Unpopular Opinions V6 You know maybe fascism wasn't all that it was cracked up to be - General

[QUOTE=Sector 7;50997085]the presence of "quests" makes every video game worse[/QUOTE] Are you talking about fetch quest kinds? Where you're just told to go retrieve something at a place, and then talk to the NPC again to get your reward? In that case I agree

[QUOTE=ThatSwordGuy;50997180]Are you talking about fetch quest kinds? Where you're just told to go retrieve something at a place, and then talk to the NPC again to get your reward? In that case I agree[/QUOTE] basically any system in which the player is assigned specific tasks as a method of controlling gameplay direction Bethesda games are the best examples, because the best content in Skyrim or Fallout always comes from dynamic gameplay - i.e. the player explores an interesting dungeon, and discovers a compelling narrative while doing what they want to do. Conversely, the worst content in any Bethesda game comes from the times when the player is asked to investigate something, and are pointed towards the next step whether they want to go there or not, as if the game was a lame theme park. The more quests, the worse. Skyrim suffered massively from this phenomenon; there were so many awful directed questlines that there was rarely anything for the player to discover on their own.

i would argue that The Witcher 3 is the main exception to that rule its the only RPG ive ever played that actually made me want to do sidequests for the entertainment value.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;50997221]basically any system in which the player is assigned specific tasks as a method of controlling gameplay direction Bethesda games are the best examples, because the best content in Skyrim or Fallout always comes from dynamic gameplay - i.e. the player explores an interesting dungeon, and discovers a compelling narrative while doing what they want to do. Conversely, the worst content in any Bethesda game comes from the times when the player is asked to investigate something, and are pointed towards the next step whether they want to go there or not, as if the game was a lame theme park. The more quests, the worse. Skyrim suffered massively from this phenomenon; there were so many awful directed questlines that there was rarely anything for the player to discover on their own.[/QUOTE] This is one of the reasons I'm especially excited for the new Zelda because of how open-ended and unrestricted it seems

[QUOTE=Fapplejack;50993410]You can't turn any bad seed good with a bit of rehab and therapy. Some people are beyond help.[/QUOTE] Late, I know, but you think the solution is to just shove them into cells and not even [i]try[/i] to rehabilitate them/use counselling? Why not try it before instantly saying "it doesn't work"? [editline]4th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sector 7;50995125]IIRC the prevalence of psychopathy/sociopathy is actually about 2%, which would mean there are more than 6 million psycopaths in the US the rate among prisoners is, of course, much higher - per [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder#Epidemiology]wikipedia,[/url] and I'd be willing to bet money that the prevalence of psychopathy among guilty death row prisoners is above 95%. Normal people don't serially rape, torture, and murder. In my opinion, psychopathy et al have played a massively understated role in the shaping of modern human society. Psychopaths aren't awful people by default, but criminally violent psychopaths seem to be completely unworth the effort of rehabilitation - you will NEVER be able to trust them, no matter what paths their lives take. They don't live by the same rules that normal people do.[/QUOTE] Try it before instantly saying it can't work no matter what. And besides, even if rehabilitation fails, why not let them back into their homes/more comfortable places so, at the very least, they can live relatively-ordinary lives? If you can't change their ways, why punish them via the prison system when you can just let them live their lives in different conditions (that aren't as bad as prison cells but still keep them under control)?

[QUOTE=RichyZ;50997379]New zelda doesnt look good, its looking like every other open world game now[/QUOTE] While I'm still willing to give it a chance, the "big open world were you can do anything!" thing hasn't impressed me since Oblivion. Exploring the world has always been the thing I cared the least about Zelda and since that's pretty much the only thing they showed off so far, I'm not really that hyped for it. Now if the game still has the bosses, dungeons, and lovable npcs (The three reasons why I love the series) then I'll glady be excited for it. But as of right now, it's just not for me.

[QUOTE=Captain;50997397]Now if the game still has the bosses, dungeons, and lovable npcs (The three reasons why I love the series) then I'll glady be excited for it. But as of right now, it's just not for me.[/QUOTE] It will; they confirmed that regular dungeons, bosses in both the overworld and dungeons, and NPCs are all gonna be in the game; they're just doing their best not to spoil anything.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50997367]Try it before instantly saying it can't work no matter what. And besides, even if rehabilitation fails, why not let them back into their homes/more comfortable places so, at the very least, they can live relatively-ordinary lives? If you can't change their ways, why punish them via the prison system when you can just let them live their lives in different conditions (that aren't as bad as prison cells but still keep them under control)?[/QUOTE] are we still talking about death row prisoners? because nobody who rapes and then tortures families to death deserves to be alive. If anything, the society that produces such people has a responsibility to end them.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;50997421]are we still talking about death row prisoners? because nobody who rapes and then tortures families to death deserves to be alive.[/QUOTE] I value all lives, no matter what they do. Sorry, you're not going to convince me. If my son/daughter/wife was put on death row, no matter what offense committed, I'd probably kill myself tbqh.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50997434]I value all lives, no matter what they do.[/QUOTE] why? Michael Morales attacked a woman on a deserted road,crushed her skull with a claw hammer, fucked her while she was unconscious, and then stabbed her to death, because she was romantically involved with someone his cousin was interested in. Why should he get to open his eyes every morning at the expense of the state, while millions suffer and die innocently? He is a valueless person; he can be easily cast aside and all of human society would be better off. He committed this crime in 1981, was sentenced to death, and is still alive for various reasons. What for?

[QUOTE=Sector 7;50997468]why? Michael Morales attacked a woman on a deserted road, hit her several times in the head with a claw hammer, fucked her while she was unconscious, and then stabbed her to death, because she was romantically involved with someone his cousin was interested in. Why should he get to open his eyes every morning at the expense of the state, while millions suffer and die innocently? He is a valueless person; he can be easily cast aside and all of human society would be better off.[/QUOTE] Because all people are living human beings. You're not going to convince me to switch. He should get to open his eyes every morning because he's a human being, just as you and I are. I'm a pacifist, you don't solve violence with violence.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50997474]Because all people are living human beings. You're not going to convince me to switch. He should get to open his eyes every morning because he's a human being, just as you and I are.[/QUOTE] I don't crush women's skulls and then rape them, and I'm assuming you don't either. That makes us different from him. Being a biological human is not a meaningful qualifier, because the real measure of humanity has nothing to do with birth. You pull up weeds when you're trying to nurture a garden, and you pull up psychopathic murderers when you're trying to nurture a society.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;50997492]I don't crush women's skulls and then rape them, and I'm assuming you don't either. That makes us different from him. Being a biological human is not a meaningful qualifier, because the real measure of humanity has nothing to do with birth.[/QUOTE] So what if it makes us different from him in the fact that we don't do what he does? He's still a human being. Oh, and yes, the measure of humanity [i]does[/i] have to do with birth. You're born, you're a human and a member of humanity; case closed. Besides, if what makes someone "human" is based on their actions, then the actions that constitute "human" are completely subjective. Neither of us will convince each other that the other side is good, it seems; I say we move on to something else.

[QUOTE=ThatSwordGuy;50997420]It will; they confirmed that regular dungeons, bosses in both the overworld and dungeons, and NPCs are all gonna be in the game; they're just doing their best not to spoil anything.[/QUOTE] Which is god to hear! But until they actually show those (at least early ones), I'm still reserving full judgement.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50997501]So what if it makes us different from him in that aspect? He's still a human being. Oh, and yes, the measure of humanity [i]does[/i] have to do with birth. You're born, you're a human and a member of humanity; case closed.[/QUOTE] I disagree. Biology is second to empathy and intelligence in all cases; if we eventually produce artificial intelligence, we will come to judge its person-ness by these factors, and it should be no different for literal humans. If a person lacks all qualities that makes humanity different from basic life forms, they don't deserve the allowances that we make to normal people. Honestly, I think I value life more than you do. If I spent my entire lifetime building a relationship, and building a family, and learning to love them utterly, it would be completely unacceptable for anyone to be allowed to destroy their lives. I don't think you understand what exactly these people have done to others.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;50997511]I disagree. Biology is second to empathy and intelligence in all cases; if we eventually produce artificial intelligence, we will come to judge its person-ness by these factors, and it should be no different for literal humans. If a person lacks all qualities that makes humanity different from basic life forms, they don't deserve the allowances that we make to normal people.[/QUOTE] Well I disagree as well. You're not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you, I'm stopping this here. I'll leave you with this: I used to think like you do. I used to believe "Fuck rapists and murderers, they need to be executed by firing squad", until I realised that the offenders who do these acts are human beings like you and I. Their actions do not define their species. They are capable of having feelings, and especially after reading some of the horrible things these people have went through/done to themselves, I began to understand them and feel sympathy for them. Fueling this was another fact: I'm mentally ill, and at some points of my life I've been extremely worried that I may commit rape as an adult due to inability to control my actions. Would I want to be executed? Would my family want me to be executed? Hell, my brother (who has a history of mental problems) might even [i]kill himself[/i]/have his depression return if I was executed. I've promised myself to commit suicide if I'm ever imprisoned/convicted of a crime due to how unforgiving society would be to me, and until people begin feeling sympathy and understanding these poor people I'm going to retain that promise. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Get help" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]

why even post then

[QUOTE=Sector 7;50997531]why even post then[/QUOTE] Because I thought I could convince you and I bet you thought you could convince me, but I think it's been shown the opposite is true for both cases.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50997474]Because all people are living human beings. You're not going to convince me to switch. He should get to open his eyes every morning because he's a human being, just as you and I are. I'm a pacifist, you don't solve violence with violence.[/QUOTE] Yeah words probably won't make you switch, it'd take a dose of reality.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50997474]Because all people are living human beings. You're not going to convince me to switch. He should get to open his eyes every morning because he's a human being, just as you and I are. I'm a pacifist, you don't solve violence with violence.[/QUOTE] Pacifism is all very well and good, laudable even as an ideal, but reality being what it is, sometimes violence is the only option for people who only understand violence as a means of responding.

That guy raped 3 children, beheaded an infant, and dismembered an entire family! He even left a note saying "I regret nothing." I feel bad for him, he's human after all :(

I do think, that at the very least a prisoner who is going to be in prison for a very long period of time (>15 years for example) should have the option to end their own life if they want to.

I'm against the death penalty because of the inevitability that innocents will get killed for no reason.

[QUOTE=Waffle Lord;50998029]That guy raped 3 children, beheaded an infant, and dismembered an entire family! He even left a note saying "I regret nothing." I feel bad for him, he's human after all :([/QUOTE] umm... yeah, honestly something must've seriously gone wrong for someone like that [editline]4th September 2016[/editline] I still think that the important part that no one is addressing is the underlying causes of murder and other terrible crimes [editline]4th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=thelurker1234;50998188]I do think, that at the very least a prisoner who is going to be in prison for a very long period of time (>15 years for example) should have the option to end their own life if they want to.[/QUOTE] Why?

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;50998539]umm... yeah, honestly something must've seriously gone wrong for someone like that [editline]4th September 2016[/editline] I still think that the important part that no one is addressing is the underlying causes of murder and other terrible crimes [editline]4th September 2016[/editline] Why?[/QUOTE] Why not

Why support suicide?

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;50998589]Why support suicide?[/QUOTE] I personally think only life prisoners should get the option, think of it this way, it's live the rest of your life in hell, or take the quick way out and also conserve resources

Why not make it... Not hell?

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;50998600]Why not make it... Not hell?[/QUOTE] That would be a plus but the option should still be there I feel, like medically assisted suicide, and good luck making our prisons not hell, most people believe prisons should be hell, in the current state of prisons I feel suicide should be an option

[QUOTE=Mining Bill;50998199]I'm against the death penalty because of the inevitability that innocents will get killed for no reason.[/QUOTE] As already mentioned, I agree with this. [B]Forewarning: Bit of a stream of consciousness rant inbound. I'm not directing this at you, just referencing your comment as a springboard for this.[/B] As a thought experiment though, consider this largely economic twist. Lets say that: -Some people are falsely convicted and sentenced to death (true) -It's cheaper to kill them than to keep them alive (not true now, but certainly a possibility at some point) -Average human life has a quantifiable cost/value (somewhat true right now, and it will be more easily and accurately calculated in the future) For the sake of argument assume, that all 3 of these things are true at some point in the future. Suddenly, it's conceivable that the societal economic cost of wrongfully killing a few people here and there is less severe than keeping them alive. Is that morally acceptable? Most would argue that it is not. What if those funds could directly be used to help others in need? Suddenly things get hazy. Do we accept the additional costs of a flawed system, and err on the side of caution? Or do we accept a few mistakes here and there? Why or why not? Around about here is the part where peoples' eye start to glaze over from boredom, or they get really angry/outright triggered. [B]Most people don't want to seriously think about the deeper contextual implications of an idea[/B], and the older I get, the more pissed off it makes me. This is the sort of can't see the forest for the trees problem that causes so many problems in politics. Everything from gun control to reproductive rights falls into this problem. Even environmental concerns fit in this. What is an acceptable level of death or injury? Put another way, where do you draw the line? Why is it acceptable to have tight standards in one area, but not in others? Drunk driving accidents kill thousands every year, but it's less of a boogeyman topic than guns. We flip the fuck out about household water waste, even in areas like New England that have effectively unlimited water supplies, yet large scale industrial usage goes unnoticed for decades in deserts like California. Some toxic compounds are heavily regulated, and others are cheaply available at any hardware store. TSA wastes hundreds of millions and is effectively useless. Racism is a very real problem, but what action does affirmative action perform to solve it? Many recreational activities have dangerous side effects. [B]Many things, particularly personal freedom, come at a price, and that price can often be directly correlated to body counts, or financial costs.[/B] So many arguments for tighter restrictions of things (especially on facepunch) consistently fail to show that the restrictions would have any real universal benefit, and in addition to that, rarely, if ever, even consider the possibility that the same level of funding could be substantially better utilized elsewhere to renovate/regulate other items/behaviors/industries. I legitimately believe that the failure to understand the tradeoff costs between personal freedom and safety (or tradeoffs between regulation in one area vs another) is a real burden upon society.[B] People focus on one or two facets of a problem, stop listening, and then don't understand the root causes, which in turn leads to many of their attempts to fix things merely superficially treating the symptoms instead of the underlying issues.[/B] There is a staggering level of interconnectedness between so many diverse topics, and society as a whole seems content to ignore this. Alternatively, they are incapable of understanding it. I don't know which idea I find more depressing. In either case, this hole in reasoning can be linked to extremism on all sides of the political spectrum. It's not happenstance that the turbo SJW crazies are mirror images of the authoritarian right. Neither one steps back to analyze the big picture. The truly extreme ones are sincerely terrified of even the [I]idea[/I] that someone could think differently, let alone actually does, and are absolutely determined to reject anything that doesn't fit their particular doctrine at all costs. To that end, they resort to abhorrent tactics to ridicule, dehumanize, and ostracize anything that doesn't align. TL;DR Oversimplification is detrimental to society. (meta note: Does that make this TL;DR detrimental?)