Well, calling someone evil, it's as irrelevant as, say, calling my opposition a bunch of scum-sucking, repugnant piles of pusillanimous ever-loving shit, or any combination of colorful words I can use to describe someone I disagree with. I'm pretty adept at demeaning people, but demeaning someone has never led to one's revelation of, "Oh, he called me a... violent pig rapist, I guess that means I'm wrong now!" so, yeah, you're saying I use words like "enemy" and "evil" as insults, or demeaning words--and I absolutely agree, especially in terms of their efficiency when it comes to turning my opposition into my allies.

Which is to say, entirely inefficient.

So, obviously, that's never the goal. The goal of insulting people, much of the time, is to sort of validate myself. I like knowing who my enemy is, and I like telling my enemies if they are my enemy. That's sort of important to understand--if we have a fundamental disagreement about something--and it has to be a fundamental disagreement--we are enemies, and we have to understand that we will not get along. lol

It's... a concession that any discussion between enemies is futile, because of the fundamental disagreement. You will not engage in any intelligent discussion until you get to the core of your... ethical foundations. For example, you and I couldn't ever discuss anything involving economics, because it's complex as fuck and too much of it is contingent upon one's "moral" foundations. And I despise the word "moral". We'd have to discuss values before anything else--and even that's going to be tricky.

You say you think altruism is stupid. I say, I find it very poetic that someone who thinks altruism is stupid also believes that evil is an irrelevant concept.

So, that's our fundamental disagreement there. Would I describe you as my enemy? Uhh, nah... You have shown yourself to be a highly open and malleable individual, which is virtuous in itself...

But then what do you mean by obedience?

There's obviously a level of mutualism there. They're obedient to each other.

I mean, I agree, obedience is a shitty word to use, but it's easy enough to glean what he's saying...

It doesn't matter if one is single player and the other is multiplayer. If they have the same objective, they should be treated equally.

In multiplayer, you're still not killing for the sake of killing. You're killing for the sake of getting a win over your opponent. It's also what I'd call a virtual war.

Hatred is nothing of the sort.

You are the stupidest user on this website.

There was a thread about this a couple weeks ago.

I feel like what I said summed up pretty well how I feel.

Quote from: Verbatim on December 17, 2014, 01:11:30 PM

Last I checked, wars don't happen for no reason. We don't have wars just because we like to kill people.

What are you even talking about?

Call of Duty takes place during war.
Halo takes place during war.
Battlefield takes place in a war.

You fucking idiot.

Halo: Combat Evolved
2/10

Halo 2
4/10

Halo 3
3/10

Haven't played any others.

Just wondering if you guys are legitimately retarded because you can't distinguish between Hatred and any other shooter.

I KNOW RIGHT

These fucking morons can only be petty weasels about everything. He specifically said "killing for the sake of killing," which you are not doing in games like Halo and CoD. Not even in GTA. Sure, in GTA, you can kill people for the absolute fuck of it, but that's not necessarily encouraged or endorsed by the game itself if you actually play the game's story instead of just fucking around like every shithead idiot that plays games like GTA.

In Hatred, not only are you actively killing for the sake of it, the game is about killing people for the sake of it. It ENDORSES it, for NO OTHER REASON. Which, to me, is just TOO mindless, TOO dumb, and TOO edgy, and shouldn't be a thing at all.

I'm not gonna whine and cry about it being greenlit again, because at the end of the day, I don't care all that much. But to compare this game with modern FPS games and GTA and shit, acting like it's gonna be a valuable piece of art just because it exists, is just goddamn stupid.

Vomit.

i'm usually not that guy, but

oh my god
this is so fucking staged

No.

wow, this got derailed fast. First couple posts all about delicious cookies, the bam! cannibalism.

People tend to get REALLY rustled when someone mentions that they're vegan.

Are you asking me about voluntary cannibalism? Yes, obviously, that's okay. At first, it seemed like you were asking if I could get someone else's permission to kill and eat someone else. That would be insane.

If you sucked off a dog could you swallow the dogs cum or would you have to spit?

You would be sent to prison. For animal abuse. Where you belong.

I wouldn't go gay for anyone. That's kinda the whole point of not being gay.

You've never seen milk marked with these?

Do you believe everything you see on labels?

Or drink milk

Have you ever heard of a fucking GMO?