxville in many categories. It's not even that big, but there are plenty of places not to go.

@Kiera said:

@MiniPato: 
 
But if you're naughty you'll grow horns.  
 
@Jay444111 said:

@Kiera said:

@EuanDewar said:

@Kiera said:

@TobyD81 said:

Censor art so that a small group of small-minded people don't take offense? No way.

Are video games art though?

Oh please no, please don't do this. Please, for the love of god. Don't turn this into that debate.

?

........... how long have you been on here? Just wondering. Because that debate is HUGE. I sugguest not starting it in this topic for the sheer fact that it literally can destroy entire forums VERY VERY quickly, almost at the speed of light actually. (Not joking in the slightest.)  (although, my opinion on it is that yes, it is art. Let's just stop right there. mmkay?

A while but I haven't logged on in AGES. What do you mean though?  

When Roger Ebert put up his, pretty much, totally ignorant post, it literally turned the entire internet against him and anyone that stood with him in an instant. So much so that he had to apologize for the fact that he was losing people on his blog, and fast. Still though, I have lost all respect for the man. and many others as well. But the debate has been raging on insanely for a while now. I think everyone should just say yes, it is art, just to stop all of this crap and that way our enemies who disagree will finally shut up about it for once and for all.  You wanna look at some of the rage. I dare you to make a topic on the CE forums and gamefaqs and survive the backlash if you act like the enemy of videogames. trust me, not many have survived that one.