I'm with you on this. As an avid gamer, I'm used to getting more bang for my buck. A lot of my favorite games could easily go 100+ hours in a single playthrough. Granted, RPGs tend to be longer, in general, but even some of my favorite shooters, like No One Lives Forever, were quite long.

This just goes along with how developers are trading in single player experiences to focus solely on multiplayer. I feel like a part of a dying breed.

And as one of the 10% that actually DID beat Red Dead Redemption, I've got to say the other 90% missed out.

Creationism really isn't science because it cannot be disproven. That's the fundamental flaw of the field and why you could, theoretically, be a creationist and a scientist, but not a creationist scientist.

You trolls are just so cute!

I think you hit the nail on the head. It's not that people who (in theory) get power say "I'm stronger! Now, let's go tie some poor damsel to the train tracks! Mua ha ha ha ha!" It's that people say "I know doing X is wrong, buuuuuuuuut... well, in this case, it's a bit of an exception because..."

I can even sort of understand the way they think. For example, what if I were invulnerable, or at least skilled enough that I might as well be? I thought, "Well, I could attack and kill evil people in far off lands. Heroine dealers, warlords, terrorists, etc." But in person, I'm actually against the death penalty. Pretty funny how quickly our own ideals change the second we even pretend we have power, huh?

Anarchy has been tried. It usually results in, after some time, a government popping up in one form or another because people get sick and tired of the things people get away with.

That, my friend, is the nature of political parties anywhere. "We want all of the benefits, but none of the drawbacks."

These people want to have full access to the Internet but don't want to have to come across things that they don't like or things they disagree with or have to monitor their children's surfing habits.

To quote Weird Al's "I'll Sue Ya,"

"...I'll sue Home Depot, 'cause they sold me a hammer, which they knew I might drop on my toes!"

I'd prefer it if they were prohibited outright. There are few organizations quite as loathsome as Scientology, which is really saying something.

But I'd certainly settle for countries matching Germany and Norway in declaring them a business.

When law gets in the way of making money hand over fist, the obvious solution is to change the laws, isn't it?

I thought we were here to politely discuss copyrights, and then you go and bring logic and facts and fairness into this. Clearly you've never negotiated with **AA's before.

I'd say that's not an apt analogy. If there were a way for a Christian to worship Christ via a way other than Christianity, then it might work. The point I'd say is Murdoch loves money, not the way it's made. If he believed Socialism would benefit his bottom line, FOX News would be a 24-hour We-Love-Socialism-Party. Same for Communism, Totalitarianism, etc. He just thinks pandering to the far-right will earn him the biggest bucks.

My point is that capitalism would state that eventually, a better invention comes along and replaces an older technology and the older version goes out of business. For example, we have fridges and freezers now, so say goodbye to the ice man making his morning runs. But if Murdoch owned an ice delivery business, he'd be rallying against the fridge manufacturers.

It's pretty sad how the first thing that came to mind was "Country's educated despised and not trusted by majority, uneducated. But first in a new study, scientists have discovered water is wet..."

I guess humanity, as a whole, just doesn't trust people more educated than they are.

Well, that's what Freedom of Speech is all about, isn't it?
No one needs to protect popular opinions. Once you decide "douchebags can't have free speech!" then who gets to decide who's a douchebag?

Well, I suppose we could use a sort of metric like, "percent of income spent on Axe body spray," but that'd have some kinks to work out.

Who's to say who's right and who is wrong?

Well, if you follow the basic laws of ethics, I'd say every party involved is wrong. A violation of human rights is always wrong. I criticize China and I criticize the U.S. and the U.K. and every other country I see a problem with.

If what China does is wrong, and the West does it too, then the West is also wrong. Not that most people ever like to admit "their" side isn't in the right.

When we take away the rights of terrorists here, we're wrong, too. Our founding principle of government here in America was supposed to be that all men are to be treated equal under the law. Not "American Citizens." Not "only registered combatants." All men. Period. I would say this is ethically justifiable in that a world in which everyone can express themselves freely is a world where I, personally, am guaranteed that freedom of expression. The fact that we have fallen far from this path does not change the ideal we should be aiming for, nor does it excuse other countries when they do the same.