HeyYou

Just like the last two...... :D Exactly. The american government/military/industrial complex wants to continue playing world police, as it makes the politicians, and corporate folks quite rich. The american PEOPLE, on the other hand, really don't care what government is in place in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, or a host of other countries. If they aren't bothering us, then they aren't an issue. When they start bothering us, solve the problems with some well-place bombs, NOT boots on the ground, and do NOT rebuild all the stuff we just spent millions to blow up. That's idiotic. Eventually, folks will get the idea that we are country not to be trifled with. As it stands now, no one respects us.

And presidential campaign is going to be a compromise for the voters. There is not a single candidate from any party that I completely agree with..... Basically, it boils down to which platform I hate the least...... Republicans have abortion, dems have gun control. Then we have immigration reform, and foreign policy....... Both land mines for any candidate....... and there are many more. Donald is popular because he is different. He ISN'T a politician, and I don't think he has a clue what 'politically correct' means..... which, so far as I am concerned, is a vote in his favor. :) Of course, his lack of diplomatic skills might get us into a war........ Which is something else I am not really interested in. America basically needs to stop playing world police, and start concentrating on getting their act back together, right here at home.

Unfortunately, I think it is the latter. What is even more amazing, is that we have made it this long, being led by mentally inferior (deranged?) folks, that are only interested in further themselves, not the nation they were elected to help lead.

Now THAT is FUNNY. I didn't miss your sarcasm there, nor your contradictory statements, by the way. And I DID offer a solution. One that didn't require any tribunals, secret meetings, or, the guillotine either...... The FACT that the rich can LEGALLY PURCHASE politicians is the main problem. Stating that 'they will flee the country, and take their jobs with them', really isn't much of a threat, as the jobs are already gone, not to mention that they are off-shoring their corporate headquarters to better tax havens in any event. Quite frankly, we really don't have anything to lose by leveling the playing field. I also note that you are quick to consider anyone that isn't 100% pro-business as a Socialist/Marxist/etc........ I am none of those things. I am not a conservative either. I think both parties have sold the american people down the river, and at this point, their main concerns are: 1. Making their campaign contributors happy, and keeping them that way, by passing their pet legislation. and 2. Making as much money for themselves as they possibly can, at the taxpayers expense. anything else, like 'the good of the country' is a distant third. But, as you say, there is "no solution". So, we should just accept our lot as third class citizens, do nothing, and watch as the middle class shrinks at an ever increasing rate, the poor get poorer, and the rich get richer at an ever increasing rate.... Soon, we will look just like all the other third-world nations in the world, and our wages and standard of living will reflect that. Is that really what you think we should do?

Have a read here for what folks are paying taxes, and why. From that article: The vast majority of those not paying taxes, are the very young, and the very old. (working age.) Over their lifetimes though, they pay in more than they get paid out. Yes, the rich folks create the jobs, but, look at what they have been doing to the jobs market. The once-good-paying jobs have been outsourced to their world countries, thanks to free trade agreements. This was supposed to make products less expensive. It didn't. It made them cheap junk. fully 70 percent of the jobs created in the last five years, have been service industry, low-wage, no-skill, part-time jobs, with no benefits. This is due to the free-trade agreements that ONLY benefit those 'job creators'....... Did dodge trucks get cheaper when production was moved to mexico? Nope, the price went UP. Where is the savings we were promised? In the rich folks pockets. That's where. It IS class warfare, the rich are waging it, buying politicians, and winning.

That's exactly what we have. And the rich are most certainly winning. I don't expect anything to change either, as the only folks that can actually change it, are the very same people that benefit the most by NOT changing it.

I was always kinda partial to the 69 ZL1......

We already have a system run by the rich, for pretty much their sole benefit. We could fix a whole lotta stuff by getting the money OUT of politics. Starting with campaign finance reform. Spending a billion dollars over two years, to get a job that pays 400,000 a year, for four years, is just stupid. In this day and age of instant information/communication, there is absolutely no reason for it.

It's an engine problem. I have the same issue, with far fewer mods than what you run. I have never been able to figger out how to fix it.

Thanks for the hat. :) I feel much better now. My neighbor is a full-blown conspiracy theorist...... When he started talking about black helicopters (I live less than 6 miles from an airport, and they have...... helicopters.......) and chem trails, I suspected he was going to be interesting to live near..... I was correct. Don't see him real often.... Living out in the sticks does have some advantages....... So, not too much of an issue. I don't really care to get into a debate with him about it.

I want a hat too!!! Ad-block is a wonderful thing. Setting your browser to NOT accept third-party cookies doesn't hurt either. if you have an internet connection, you are being tracked. Just the way it is. Even Microsoft wants to track you, look at all the Data Win10 can potentially phone home with.......

I have given overwhelming reasons to show why sex organs have only ONE purpose-*procreation*. Couple that with the arguments I gave, and you will understand why Homosexuality is objectively against the very nature of the Human system. I have never told anything about it being 'Common' or 'Normal'.You seem to be deliberately straw-manning. I will summarize it for easier understanding: Fact1: The sexual system “indicates” that certain organs are sexual (genital) organs and certain other organs are non-sexual organs. Fact 2: The sexual system indicates that the normal expected sexual target is an ADULT, HUMAN of the OPPOSITE SEX. Thus the clear indication is that the sex organs are for procreation. Thus, Condoms, birth control, and masturbation etc. Can all be seen as a clear misuse of one's organs. Unless you can prove that Organs are not sexual in nature and were really intended for pleasure, you are implicitly agreeing that you don't have anything to say against this argument. There are many practices that society as a whole has become very tolerant about.But this does not make it morally jusitfied. For the "Homosexuality in animals" argument i will just quote Dr. Antonio Pardo: "Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction." You completely ignored where I blew your 'fact 2' out of the water. Basing assumptions on a false premise just doesn't work.

I think it's hidden. :D

How do you define "adult"? Based on simple physical compatability, some folks are 'sexually capable' as young as 12-13 years old, in that, they are capable of having sex, and producing offspring. I don't know of many (any) places where girls that age (or guys for that matter) are considered "adult"...... Nature doesn't care about anything else. Nature has no morals, does not have some set age where sex is 'acceptable', in a cultural context. Nature just wants continuation of the species. That's it. But, from that perspective, homosexuality is incapable, in and of itself, of producing offspring. (in humans) Therefore, homosexuality should be considered 'unnatural'. Now, when you introduce 'sex for pleasure', it's a whole new ball-game.

Well, the game was advertised as 3d...... Granted, they are projected on a 2d screen....... But, I am not really inclined to spindle my monitor. I think the child would disappear, before I got very far. :D

I believe I can adhere to almost all your admonitions..but just how does one spindle a child? Is this some mid west custom? :laugh: Not entirely sure.... would be easier were they two-dimensional, but, would the act of flattening them constitute bending, or folding?

Please do not bend, fold, spindle, or mutilate, the children.

NASA - National Acronym Society of America. :)

Seems pope francis raised the age of consent to 14 in Vatican city. Of course, so far as the law there is concerned, there is no such thing as 'legal, consensual sex' between folks that aren't married...... and they decided that girls need to be at least 14 before they can enter into that kind of contract. Supposedly, "Divine Law" takes precedence over Italian law....... but, if it actually works that way in actually pracitce is another thing entirely. I should have been more specific on my last point. Should have read "sex slavery".

To play devil's advocate to your devil's advocate: "Killing" (or "taking a life") and "murder" are distinct practices that are defined culturally, and Skyrim actually does enforce this distinction within its own created/fictional culture. As the player you can kill characters like bandits, and this is allowable, however killing/assaulting Jarl Elisif is not allowable, and will be punished. There's a distinction between guys you can hit, and guys you can't (killing vs murder). Real-world cultures make similar distinctions. For example soldiers killing other soldiers in a war is not the same as a civilian walking into a bar and killing another civilian (Skyrim actually enforces this same distinction too). All cultures/societies have a taboo on murder, but they all define murder in different, socioculturally mediated, ways. Within the medieval period, there were similarly enforced taboos on murder as distinct from killing within contemporaneous cultures. The concept of werguld, for example, comes out of the middle ages (Skyrim actually enforces/demonstrates this too, albeit in a limited fashion). It wasn't just "do as you will" with respect to violence, however by many modern sensibilities it may appear that way. Marriageable age is another culturally relative topic, and can be thought of in a largely similar way. There will be variable definitions of what is and is not acceptable as you go from culture to culture. Arguably the fictional culture of Skyrim largely reflects modern-day beliefs on the topic (if you treat "vanilla game" as canon). The same goes for conceptualizations of personal rights or self ownership. As far as why some "bad" things are allowed within current law/culture and other "bad" things are not - again, it's all culturally relative (even thinking about actions in terms of a value-weighted dichotomy is culturally relative). And the great part about cultural beliefs and practices is they don't have to make any logical sense whatsoever - they're cultural beliefs and practices after all, not natural laws (however to cultural participants they very well may feel or appear to be rigidly fixed points, or "just the way it is"/"the way of the world"). In other words, it's not like Nirn will break/unravel if you were to kill/attack Jarl Elisif, even though you're really not supposed to, and Bolgeir Bearclaw will happily explain to you the error of your ways (as he's there to tell you which guys you can, and can't, hit). Now as far as "morality" or "ethics" - that's an entirely different discussion. :teehee: I think your last paragraph pretty much hits the nail on the head. We aren't permitted these things, as the society in which the game is is created (United States) finds them abhorrent. Even though, today, age of consent is as low as 12 in some supposedly "civilized" societies. (Vatican City for instance, you know, the seat of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.... And I believe Amsterdam as well.....) So, here in the states, sex acts with children are considered "taboo", and killing children is "unthinkable"...... so, game designers simply don't permit you even the option of doing so. Granted, you can find 'other' sites, that give you the option of all sorts of rude behavior, that is also considered 'unacceptable' here. Slavery springs immediately to mind......

oh lord..murderers end up back on the street in 13 months. Must be a misdemeanor... Well, it depends on your method of murder..... If you REALLY want to get away with it, get seriously drunk, and run them over with your car. Chances are, you will be out in 2 years, if you do any time at all.....

It's an interesting ethical exercise, if nothing else....... On the grand scale of things, is pedophilia worse than murder? Is rape? Here in the states, you get more time for murder...... yet, in the game, you kill folks every day. Several times. And no one bats an eye. Of course, it is a 'medieval' society, so, that's more or less the norm..... but then, so was child marriage...... So what we get here is: Taking away ALL of someones rights (murder): That's Ok. Violating someones rights, and leaving them alive: That's taboo. It IS a strange moral conundrum. :D No, I am not a sociopath, psychopath, or pedophile, just a Devils Advocate. :D

So, does that imply that folks walking into small towns, in-game, and killing everyone in sight, would want to do THAT in reality?? Sorry, Logic fail. To imply that one type of 'bad' behavior should not be allowed, because 'folks will wanna do it in real life', but, *won't* do some 'other' bad behavior? That one defies explanation. OK, sorry I misread the content of the OP first post. At least we know you are not a politician. :D

So, does that imply that folks walking into small towns, in-game, and killing everyone in sight, would want to do THAT in reality?? Sorry, Logic fail. To imply that one type of 'bad' behavior should not be allowed, because 'folks will wanna do it in real life', but, *won't* do some 'other' bad behavior? That one defies explanation. I think that was meant to be sarcastic. But it would fit in nicely with the usual official justification for stupid laws. Are you accusing him of being a.... a..... poli..... ugh, Politician? *cough* *spit* That's libel, I think. :D Nah, a politician would never post a topic entitled "What exactly is truth?". That's a subject they prefer to avoid altogether. LOLOL. Valid point. :)

So, does that imply that folks walking into small towns, in-game, and killing everyone in sight, would want to do THAT in reality?? Sorry, Logic fail. To imply that one type of 'bad' behavior should not be allowed, because 'folks will wanna do it in real life', but, *won't* do some 'other' bad behavior? That one defies explanation. I think that was meant to be sarcastic. But it would fit in nicely with the usual official justification for stupid laws. Are you accusing him of being a.... a..... poli..... ugh, Politician? *cough* *spit* That's libel, I think. :D