amok: Moved this from the giveaway thred. Might as well keep things collected. It is in response to the large monkey.
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/vote_for_hatred_on_the_wishlist_giveaway/post60
I did not try to express that I think if people have the freedom to do bad things, they will do it and this is bad. I don't see how you got that from my post.
amok: "If there were no laws tomorrow, people would have the freedom to buy guns and murder innocent people for fun. Do you think it would be right for people to make use of that freedom? "
If you have the freedom to do something, it doesn't mean you should do that something. If the store has the freedom to not sell a game and be hostile
amok: Refusing to sell something and being hostile is two very different things....
towards innocent people
amok: I have asked you a few times who these 'innocent people' are....
and they make use of that freedom to not sell the game and be hostile towards innocent people. Guess what? The store is still behaving badly
amok: If indeed a store is 'hostile' towards 'innocent people', then yes they are bad. However, here this do not happen, as the stores are not hostile (prove this), nor are the developers innocent (as they knowingly are making a controversial game)
because they have no good reason to not sell the game
amok: They do - it is a disgusting and controversial game. No one should ever be forced to sell something they do not like against their will... and you are talking about peoples freedom?
and be hostile towards innocent people.
amok: again.... you are a rhetorical analyst's wet dream. Saying something over and over do not make it true.
I tried to communicate this to you. Having the freedom to do something is not a good reason to do something.
amok: Indeed, as is the freedom to sell something does not mean it is a good reason to do so. You can choose not to do so if you do not like the product or what it stands for.
I meant to say this.
If there were no laws tomorrow, people would have the freedom to buy guns and murder innocent people for fun. Do you think it would be right for people to make use of that freedom to murder innocent people for fun? < - Bad analogy? Maybe but it does a good job at pointing out that having the freedom to do something doesn't make it acceptable to do that something. So I used it. Big deal.
amok: It is a rubbish analogy which do not say anything, except muddling the waters further then they where before. If you need to retort to analogies like this, you know you are on thin ice. I do not need any, as I am quite sure on my position
How about you stop attacking my analogy and start defending your position unless of course, you can't anymore...
amok: indeed.
(sorry for the late reply, the forum ate my first post and I had to redo it)
"Refusing to sell something and being hostile is two very different things.... " = WRONG
Read here and you will see what "hostile" means.
Refusing to sell something to people for no good reason is being hostile. And trying to pressure GOG into not selling Hatred is no different. Hostile? How? If GOG doesn't sell the game then a lot of people A) wont be able to play the game because they have zero tolerance for DRM or B) be forced to buy the Steam version which is inferior in every way compared to a GOG. Both A) and B) = denying innocent people some happiness and money(for the developers and the publisher). Both A) and B) = being hostile to innocent people. I will explain why they are innocent further down the post.
The innocent people are the developers who are making this game, the people who working as their publishers and the people who want a GOG version of this game. And being part of a controversial game is not immoral or a crime... And neither is playing and enjoying such a game. So if someone is not guilty of anything immoral or illegal then that person is innocent. Don't believe me? Look here
"Indeed, as is the freedom to sell something does not mean it is a good reason to do so. You can choose not to do so if you do not like the product or what it stands for."
If a store chooses not sell Hatred because the store doesn't like Hatred and the store doesn't like what Hatred stands for then the store is being hostile towards an innocent group of people for no good reason and that is wrong.
I'm not on thin ice. LOL Not even close. My analogy might be bad but in no way did it muddle the waters. If it muddled your waters, then that is your problem.