Yeah well we don't live in those times any more. We live in our time , our world and I don't want our world to be filled with a bunch of sociopaths like you.
Morality is subjective, it changes over time. Spartans used to leave deformed babies outside to die and it was considered normal. Christians… more killed "witches" and it was considered normal. People still stone others to death and its considered normal. Moral values are very different around the globe and in different time periods.
Our world? In our world, people are still stoning others to death, there is still slavery, death penalties, honor killings and all other shit. Za would be new era, with new moral values which you would consider crazy right now.
Yeah well we don't live in those times any more. We live in our time , our world and I don't want our world to be filled with a bunch of sociopaths like you.
Yeah well we don't live in those times any more. We live in our time , our world and I don't want our world to be filled with a bunch of sociopaths like you.
Our world? In our world, people are still stoning others to death, there is still slavery, death penalties, honor killings and all other shit. Za would be new era, with new moral values which you would consider crazy right now.
The one your are debating with will resort to foul tactics and empty threats when losing an argument my friend. Trying to argue with this one is like trying to smash stones with eggs.
The one your are debating with will resort to foul tactics and empty threats when losing an argument my friend. Trying to argue with this one is like trying to smash stones with eggs.
You even admitted in another thread that you are.
Also , you're acting exactly like it.
Read the defentiton and then go read your comments and tell me that you're not.
You clearly dont understand what subjective moral values mean.
Moral values change... Are you unable to understand that fact? What you think is right thing to do, could be considered stupid or immoral by someone else now, years ago or years later.
Questions like abortion. Are you against it or not? If a women is raped and gets pregnant, is it morally correct to do abortion?
If i dont share the same moral values as you, but still do what i think is morally correct, doesnt make me a sociopath. Is it worth to risk everyone else for a baby? I dont think so, and you are free to disagree with me.
You even admitted in another thread that you are.
Also , you're acting exactly like it.
Read the defentiton and then go read your comments and tell me that you're not.
You clearly dont understand what subjective moral values mean.
Moral values change... Are you unable to understand that fact? What you th… moreink is right thing to do, could be considered stupid or immoral by someone else now, years ago or years later.
Questions like abortion. Are you against it or not? If a women is raped and gets pregnant, is it morally correct to do abortion?
If i dont share the same moral values as you, but still do what i think is morally correct, doesnt make me a sociopath. Is it worth to risk everyone else for a baby? I dont think so, and you are free to disagree with me.
Having a baby would risk everyone else in the group so yeah, i wouldnt risk others just for a baby. Just like with the story Jane told about that prick getting stuck and 4 people died rescuing him and he was already bit. Just like the prick, a baby isnt worth saving and its better to realize that before people die.
Having a baby would risk everyone else in the group so yeah, i wouldnt risk others just for a baby. Just like with the story Jane told about… more that prick getting stuck and 4 people died rescuing him and he was already bit. Just like the prick, a baby isnt worth saving and its better to realize that before people die.
Having a baby would risk everyone else in the group so yeah, i wouldnt risk others just for a baby. Just like with the story Jane told about… more that prick getting stuck and 4 people died rescuing him and he was already bit. Just like the prick, a baby isnt worth saving and its better to realize that before people die.
Because a full grown adult has lived his life , had all of his fun. A baby still needs to grow and experience life.
Also a full grown adult is able to defend him self and do things on his own , a baby needs to be looked after.
Because a full grown adult has lived his life , had all of his fun. A baby still needs to grow and experience life.
Thats a poor excuse. Even adults barely survive in za, so its unlike to raise a baby to age where he can take care of himself. You are are speaking as if a baby is entitled to experience long and cruel life in cost of others.
Also a full grown adult is able to defend him self and do things on his own , a baby needs to be looked after.
My point precisely. A baby needs to be looked after all the time and it puts others in danger.
Why are we even debating about subjective matters?
Because a full grown adult has lived his life , had all of his fun. A baby still needs to grow and experience life.
Also a full grown adult is able to defend him self and do things on his own , a baby needs to be looked after.
Very nice answer. I totally agree. If you can condone Lee taking Clem then I see no reason you can't condone Clem taking AJ. It may take longer for him to conform to the rules of this world than it did Clem, but in the end both would have been a detriment to the survival of the PC. If you think leaving or killing AJ is the right answer then leaving or killing Clem would have been the tight answer also. Survival of the fittest, or survival of humanity?
No most definitely not, im not attacking you or saying your wrong, infact my view of wanting to protect him is a lot me silly than your train of thought, I dont agree with the Rebecca thing and treating AJ a certain way just because you didnt like Rebecca but we are all different..
But your thoughts on AJ and the realism of survival is true, my stand and die view for alvie is more questionable or moronic than yours, I just couldnt abondon him...
Lets face it, in reality if me and you both were in this situation and I stuck with AJ and you decided to abandon/kill or give away AJ who would have the best chance of surviving? You would by a good margin too.. just I know I would rather die trying to protect AJ than live knowing what I had done with AJ... different minds thats all..
You have the Jane mentality which there is nothing wrong with at all.. infact its the best way to be in a situation like this.. she left her sister, where I would have stayed till the end ... what good would it trully do me or my sister? None it would more than lightly get me killed also...
I dont mind. I would leave a baby behind without hesitation in za. Wouldnt even try to find safe place for it.
+7 years old, so they can … moreactually do something and wont put me in constant danger.
I do feel empathy, but i just choose to not care about others.
I dont even value my own life that much.
Being a baby isnt an excuse to be liability, just like being mentally handicapped isnt excuse to endanger others. Life isnt fair, and in za,… more that is taken to whole new level.
If i were liability to a group, i would either leave them, because its not fair to drag them down with me, or if i was in too bad shape to take care of myself, i would just kill myself.
Viva, you do realize that subjective moral values change over time? What is immoral now might not be in a za. It was the first days of za and Lee had no reason to not take care of Clementine. He was still thinking like most people back then and wanted to protect this little girl he found. It takes time for new moral values to be accepted as current ones and over the years in za, people would do things which by nowadays standards would be considered immoral.
For example, dropping ben, shooting duck, making roasted Mark, leaving a girl to get eaten, stealing someones property, murdering someone because of mistake etc.
Some hundred years ago "witches" were killed and this was considered normal. Anyone nowadays would think that was immoral.
Very nice answer. I totally agree. If you can condone Lee taking Clem then I see no reason you can't condone Clem taking AJ. It may take lon… moreger for him to conform to the rules of this world than it did Clem, but in the end both would have been a detriment to the survival of the PC. If you think leaving or killing AJ is the right answer then leaving or killing Clem would have been the tight answer also. Survival of the fittest, or survival of humanity?
Viva, you do realize that subjective moral values change over time? What is immoral now might not be in a za. It was the first days of za an… mored Lee had no reason to not take care of Clementine. He was still thinking like most people back then and wanted to protect this little girl he found. It takes time for new moral values to be accepted as current ones and over the years in za, people would do things which by nowadays standards would be considered immoral.
For example, dropping ben, shooting duck, making roasted Mark, leaving a girl to get eaten, stealing someones property, murdering someone because of mistake etc.
Some hundred years ago "witches" were killed and this was considered normal. Anyone nowadays would think that was immoral.
No most definitely not, im not attacking you or saying your wrong, infact my view of wanting to protect him is a lot me silly than your trai… moren of thought, I dont agree with the Rebecca thing and treating AJ a certain way just because you didnt like Rebecca but we are all different..
But your thoughts on AJ and the realism of survival is true, my stand and die view for alvie is more questionable or moronic than yours, I just couldnt abondon him...
Lets face it, in reality if me and you both were in this situation and I stuck with AJ and you decided to abandon/kill or give away AJ who would have the best chance of surviving? You would by a good margin too.. just I know I would rather die trying to protect AJ than live knowing what I had done with AJ... different minds thats all..
You have the Jane mentality which there is nothing wrong with at all.. infact its the best way to be in a situation like this.. she left her sister, where… [view original content]
Crawford did this, so we know for a fact that there are people who accepted these new moral values. Even Molly was about to leave Kenny, Lee and Clem behind but then she started to feel sorry for them and decided to help. And its not about abandoning a babies spesifically, but those who put others in risk.
I doubt you will play as AJ. As Clem getting into wellington is probably the canon ending and the end of her journey.
You probably plays as Kenny hopeful.
Crawford didn't quite work out so hard to get a comment from them in-game. Hard to think of many people in the game we saw who would be cool with abandoning a live baby. And even if we could find one, like on this board, just because there is one or even a few doesn't make it a moral shift when everyone else isn't cool with it.
Crawford did this, so we know for a fact that there are people who accepted these new moral values. Even Molly was about to leave Kenny, Lee… more and Clem behind but then she started to feel sorry for them and decided to help. And its not about abandoning a babies spesifically, but those who put others in risk.
They killed/kicked off kids, elderly, anyone with medical condition and pretty much everyone who wasnt pulling their own weight or required extra attention, so yes, they did accept these new moral values.
Crawford went to shit, because emotional and pregnant women started killing people inside and caused an outbreak. (if i understood your first sentence properly)
Crawford didn't quite work out so hard to get a comment from them in-game. Hard to think of many people in the game we saw who would be cool… more with abandoning a live baby. And even if we could find one, like on this board, just because there is one or even a few doesn't make it a moral shift when everyone else isn't cool with it.
You're missing that every single person we actually saw in the game did not accept those values. Like I say, just because some do it does mean a big moral shift. They were an isolated community and were clearly being judged for their actions. Their actions were not deemed acceptable.
They killed/kicked off kids, elderly, anyone with medical condition and pretty much everyone who wasnt pulling their own weight or required … moreextra attention, so yes, they did accept these new moral values.
Crawford went to shit, because emotional and pregnant women started killing people inside and caused an outbreak. (if i understood your first sentence properly)
Yea working out in what frame of mind someone types something isnt always clear, plus as you say 90% of people on here (and most forums tbh)dont know what a discussion is, and in reality its more "this is my view and not only are you going to listen but also agree, if not your a prick (or worse)"
No time for it personly, I actualy love hearing differing views, its quite surprising how 2 people can have a different take on the same thing, im an artist and same goes there to, what tickles one person make another throw up, I find it interesting, the human mind is a magical thing...
Just like our discussion just, whos right? ?.... can't answer it, there is no answer, it depends at what angle you look at it, look at it from the morel angle and im right, look at it from a survival angle and your right... and TT have been playing this game from Ep 1 of S1, just some people are to mentaly blind to see there isnt REALLY an answer... we are all different, and we will all act diferently to any given situation... I find it extreamly interesting...
Cant really tell your thoughts based on that "lol".
Well im glad you are not judgemental prick like some people here. 10/10 conversation, would discuss things with you again.
Crawford did, Carver did, all the bandits did, (Clem did, determinant), ep2 brothers took it to whole new level (eating those who were hurt), Jane did (she did imply that they should leave the baby), so obviously there were people who accepted those moral values on some level. Even Kenny wanted to kill Ben because he put others in danger.
(Remember, im not talking spesifically about leaving babies behind, but people who put others in danger and are "worthless" to their cause, survival.)
You're missing that every single person we actually saw in the game did not accept those values. Like I say, just because some do it does me… morean a big moral shift. They were an isolated community and were clearly being judged for their actions. Their actions were not deemed acceptable.
I'd like to point out that this is subjective, considering that our moral values are subjective. Moral values changes over time and if za would happen, that would have radical impact on current moral values over the years.
Yea working out in what frame of mind someone types something isnt always clear, plus as you say 90% of people on here (and most forums tbh)… moredont know what a discussion is, and in reality its more "this is my view and not only are you going to listen but also agree, if not your a prick (or worse)"
No time for it personly, I actualy love hearing differing views, its quite surprising how 2 people can have a different take on the same thing, im an artist and same goes there to, what tickles one person make another throw up, I find it interesting, the human mind is a magical thing...
Just like our discussion just, whos right? ?.... can't answer it, there is no answer, it depends at what angle you look at it, look at it from the morel angle and im right, look at it from a survival angle and your right... and TT have been playing this game from Ep 1 of S1, just some people are to mentaly blind to see there isnt REALLY an answer... we are all … [view original content]
Okay, I was talking specifically abandoning babies given the topic at hand but you're right about those other things, even if in the game context we are never really supposed to be on their side (most of them, anyway - by not abandoning Clem, Jane nullified anything she implied).
Crawford did, Carver did, all the bandits did, (Clem did, determinant), ep2 brothers took it to whole new level (eating those who were hurt)… more, Jane did (she did imply that they should leave the baby), so obviously there were people who accepted those moral values on some level. Even Kenny wanted to kill Ben because he put others in danger.
(Remember, im not talking spesifically about leaving babies behind, but people who put others in danger and are "worthless" to their cause, survival.)
We are discussing this like we are in game. (ZA) And there is a hell of difference doing somthing a few years intoma ZA and doing it in life as we know it now...
Im sure zykelator wouldnt walk past a baby in the street now if he walked outside his house, its a totaly different situation..
Remember janes story in the river house? Lost 4 people before they got the person out from under the car and that person later turned and bit another women.... now in the world as we know it now, most of us would run and help but in a ZA its a totally different thing.... its sad that this person is going to loose their life but is it worth putting other survivors at risk? Its a crazzy question, but you carnt go around saying people are mentaly ill for there decision in such a matter...
Im a huuuge WWII nutcase, ive read just about eveything and watched everything and even spoken to a lot of vets and its as close to a ZA as we are going to get..
Take the D day landings, ALL allied troops that morning were under direct orders to LEAVE THE WOUNDED, why? Simply because you start fucking about picking up your buddy on that beach and your dead also... if this order wasn't given the d day landing would have failed without question resulting in germany defeating the russians and all other allied nations... somwas it the right choice?
Ive spoken with vets who had to leave buddies behind who could have been saved, it haunts them, but they also know if they had tried to save them more would have lost their lives and still may not have succeeded in saving their buddy.....
Now I couldnt abandon AJ, but it would probably cost me my skin or at least somone else, but i just couldnt do it, same with jane, she left her sister, I wouldn't do that (I dont think so anyway) but what does it make me? Probably dead...
When I was faced with the doug and carly decision, I chose carly........ you know why? Simply because she was damn good with a gun, at that moment I calculated that she was more use to me than dougie..... and we have been doing this for 2 seasons now.....
Truth is this probably makes zyk a better survivor than me and others that would stand by AJ to the last, kenny is the same, I always knew kenny woild be there no matter how much shit was going down, where jane would leave you..... but who's the better survivor? Difficult stuff....... and its not untill you come to terms with the fact that people are just different that you can make peace with such events.. and thats why we love TT games because they are master at putting you in those situations..
If these decisions we make in TWD were so black and white cut and dry, TWD would not be what it is, thats its secret weapon, thats what TT are great at...
I dont mind. I would leave a baby behind without hesitation in za. Wouldnt even try to find safe place for it.
+7 years old, so they can … moreactually do something and wont put me in constant danger.
I do feel empathy, but i just choose to not care about others.
I dont even value my own life that much.
Im sure zykelator wouldnt walk past a baby in the street now if he walked outside his house, its a totaly different situation..
Yeah, people seem to forget that moral values change over time and za would have radical impact on them. People like me would survive and moral values would eventually change radically and people like you would most likely die.
Guys this is going a little far....
We are discussing this like we are in game. (ZA) And there is a hell of difference doing somthing a f… moreew years intoma ZA and doing it in life as we know it now...
Im sure zykelator wouldnt walk past a baby in the street now if he walked outside his house, its a totaly different situation..
Remember janes story in the river house? Lost 4 people before they got the person out from under the car and that person later turned and bit another women.... now in the world as we know it now, most of us would run and help but in a ZA its a totally different thing.... its sad that this person is going to loose their life but is it worth putting other survivors at risk? Its a crazzy question, but you carnt go around saying people are mentaly ill for there decision in such a matter...
Im a huuuge WWII nutcase, ive read just about eveything and watched everything and even spoken to a lot of vets and its as c… [view original content]
Comments
Yeah well we don't live in those times any more. We live in our time , our world and I don't want our world to be filled with a bunch of sociopaths like you.
Our world? In our world, people are still stoning others to death, there is still slavery, death penalties, honor killings and all other shit. Za would be new era, with new moral values which you would consider crazy right now.
[removed]
We must try to make the world a better place.
Again
"The next generations has to be stronger than the last to lead us out of this"
What?
What would I get banned for?
Debating with you?
The one your are debating with will resort to foul tactics and empty threats when losing an argument my friend.
Trying to argue with this one is like trying to smash stones with eggs.
Your example is perfect. And yeah , he can't do shit to ban me. Only mods can do that.
being disrespectful by calling me a sociopath? Not that i care about being insulted, but the mods might not think that way.
You even admitted in another thread that you are.
Also , you're acting exactly like it.
Read the defentiton and then go read your comments and tell me that you're not.
You clearly dont understand what subjective moral values mean.
Moral values change... Are you unable to understand that fact? What you think is right thing to do, could be considered stupid or immoral by someone else now, years ago or years later.
Questions like abortion. Are you against it or not? If a women is raped and gets pregnant, is it morally correct to do abortion?
If i dont share the same moral values as you, but still do what i think is morally correct, doesnt make me a sociopath. Is it worth to risk everyone else for a baby? I dont think so, and you are free to disagree with me.
So what is your idea of morally correct then? If leaving a baby is "morally correct" then what isn't morally correct to you?
Having a baby would risk everyone else in the group so yeah, i wouldnt risk others just for a baby. Just like with the story Jane told about that prick getting stuck and 4 people died rescuing him and he was already bit. Just like the prick, a baby isnt worth saving and its better to realize that before people die.
The difference between the baby and said prick is that said prick is a full grown adult so it's more understandable but the baby's a FRIKIN BABY!!!
well thats the act of a coward or someone like sarah...
Im sorry, but how does the age change the value of human life?
well kill a grown man or a baby in front of a crowd and you'll see...
Because a full grown adult has lived his life , had all of his fun. A baby still needs to grow and experience life.
Also a full grown adult is able to defend him self and do things on his own , a baby needs to be looked after.
Ah yes, that'll be the smoking.
Thats a poor excuse. Even adults barely survive in za, so its unlike to raise a baby to age where he can take care of himself. You are are speaking as if a baby is entitled to experience long and cruel life in cost of others.
My point precisely. A baby needs to be looked after all the time and it puts others in danger.
Why are we even debating about subjective matters?
chainsmoking
Very nice answer. I totally agree. If you can condone Lee taking Clem then I see no reason you can't condone Clem taking AJ. It may take longer for him to conform to the rules of this world than it did Clem, but in the end both would have been a detriment to the survival of the PC. If you think leaving or killing AJ is the right answer then leaving or killing Clem would have been the tight answer also. Survival of the fittest, or survival of humanity?
No most definitely not, im not attacking you or saying your wrong, infact my view of wanting to protect him is a lot me silly than your train of thought, I dont agree with the Rebecca thing and treating AJ a certain way just because you didnt like Rebecca but we are all different..
But your thoughts on AJ and the realism of survival is true, my stand and die view for alvie is more questionable or moronic than yours, I just couldnt abondon him...
Lets face it, in reality if me and you both were in this situation and I stuck with AJ and you decided to abandon/kill or give away AJ who would have the best chance of surviving? You would by a good margin too.. just I know I would rather die trying to protect AJ than live knowing what I had done with AJ... different minds thats all..
You have the Jane mentality which there is nothing wrong with at all.. infact its the best way to be in a situation like this.. she left her sister, where I would have stayed till the end ... what good would it trully do me or my sister? None it would more than lightly get me killed also...
I hope Kennyftw continues this conversation with you. Your personality intrigues me. I've always been interested in psychology.
Lol liar.
You don't have to. I would have liked your post, but just pretend his is mine.
Viva, you do realize that subjective moral values change over time? What is immoral now might not be in a za. It was the first days of za and Lee had no reason to not take care of Clementine. He was still thinking like most people back then and wanted to protect this little girl he found. It takes time for new moral values to be accepted as current ones and over the years in za, people would do things which by nowadays standards would be considered immoral.
For example, dropping ben, shooting duck, making roasted Mark, leaving a girl to get eaten, stealing someones property, murdering someone because of mistake etc.
Some hundred years ago "witches" were killed and this was considered normal. Anyone nowadays would think that was immoral.
Nothing that we've seen in the Walking Dead suggests that the morals have shifted to baby-abandoning.
Cant really tell your thoughts based on that "lol".
Well im glad you are not judgemental prick like some people here. 10/10 conversation, would discuss things with you again.
Crawford did this, so we know for a fact that there are people who accepted these new moral values. Even Molly was about to leave Kenny, Lee and Clem behind but then she started to feel sorry for them and decided to help. And its not about abandoning a babies spesifically, but those who put others in risk.
There is no "canon ending" so fuck off with that shit
Crawford didn't quite work out so hard to get a comment from them in-game. Hard to think of many people in the game we saw who would be cool with abandoning a live baby. And even if we could find one, like on this board, just because there is one or even a few doesn't make it a moral shift when everyone else isn't cool with it.
They killed/kicked off kids, elderly, anyone with medical condition and pretty much everyone who wasnt pulling their own weight or required extra attention, so yes, they did accept these new moral values.
Crawford went to shit, because emotional and pregnant women started killing people inside and caused an outbreak. (if i understood your first sentence properly)
You're missing that every single person we actually saw in the game did not accept those values. Like I say, just because some do it does mean a big moral shift. They were an isolated community and were clearly being judged for their actions. Their actions were not deemed acceptable.
Yea working out in what frame of mind someone types something isnt always clear, plus as you say 90% of people on here (and most forums tbh)dont know what a discussion is, and in reality its more "this is my view and not only are you going to listen but also agree, if not your a prick (or worse)"
No time for it personly, I actualy love hearing differing views, its quite surprising how 2 people can have a different take on the same thing, im an artist and same goes there to, what tickles one person make another throw up, I find it interesting, the human mind is a magical thing...
Just like our discussion just, whos right? ?.... can't answer it, there is no answer, it depends at what angle you look at it, look at it from the morel angle and im right, look at it from a survival angle and your right... and TT have been playing this game from Ep 1 of S1, just some people are to mentaly blind to see there isnt REALLY an answer... we are all different, and we will all act diferently to any given situation... I find it extreamly interesting...
Crawford did, Carver did, all the bandits did, (Clem did, determinant), ep2 brothers took it to whole new level (eating those who were hurt), Jane did (she did imply that they should leave the baby), so obviously there were people who accepted those moral values on some level. Even Kenny wanted to kill Ben because he put others in danger.
(Remember, im not talking spesifically about leaving babies behind, but people who put others in danger and are "worthless" to their cause, survival.)
I'd like to point out that this is subjective, considering that our moral values are subjective. Moral values changes over time and if za would happen, that would have radical impact on current moral values over the years.
Okay, I was talking specifically abandoning babies given the topic at hand but you're right about those other things, even if in the game context we are never really supposed to be on their side (most of them, anyway - by not abandoning Clem, Jane nullified anything she implied).
Guys this is going a little far....
We are discussing this like we are in game. (ZA) And there is a hell of difference doing somthing a few years intoma ZA and doing it in life as we know it now...
Im sure zykelator wouldnt walk past a baby in the street now if he walked outside his house, its a totaly different situation..
Remember janes story in the river house? Lost 4 people before they got the person out from under the car and that person later turned and bit another women.... now in the world as we know it now, most of us would run and help but in a ZA its a totally different thing.... its sad that this person is going to loose their life but is it worth putting other survivors at risk? Its a crazzy question, but you carnt go around saying people are mentaly ill for there decision in such a matter...
Im a huuuge WWII nutcase, ive read just about eveything and watched everything and even spoken to a lot of vets and its as close to a ZA as we are going to get..
Take the D day landings, ALL allied troops that morning were under direct orders to LEAVE THE WOUNDED, why? Simply because you start fucking about picking up your buddy on that beach and your dead also... if this order wasn't given the d day landing would have failed without question resulting in germany defeating the russians and all other allied nations... somwas it the right choice?
Ive spoken with vets who had to leave buddies behind who could have been saved, it haunts them, but they also know if they had tried to save them more would have lost their lives and still may not have succeeded in saving their buddy.....
Now I couldnt abandon AJ, but it would probably cost me my skin or at least somone else, but i just couldnt do it, same with jane, she left her sister, I wouldn't do that (I dont think so anyway) but what does it make me? Probably dead...
When I was faced with the doug and carly decision, I chose carly........ you know why? Simply because she was damn good with a gun, at that moment I calculated that she was more use to me than dougie..... and we have been doing this for 2 seasons now.....
Truth is this probably makes zyk a better survivor than me and others that would stand by AJ to the last, kenny is the same, I always knew kenny woild be there no matter how much shit was going down, where jane would leave you..... but who's the better survivor? Difficult stuff....... and its not untill you come to terms with the fact that people are just different that you can make peace with such events.. and thats why we love TT games because they are master at putting you in those situations..
If these decisions we make in TWD were so black and white cut and dry, TWD would not be what it is, thats its secret weapon, thats what TT are great at...
Yeah, people seem to forget that moral values change over time and za would have radical impact on them. People like me would survive and moral values would eventually change radically and people like you would most likely die.
This discussion is absolutely fantastic, fascinating..