Ok. Postal is not mainstream, so what? Old games are not mainstream too. Nor, global stategies. But that doesn't stop GOG to make tweets. Or Paradox to make tweets about Crusader KIngs and its DLCs (one of those tweets btw became a subject of controversy too).

You seem to be making the silly argument that if something isn't mainstream, GoG shouldn't even try to Tweet in promotion of it. Just on its face, the logic of it is unsound. Then you keep going on about "morality", acting is if that means the same thing to everybody. But that clearly isn't true at all. Take the debate about abortion and whether that is a moral act or not.

Let's talk about PR in general. Look at "games journalism" today. They are creating controversy at every turn to drive viewership and ad revenue. Jason Schreier just called out a rather moderate Asian Youtuber for an audience he called alt-right and anti-Semitic claiming you could see it from "most of the posts". Yet you look at the posts, and it's hard to find any of that at all. I'm sure his viewership will just take him at his word, but he frankly just made it up for the controversy.

Yet, if GoG pushes the envelope of controversy by daring to advertise Postal 2's DLC expansion, this somehow become bad PR. It's clearly a double-standard.

And the funniest thing of all - that's exactly what inscription on tombstone from Postal 2 was communicating. No wonder "gaming journalists" saw it as offensive. ;)

My favourite thing about this thread is that the nature of the thread itself answers the question posed by the title.

Jason Schreier is probably missing Linko a lot more than you guys do. lol

I don't think anyone is arguing that abortion is a moral act. o.O

I'd beg to differ. Plenty of people believe they have the right to their own bodies and that it would be wrong to bear an unwanted or unexpected child. That it is more moral to bear one when one is ready and willing. One shouldn't have to personally agree to see that others can have differing and legitimate moral values.

Wow, i left this topic and look what i return to find.

Anyway, yeah, people do, and i don't just mean the Church of Euthanasia. I know of one woman, who basically "just wants to have fun" and argues that it would be wrong for her to bring a child into the world, and that abortion is the more moral solution. I disagree with her on a fundamental level, but I can at least respect that she cares enough about humanity not to put it through the hell that she's creating. And she's just one of many. IIRC, the most common reason for abortion, too, is convenience, not rape, but then people make the same argument for rape (or anything else), that 'cause the potential child comes from bad circumstances that abortion is justified, if not the morally correct choice.

But then again, maybe you're arguing that no one here is arguing for the morality of abortion.

Arguing that abortion isn't murder doesn't equate to arguing that abortion is moral.

In some instances abortion is immoral, and in most cases it is amoral, but is it ever something that can or should be considered "good"?

I would say that anyone who thinks abortion is an acceptable form of birth control is unequivocally amoral.

If you think life has no sanctity then by definition, you are amoral; immorality, on the other hand, is an altogether different question.

Me?
Looks like it's you who ties morality to sanctification.

Thank you for gracing us with your wisdom.
According to your wit, a thread where there is some hot-headed controversy, and some low quality posts and some off-topic discussion, should be locked.
The problem with such sage and profound thinking is that it leads to the whole forum being locked....not necessarily a bad thing in GOG's case but...

While i personally agree, that's not anywhere near universally accepted. Alot of people believe in capital punishment (i'm no saint, i once believed in it, too, but, surprisingly [at least to most people], the bible showed me wisdom that capital punishment is wrong), abortion, and any number of things. I think eugenics is also shakey, 'cause while we can say it's wrong, it happens to not only be the way of nature, but with things like downsyndrom and such, it's pretty hard to say that it's OK to try to bring such misfortune into existence. That said, I accept their right to life and happiness, which alot of people don't, which is why abortion is often on the table for that, too, even though that doesn't even make up 1% of the statistics.

EDIT: i was wrong, 13% involve the health of the fetus. Mind you, these are individually asked, and the numbers don't add up because they account for total, not as a matter of opposition to each other.

What i find fascinating is how religion, when tackled and handled correctly, can still provide more common sense answers than science.
Also fascinating how notions connect and one thing leads to another, so from Linko threads locked we got to abortions.
Personally i enjoy this kind of debates a lot, but many people seem extremely hostile towards them, and usually threads like this get locked due to "popular demand" or something along the lines.

More and more conservative and libertarian atheists right now seem to be coming to this conclusion, as well (naturally, i'm noticing it because i'm of the religious right). I'm seeing people like Stefan Molyneux going from hardcore "no, we got to get rid of God" to "Ok, I was wrong to be going after God, but I still don't believe in Him." It seems to be Dr. Jordan Peterson's inspiration for his bible series as well (he specifically avoids talking about whether or not he believes, but certainly seems to come to the same conclusion as you, only more elaborate [i'll go look for the video, if you'd like]). Which is sad. I remember going into conversation neutral to the idea of polygamy, and coming out in favor of legalization of it (while stating that it's not for me) simply due to the level of arguments of the opposition (i was the only one supporting it, and i was merely playing devil's advocate). I wish it could've continued (as it was very, very civil and even intellectual in nature), but I had to call it quits because the automatic moderation system kept hiding posts for approval for days at a time, so we'd constantly have to read back to see replies, and we would often address the same thing and so forth. If it's not incivility, it's automatic moderation that keeps us from having nice things.

Btw, i'm going to point out the above edit since you replied since i edited my post.