I'm not labeling the OP as someone who's a selfish piece of shit. I'm labeling the ACT of throwing a baby into walkers so you could survive, a selfish piece of shit act.
You clearly have have nitpicking whatever I say and throwing them back at me when you obviously don't know what I meant. You've even done that on other threads.
You have nothing to do with how I follow my morals and who admires them.
What on Earth makes you so special you think you can label someone as a selfish piece of shit? Selfish acts don't make someone a piece of sh… moreit. If it were so simple as a selfish act makes someone a selfish person then everyone would be selfish. You included. The line between right and wrong isn't black and white, it isn't even a line. It's a blob of grey inside a lighter grey blob with darker grey mixed in. Perhaps you think it is that simple; but to anyone who can contemplate even marginally above the lowest dominator can easy see that it simply isn't that simple. Simple.
If that's all you can deduce from my post I'm curious how you even manage to turn on your Internet device. Shouldn't have expected anymore than that, though.
What was that? I couldn't hear you over your amorality.
This was in response to ClemInTime. You weren't speaking of any actions, your were directing it at him. So in the instance of regarding the act as a piece of shit you can hide behind that argument, but you're still labeling him.
I don't care how you follow your morals, but when you come here and chase off other users by casting aspersions it irks me.
What I gathered from your argument:
You like to describe colors.
I'm not labeling the OP as someone who's a selfish piece of shit. I'm… more labeling the ACT of throwing a baby into walkers so you could survive, a selfish piece of shit act.
You clearly have have nitpicking whatever I say and throwing them back at me when you obviously don't know what I meant. You've even done that on other threads.
You have nothing to do with how I follow my morals and who admires them.
AJ was a distraction and could have been used as food. Like they did in Crawford lol. I know it's wrong but hey ''you got to do whatever it takes to survive.'' -Lee Everett season 1 episode 1
If that's all you can deduce from my post I'm curious how you even manage to turn on your Internet device.
I was being a bitch, if you couldn't tell. You most likely can.
And I never chased him off. I was being sarcastic. And it was pretty damn obvious. Sarcasm shouldn't be the matter for someone to quit the forums. It's not my fault being take sarcasm differently.
You weren't speaking of any actions
I'm sorry, what? I wouldn't call him amoral if he didn't DO anything amoral. Pfft.
If that's all you can deduce from my post I'm curious how you even manage to turn on your Internet device. Shouldn't have expected anymore t… morehan that, though.
What was that? I couldn't hear you over your amorality.
This was in response to ClemInTime. You weren't speaking of any actions, your were directing it at him. So in the instance of regarding the act as a piece of shit you can hide behind that argument, but you're still labeling him.
I don't care how you follow your morals, but when you come here and chase off other users by casting aspersions it irks me.
I wasn't going to say it, but I guess if the shoe fits and you're willing to put it on.
You chased him off by scoffing from your horse all high and mighty, like you know what is right and wrong. You should go to a war torn country and preach morals, see how fast is devolves, and how fast your perception on murder, morality, etc. changes. It's soo easy to be a hero behind a computer screen. Pfft.
My SGT was telling me about one of his deployments. He was driving a Humvee. His convoy got caught up in a massive ambush. He floored it, trying to get out of the area, a child walked onto the road. If he stopped, they died. If he didn't, the kid did. He was alive to tell me that story, so I think you can figure out the ending. He isn't amoral, or evil, or wrong for doing it.
Of course, you would have let the kid cross, killing you and all your fellow soldiers in the process, because you know what is right. And I call BS. When it gets real, so do the people. Easy to be a hero through a computer screen.
No, you spoke about him because of an action he took (or would have taken). It's like the difference between me saying "the action of Lee killing the senator was evil," and "Lee was evil." Labeling him as "amoral" and other such things.
In the end I don't care if you think you would do right (or, what you consider right, since there is ambiguity out the butt), it's just irksome when you come here and preach to and put down others who don't side with you.
If that's all you can deduce from my post I'm curious how you even manage to turn on your Internet device.
I was being a bitch, if y… moreou couldn't tell. You most likely can.
And I never chased him off. I was being sarcastic. And it was pretty damn obvious. Sarcasm shouldn't be the matter for someone to quit the forums. It's not my fault being take sarcasm differently.
You weren't speaking of any actions
I'm sorry, what? I wouldn't call him amoral if he didn't DO anything amoral. Pfft.
You can't admire your moral compass when it gets you killed.
Being a moral person automatically gets you killed? I fail to see that logic. I'm sure there's a ton of survivalists out there who would survive and would be more than capable of having their morals in check. You act like there's no middle ground and everyone must submit to your baby-killing ways.
Anyway, generalizing like that doesn't help you're argument at all.
No, not all moral people will automatically just die. Only the vast majority of them. So by speaking of the largest group of moral people who survived the first onset of the outbreak, yes, you would be dead. Pretty easy logic.
Stop preaching to and demeaning those who don't agree with your perspectives. As I've said above, it's easy to be a hero through a computer screen when there is nothing to fear.
It isn't generalization, it's percentages and probability.
You can't admire your moral compass when it gets you killed.
Being a moral person automatically gets you killed? I fail to see that … morelogic. I'm sure there's a ton of survivalists out there who would survive and would be more than capable of having their morals in check. You act like there's no middle ground and everyone must submit to your baby-killing ways.
Anyway, generalizing like that doesn't help you're argument at all.
You chased him off by scoffing from your horse all high and mighty
I've told him that I was just fucking around with him.
You should go to a war torn country and preach morals, see how fast is devolves, and how fast your perception on murder, morality, etc. changes. It's soo easy to be a hero behind a computer screen. Pfft.
I'm sorry? I didn't know The Walking Dead was real? I didn't know The Walking Dead portrayed wars between countries, fighting over the stupidest reasons? Oh, it doesn't? That's what I thought.
Of course, you would have let the kid cross, killing you and all your fellow soldiers in the process, because you know what is right.
There's plenty ways to get out of a situation like that. Driving wise, I mean. And I'm not being a hypocrite or contradicting myself if I say I'd have to run down the kid. It's one child vs. a car full of soldiers. One life instead of multiple. Of course, I'd feel shit for doing it, but it's not like I did it just to keep myself alive. Like how the OP said he'd do it to save himself. And himself only.
Easy to be a hero through a computer screen.
So you've used that line twice in the same argument? Okay.
Just okay.
It's like the difference between me saying "the action of Lee killing the senator was evil," and "Lee was evil."
Okay, see? No. You're using the wrong explanations. This guy won't chuck a baby into a herd of walkers out of pure anger, I seriously doubt he'd do it accidentally, either.
Lee ACCIDENTALLY killed the senator for sleeping with his wife in a FIGHT which he was heavily anger driven. That is COMPLETELY different to letting a baby die to save yourself. COMPLETELY.
In the end I don't care if you think you would do right
Then why are you even replying to me or even trying to argue?
it's just irksome when you come here and preach to and put down others who don't side with you.
I've told the OP I was fucking with him. I've even apologized. You can't blame it all on me because he decided to kick the bucket. He said that he's leaving due to multiple people. Unless you're assuming I'm fat and count as multiple people, which I know you aren't, then don't you even try to pin it all on me, when others have said worse and actually meant in harshly.
I wasn't going to say it, but I guess if the shoe fits and you're willing to put it on.
You chased him off by scoffing from your horse al… morel high and mighty, like you know what is right and wrong. You should go to a war torn country and preach morals, see how fast is devolves, and how fast your perception on murder, morality, etc. changes. It's soo easy to be a hero behind a computer screen. Pfft.
My SGT was telling me about one of his deployments. He was driving a Humvee. His convoy got caught up in a massive ambush. He floored it, trying to get out of the area, a child walked onto the road. If he stopped, they died. If he didn't, the kid did. He was alive to tell me that story, so I think you can figure out the ending. He isn't amoral, or evil, or wrong for doing it.
Of course, you would have let the kid cross, killing you and all your fellow soldiers in the process, because you know what is right. And I call BS. When it gets real, s… [view original content]
You chased him off by scoffing from your horse all high and mighty
I've told him that I was just fucking around with him.
You … moreshould go to a war torn country and preach morals, see how fast is devolves, and how fast your perception on murder, morality, etc. changes. It's soo easy to be a hero behind a computer screen. Pfft.
I'm sorry? I didn't know The Walking Dead was real? I didn't know The Walking Dead portrayed wars between countries, fighting over the stupidest reasons? Oh, it doesn't? That's what I thought.
Of course, you would have let the kid cross, killing you and all your fellow soldiers in the process, because you know what is right.
There's plenty ways to get out of a situation like that. Driving wise, I mean. And I'm not being a hypocrite or contradicting myself if I say I'd have to run down the kid. It's one child vs. a car full of soldiers. One life instead of multiple. Of course, I'd feel sh… [view original content]
You chased him off by scoffing from your horse all high and mighty
I've told him that I was just fucking around with him.
You … moreshould go to a war torn country and preach morals, see how fast is devolves, and how fast your perception on murder, morality, etc. changes. It's soo easy to be a hero behind a computer screen. Pfft.
I'm sorry? I didn't know The Walking Dead was real? I didn't know The Walking Dead portrayed wars between countries, fighting over the stupidest reasons? Oh, it doesn't? That's what I thought.
Of course, you would have let the kid cross, killing you and all your fellow soldiers in the process, because you know what is right.
There's plenty ways to get out of a situation like that. Driving wise, I mean. And I'm not being a hypocrite or contradicting myself if I say I'd have to run down the kid. It's one child vs. a car full of soldiers. One life instead of multiple. Of course, I'd feel sh… [view original content]
Everyone'sClemInTime is thinking rationally as a survivor, unlike the other idiots in the game who want to protect a stupid and worthless baby who acts as a zombie alarm.
Everyone'sClemInTime is thinking rationally as a survivor, unlike the other idiots in the game who want to protect a stupid and worthless baby who acts as a zombie alarm.
Comments
What I gathered from your argument:
You like to describe colors.
I'm not labeling the OP as someone who's a selfish piece of shit. I'm labeling the ACT of throwing a baby into walkers so you could survive, a selfish piece of shit act.
You clearly have have nitpicking whatever I say and throwing them back at me when you obviously don't know what I meant. You've even done that on other threads.
You have nothing to do with how I follow my morals and who admires them.
If that's all you can deduce from my post I'm curious how you even manage to turn on your Internet device. Shouldn't have expected anymore than that, though.
This was in response to ClemInTime. You weren't speaking of any actions, your were directing it at him. So in the instance of regarding the act as a piece of shit you can hide behind that argument, but you're still labeling him.
I don't care how you follow your morals, but when you come here and chase off other users by casting aspersions it irks me.
Thats not funny.
I was being a bitch, if you couldn't tell. You most likely can.
And I never chased him off. I was being sarcastic. And it was pretty damn obvious. Sarcasm shouldn't be the matter for someone to quit the forums. It's not my fault being take sarcasm differently.
I'm sorry, what? I wouldn't call him amoral if he didn't DO anything amoral. Pfft.
I wasn't going to say it, but I guess if the shoe fits and you're willing to put it on.
You chased him off by scoffing from your horse all high and mighty, like you know what is right and wrong. You should go to a war torn country and preach morals, see how fast is devolves, and how fast your perception on murder, morality, etc. changes. It's soo easy to be a hero behind a computer screen. Pfft.
My SGT was telling me about one of his deployments. He was driving a Humvee. His convoy got caught up in a massive ambush. He floored it, trying to get out of the area, a child walked onto the road. If he stopped, they died. If he didn't, the kid did. He was alive to tell me that story, so I think you can figure out the ending. He isn't amoral, or evil, or wrong for doing it.
Of course, you would have let the kid cross, killing you and all your fellow soldiers in the process, because you know what is right. And I call BS. When it gets real, so do the people. Easy to be a hero through a computer screen.
No, you spoke about him because of an action he took (or would have taken). It's like the difference between me saying "the action of Lee killing the senator was evil," and "Lee was evil." Labeling him as "amoral" and other such things.
In the end I don't care if you think you would do right (or, what you consider right, since there is ambiguity out the butt), it's just irksome when you come here and preach to and put down others who don't side with you.
Being a moral person automatically gets you killed? I fail to see that logic. I'm sure there's a ton of survivalists out there who would survive and would be more than capable of having their morals in check. You act like there's no middle ground and everyone must submit to your baby-killing ways.
Anyway, generalizing like that doesn't help you're argument at all.
No, not all moral people will automatically just die. Only the vast majority of them. So by speaking of the largest group of moral people who survived the first onset of the outbreak, yes, you would be dead. Pretty easy logic.
Stop preaching to and demeaning those who don't agree with your perspectives. As I've said above, it's easy to be a hero through a computer screen when there is nothing to fear.
It isn't generalization, it's percentages and probability.
I've told him that I was just fucking around with him.
I'm sorry? I didn't know The Walking Dead was real? I didn't know The Walking Dead portrayed wars between countries, fighting over the stupidest reasons? Oh, it doesn't? That's what I thought.
There's plenty ways to get out of a situation like that. Driving wise, I mean. And I'm not being a hypocrite or contradicting myself if I say I'd have to run down the kid. It's one child vs. a car full of soldiers. One life instead of multiple. Of course, I'd feel shit for doing it, but it's not like I did it just to keep myself alive. Like how the OP said he'd do it to save himself. And himself only.
So you've used that line twice in the same argument? Okay.
Just okay.
Okay, see? No. You're using the wrong explanations. This guy won't chuck a baby into a herd of walkers out of pure anger, I seriously doubt he'd do it accidentally, either.
Lee ACCIDENTALLY killed the senator for sleeping with his wife in a FIGHT which he was heavily anger driven. That is COMPLETELY different to letting a baby die to save yourself. COMPLETELY.
Then why are you even replying to me or even trying to argue?
I've told the OP I was fucking with him. I've even apologized. You can't blame it all on me because he decided to kick the bucket. He said that he's leaving due to multiple people. Unless you're assuming I'm fat and count as multiple people, which I know you aren't, then don't you even try to pin it all on me, when others have said worse and actually meant in harshly.
Oh how you continue to reuse comebacks that aren't that effective.
Ok.
What's wrong? Don't like dead babies?
Get on my level. N00b.
bro
Yes? Have you something to say?
...Come forward and testify.
Everyone'sClemInTime is thinking rationally as a survivor, unlike the other idiots in the game who want to protect a stupid and worthless baby who acts as a zombie alarm.
bro
Sis
dad