LootHunter: I think that what richlind33 tries to say is that morality is too nuanced to be legalised properly. Like if you want money and you kill a random person on the street to get it - that's definetely immoral. And it's easy to put it in the law - don't kill people just to get their property.

But when you shame someone for their way of life and that person commits suicide - that is very amgious situation. Was shaming viable? Did you know that a person would commit suicide? Those things are very hard to determine. Sometimes even you yourself don't exactly know if your action was motivated solely by pursuit of decency or there are some other emotions involved. That's why harshly shaming someone for minor transgressions is immoral, but you can't make a law that disallowes it.

richlind33: Morality is doing right because you value your dignity and have compassion for others, *irrespective* of legality.

Some people only comply with laws because they are afraid of being caught.

LootHunter: And some people only do moral things only because they are afraid of being shamed or long for approval and praise. Irrespective of legality.

That's why your statement that a person have high moral only by the own volition doesn't hold water. So I thought that it was irrelevant.

richlind33: Your premise is false because if you are driven to do good by fear or shame, it is merely compliance. And fear and shame are poison to both heart and mind, and lead to all manner of disease, which is antithetical to moral well-being, or "high morality".

Tauto: Umm, that is a fallacy.

Telika: I keep a calculator at hand to double check all my analyses.

For instance :

According to the report, 82% of americans think that hate speech is a problem. Some people think that Linko's tweets are hate speech. Therefore 82% of americans think Linko is a nazi. It's mathematical.

LootHunter: No, it's not. It's not even logical.

If group A has a problem with something. And group B believes that someone is a part of a that problem. Obviously group B is a part of group A (otherwise B wouldsn't think that is a problem). But A doesn't consists only of B.

richlind33: It is rather easy, actually; you can tell by the results. People driven by fear and shame are running from themselves. You will never see them engaging in self-reflection.

Telika: The whole point is, you are doing this when directly applying that the report's poll numbers to Linko's tweet.

LootHunter: How didn't I thought about that?

So, did Linko90 engaged in self-reflection? Did folks from ResetEre? Did GOG higer-ups after they allowed ResetEra folk to harrass Linkko90?

LootHunter: First of all, I didn't "directly apply" report's numbers. I just use them to make an estimate of how many people will be against Postal 2 and how many people will be ok with Postal 2 being advertised on tweeter. And if you have some survey that shows more than 7% of Americans will be against the game, be my guest - please show it.

Second. My intent was to rebuke statement that "advertizing Postal 2 on tweeter was pointless since that game had a very limited audience". Even if report numbers werent solid proof, I'm still waiting for you to prove your statement (well, richlind33 statement actually) in a more rigid way.

richlind33: Because you'd already concluded that it was impossible because you equate morality with religion, and you don't like religion. Or am I mistaken?

richlind33: Do you think a majority of people on Twitter regularly visit gore sites like ogrish? lol

LootHunter: Actually, I hoped you answer three questions below.

Do those sites have tweets, advertising itself?

richlind33: Don't know, but they have plenty of gratuitous violence and shocking imagery that's guaranteed to be 100% family-friendly. o.O