Well, let me keep this short then.

First, I want to thank you for making an actual good faith reply. Even if the actual thrust of your statement is "fuck you, I'm right, and I don't want to discuss it any further" because, quite frankly, that is the general quality of the people left around here, I do believe any throwback to the behaviors and manners of the good internet of old should be recognized and applauded. So, thank you for taking the time.

That being said, and recognizing that you're quite satisfied at having dropped your truth bomb and fucked off, I just want to end the conversation by saying that you've merely served to prove my point. The only acceptable view here is complete philosophical capitulation to your belief in an absolute truth you can neither derive nor discover, only divine from whole cloth. And it's never some humanistic cloth, either; it's always from some fictional or historical manuscript, and you are vehemently opposed to people and belief systems that divine their absolute truth from a different fictional or historical document, as they are to you.

And it seems like you will never stop. It almost makes one have to conclude there must actually be something that created humanity to be a servant race somewhere, because the overwhelming majority of the species is so absolutely ready to fall to their knees and worship SOMETHING, regardless of if it's a religion, a children's book series, or a government.

You guys have some sort of "dominate me daddy" mold deep in your cognition, waiting for something to come fill it.

And that's sad.

I'm assuming you realize the "disregard this because you are" is implied in the context and are ignoring it to be obtuse, but carry on.

Its one an a quarter paragraphs, you absolute ham sandwich. If that's a "wall of text" to you, you're as bright as the leftists you mock.

And I refuse to entertain criticsm from anyone whose username contains any form of "send feet pics" besides. You people are as creepy as the furries, yet somehow more brazen.

Mate, fuck off. If I spend time and effort on a comment, it's sperging out. If I don't bother with too much effort, it's "bitchy sarcasm".

Its a catch fucking 22, and it always is with you god buggerers. The only viewpoint your ilk ever accepts is full capitulation.

Sure, toss an ad hominem on the pile. Those always pair well with any serious and legitimate argument.

Wow, you sure told me.

Anyway, off to Bible story time.

You know you're right when the only thing you have to add is a quote from a children's movie.

And people accuse leftists of being the only people to derive morality from fiction.

Then, by all means, please show the class the natural law, constant, or substance from which we can derive or observe objective morality.

Or, you know, don't, and just call me evil and pat yourself on the back because, goddamn, did you tell me, and isn't it obvious, you definitely know it when you see it, and what sort of terrible person would ever approve of things that give you the bad ick feeling, they must be evil. Besides, god told me this was good when he passed his commands down to a group of illiterate goat fuckers a few thousand years ago, and made them promise really hard not to forget or change any of his rules, which conveniently involved a lot of things that were moderately useful for groups of illiterate goat fuckers and didn't really include silly things like arithmetic, germ theory, or electricity, because that would be silly.

Why is it that you're always either posting jew apologia or fedposting?

A, and pardon my French here, mudslime sand nigger advocating a way to fuck over the non-mudslime non-sandniggers.

Must be a day that ends in Y.

You can romance any character as either gender.

For me, that's an automatic "no thank you". Not only because it's rainbow mafia slop, but because it's patently absurd to imagine that a man and a woman would romance someone identically. A man will not pursue a woman the way a woman would pursue a woman, and vice versa.

I know some people argue that NPCs should be "player sexual" or some such tripe, but that absolutely torpedoes the writing. You make everyone in a state of quantum super-gay-sition, ready to collapse into a gay or not gay state based on the player's input, and you thus basically tear out a major chunk of the implied formative history of the character. John RuneFactory never actually was sweet on some girl back in his childhood unless you make him straight, and he never pined after some boy unless you make him gay. He just declares backstory that should, but doesn't, meaningfully change who he is as a person, because it changes one of the foundational characteristics that make the character who he is.

That's not CBS' words, though. Thats the dumbfuck liberal archaeologist woman who didn't work on the project's words. They put in a direct quote from her.