@collinleeedic@fadhb4fabulous@_k_pn Cut the shit. I’m not advocating for rape to be added. I’m pointing out the moral inconsistency in treating the killing of innocent civilians as trivial or entertaining. It is equally unjustifiable.
@crysencioln@juicedgoo@yeahsureokay69@_k_pn Sure, and you've also implied that having the option to rape would make anyone who uses it questionable. Yet the same supposedly "just as bad" act of killing pedestrians apparently would not.
@crysencioln@juicedgoo@yeahsureokay69@_k_pn Don't give a shit if it's in the game. Only pointing out the moral inconsistency. Killing pedestrians is just as unjustifiable, no amount of trivializing it will change that.
@juicedgoo@yeahsureokay69@_k_pn "Murder happens in nature and society” is not a moral argument. Neither is “rape is unnatural.” If your standard is that fictional enactment reveals real desire, then apply it to the game’s option to murder innocent civilians. I forgot, that's something only people like you enjoy
@juicedgoo@crysencioln@yeahsureokay69@_k_pn Similarly curious about the hissy fit you threw when I said mass murdering innocent civilians is equally deplorable. Also, I assume you can read. I've clearly stated several times that rape is unjustifiable and deplorable.
@crysencioln@juicedgoo@yeahsureokay69@_k_pn Cut the shit, you've not given me a single reason why the option to mass murder innocent people should be seen as less deplorable than the option to rape. They are both unjustifiable acts, unless you believe otherwise. All you've done is parrot an idiotic moral double standard.
@juicedgoo@crysencioln@yeahsureokay69@_k_pn Just as I would if they use an option to mass murder innocent civilians. Both are unjustifiable. If you see a relevant distinction, explain it.
@juicedgoo@crysencioln@yeahsureokay69@_k_pn So if your position is that using a fictional option to commit an unjustifiable act gives us reason to infer intent in the real world, then yes, I'd apply that standard equally. If someone uses a rape option, I'd question their intentions.
@collinleeedic@fadhb4fabulous@_k_pn If the mere availability of an option to commit a gratuitous, unjustifiable act is grounds for moral condemnation in one case, then that standard has to be applied consistently. Otherwise, it's just another moral double standard.
@collinleeedic@fadhb4fabulous@_k_pn Accidental violence isn't the only violence we're talking about. I'm specifically referring to the deliberate, indiscriminate murder of innocent civilians, something the game explicitly allows.
@crysencioln@juicedgoo@yeahsureokay69@_k_pn Yet because that sort of violence has become so normalized in media, it is treated so casually, while other forms of gratuitous violence are immediately regarded as uniquely deplorable.
@crysencioln@juicedgoo@yeahsureokay69@_k_pn I understand. I’m not arguing that the game should include anything. I’m simply pointing out what seems to me to be a moral inconsistency. We’re discussing the option to indiscriminately murder innocent civilians.
@juicedgoo@crysencioln@yeahsureokay69@_k_pn If your response is that inclusion does not imply endorsement, then that principle has to apply consistently. Otherwise you're just giving your preferred fictional atrocity a pass because you're accustomed to it. Spare me your hissy fit and try presenting a coherent argument.
@juicedgoo@crysencioln@yeahsureokay69@_k_pn Your argument is almost self-defeating. If repeated exposure to something in media is precisely why you “don’t care” about it, then you have inadvertently made my point about desensitization for me.