marharth

Last time I checked, Jyggalag was a Daedric Prince. So how could he have been killed by Sheogorath? ;) He didn't actually get killed. He was defeated but not killed. Jyggalag returned to how he was before and the player character took over the role of Sheogorath. It is correct in saying you can not kill Daedra. It is entirely impossible to kill a Daedra. They can only be put back to Oblivion. You can kill Aedra though.

This turned into a debate on if its legal to offer money to kill people?

I put about 16 hours into it. I was doing a non lethal playthrough too and explored quite a bit. If you tried to do a entirely non lethal play through, fully explore the world, unlock all bone charms and ruins, and do non lethal options on targets then it is probably around 20 hours. If you do a entirely lethal playthrough and kill the targets directly without any advanced tactics or exploring, it can probably be finished in a few hours. Also the story was kinda meh, but the world was great. I would like to see a more open world longer game with the same world and gameplay mechanics. The magic system was also fairly cool too. One big problem is that lethal has so many more options then non lethal but is also way easier. You can kill people from jumping from a roof, you can kill them with a type of mine, multiple crossbow bolts, grenades, a few magic things, and a number of other ways. It is faster then non lethal in every way. Non lethal you have a crossbow with 10 sleeping bolts and the same choking animation. Unless you care about exploration and the story, lethal is the best way to go. Being non lethal is actually LESS sneaky, since there is a magic ability that lets you turn people into ash on kill, meaning you don't have to hide bodies.

True, but Sheogorath seems to have far more power then Jyggalag. It is completely impossible to hurt Sheogorath, and he can control you entirely.

The only good part of Shivering Isles was Sheogorath :P He may be insane, but he is also a Daedra.

With the events of the shivering isles seen as cannon, the hero of cyrodiil was transformed into sheogorath after taking over control of the isles, in Skyrim, you meet sheogorath, who teleports the Dragonborn into Pelagius the mads mind. So therefore the Hero of Cyrodiil is effectively a daedric prince, as that sheogorath makes remarks about the events of oblvion, as though he were there. ^that is what I am referring to. I think it is safe to say that the Oblivion PC is Sheogorath without question, considering in Skyrim he hints about it by saying that Martin Septim was his favorite emperor.

The Oblivion PC is the strongest actually. Considering the Oblivion PC managed to teleport the Skyrim PC into another realm and trap him there.

This If you have even the slightest doubt that any of those people are legitimate, watch/read some of the stuff by James Randi.

I agree with this for the most part.

First off, there is no "historical fact" about things which were secret. Secound, Jefferson and Washington weren't Members of the Illuminati. Knigge was. There was historical fact about the Illuminati. Of course there was. If there wasn't historical fact you wouldn't even know it existed (or at least couldn't say it existed since you would have no evidence.) Why does it matter that he was a member? The Illuminati isn't what people think it was. It wasn't so secret that no one knew what they did, or who they were. At the time people knew the Illuminati existed, and knew what they stood for. A single guy getting mad and leaving isn't much to base your entire opinion of the organization off. Someone else who was a member was Goethe. He wrote against the Catholic Church and totalitarian control.

No, Freiherr von Knigge wrote a book about them, it was a total rip-off. They were after upperclass peoples money and frauded most of their members. Also, the official statements of there goals are nearly identical with those from the communist manifesto. Typical "we promiss you a totaly paradise" sect jabbering. Every read a book about them? Most books on him are written by nut-job conspiracy theorists. Right, so a nobleman that left from the Illuminati and wrote a book for profit is more legitimate then letters from Thomas Jefferson or George Washington saying that the Illuminati stood for good believes. People can stick to conspiracy theories all they want and hate the Illuminati, but it goes against historical fact. http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=WasFi36.xml&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=388&division=div1 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28tj090050%29%29 If the Illuminati are so good how will they archeive their agenda of 1) food for everyone - when at todays population they are talking food shortages and 2) Healthcare for all - when we all know how expensive that costs. and 3) providing benefits when currently the benefits cost countrys that have them billions every year. Though not as much as prisoners cost to be locked up. Then you take a look at the Fema camps and the stock piles of coffins and how they are set up like Hitlers death camps were and then you see how they plan to do their goals. Same close to railways, same double barbed wire fences same furnaces...... And why is their a stone plague in america saying to keep the world population at 5 million? It is a human right to grow ones vege and drink and use rainwater. Someones getting rich and people are too dumb to oppose this loss of freedom and can't see whats happening. And btw, they aren't wanting to enslave us, they are wanting to kill us and depopulate the worlds population because they know at the current rate it's growing this world cannot feed the rising populations - on the news scientists are talking food shortages. Because the Illuminati you are talking about does not exist. There is no conspiracy, the people who rule the world are rich and corporations. There is nothing deeper then that.

So every politician ever. Okay. Certainly not. They used to have other careers, and successful ones. Some served in the military, some as businessmen, some in the professions, but Obama as I understand it is an academic lawyer. Here in the UK it used to be just the same, but now we have career politicians who have chosen Parliament as a first career choice and don't know squat about anything else. So serving in the military makes you more experienced in politics how? Essentially every politician comes from a background of privilege. It gives you experience in something other than politics, we have politicians lecturing businesses in this country yet few of them actually have any experience of it. Politics is a means to an end, not the end in itself, these days we're overrun with career politicians who care more for politics than they do the people. One of our most successful leaders, Margaret Thatcher was born above a grocers shop, she knew what the real world was like. Compare Thatcher to the gormless rich boy we have for PM now, he's a career politician and doesn't have a clue about the real world. My point is that Obama is no different from the other politicians we have now. Very few politicians actually have real experience, and if they do once they get into politics they stay. Most politicians are also from a privileged background now.

So every politician ever. Okay. Certainly not. They used to have other careers, and successful ones. Some served in the military, some as businessmen, some in the professions, but Obama as I understand it is an academic lawyer. Here in the UK it used to be just the same, but now we have career politicians who have chosen Parliament as a first career choice and don't know squat about anything else. So serving in the military makes you more experienced in politics how? Essentially every politician comes from a background of privilege.

No, Freiherr von Knigge wrote a book about them, it was a total rip-off. They were after upperclass peoples money and frauded most of their members. Also, the official statements of there goals are nearly identical with those from the communist manifesto. Typical "we promiss you a totaly paradise" sect jabbering. Every read a book about them? Most books on him are written by nut-job conspiracy theorists. Right, so a nobleman that left from the Illuminati and wrote a book for profit is more legitimate then letters from Thomas Jefferson or George Washington saying that the Illuminati stood for good believes. People can stick to conspiracy theories all they want and hate the Illuminati, but it goes against historical fact. http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=WasFi36.xml&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=388&division=div1 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28tj090050%29%29

So every politician ever. Okay.

Romney and Obama are equally bad. They have extremely similar policies. People don't seem to realize that voting doesn't matter. You vote for Obama because you liked what he ran for. He didn't do a damn thing he said he would do, and just kept going on the same policies Bush did. Now Obama/Romney are essentially the same person. Why do you think voting makes a difference? If you vote for a third party then you take away votes from the two major parties. There will never be enough people that vote for a third party to actually make that candidate win. The republicans and democrats dominate the media. I am getting tired of people saying it is acceptable to vote for the lesser of two evils. You are still voting for a evil, and you shouldn't consider that morally correct.

If these people already rule the world, why do they need to enslave us physically? All of those sites are fake. People seem to forget what the historical Illuminati stood for. The Illuminati was a good group.

If people actually looked at Obama's policies you would realize he is pretty much the same as Bush. And Romney is the same as Obama. Pretty much what minuteman said.

How did I "twist your words?" If you mean the part about punishing them, what is "Are you saying that they should therefore not be punished? Under any circumstances?" supposed to mean? "You are also completely wrong about what the proposed new law does, it compels ISP's to reveal the identity of the troll so that a civil action can be mounted more easily. That would not preclude political attacks and would still allow the defences of truth and fair comment on a matter of public interest." How so? It is revealing the identity of someone who caused serious reputation damage, so that they could be charged with a crime later on. Why would it not apply to anonymous political attacks? According to the first post it simply said serious reputation damage.

So the law makes people afraid of saying what they want online because they might get charged with a crime. Alright. That doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Once again, do you consider it not psychopathic to stalk someone to the point that they kill themselves? It doesn't matter if its in real life or not. If you acknowledged that trolling is someone posting hateful things to get a angry response, why don't you want pranks to be illegal? Pranks are the same thing. Doing things that might be harmful to invoke a bad emotional response. If the number of people who actually get harmed by trolls is low, why do you need a law to defend them? Is it worth giving up freedom of speech just because you want to protect people who get mad online? As for Ginny, what about kids? According to the previous post he made he said the majority were kids. Psychopaths should be treated, not punished. Take note this law is if someone damages your reputation. NOT if you push someone to suicide, or anything like that. You can damage someones reputation in multiple ways. Politcal attack ads would be considered illegal under this. Even if you were truthful about something it would be considered illegal. That is if the first post is correct.

So you are saying we should charge kids and people with mental issues for crimes because of something they said online? So its not psychopathic to stalk someone and hate them to the point that they commit suicide? A troll is someone who posts off topic or hateful messages with the purpose of invoking a hateful/mad response. It is not trolling to make someone kill themselves. For your vending machine comparison, do you know any actual stats on how many people get harmed by trolling by any chance?

Read my previous post. Removing anonymity is a terrible idea.

Whats going on? Came to check on the topic and its something about video games and violence.

Anonymity may be the biggest defense of a troll, but it is also the biggest defense of the person being trolled. What if a troll provoked someone to the point where the victim would fall under the law? What if the troll got into a law suit just to get more information on their victim?

If someone is working tirelessly to destroy someones reputation they are not a troll in my opinion. That goes farther then just making someone upset for enjoyment. They probably have a different goal, that is likely already illegal under current laws.