Magiilaro

When someone talks about murdering everyone he doesn’t agrees with or taking away basic human rights only because of the demographic then it stops to be a joke in my eyes. We have seen times and times again how it ends, and it is never good.

But yes, I think enough words have been said here, everything else is pointless redundancy.

No, I did not say that. And it says a lot that I am called pathetic for taking the position of the voice of reason.

But I will end this communication with you now, have a nice day

That is called disenfranchisement and there are laws for that already.

Murder is never a valid solution to the Paradox of Tolerance.

What I say is that death should always be the last option, not (one of) the first. There is almost always a better alternative available.

And if someone calls for the extinction of people only because they have the wrong beliefs or opinions, because they say the wrong thing or even tell lies, yes I then say that it is wrong.

It was wrong when the Nazis did it, it was wrong when the Soviet Union did it, it was wrong when the Chinese did it in the Cultural revolution, it was wrong in every single case where it ever has happened and it will always be wrong when it will happen again.

You can’t use the tools and methods of the enemy without becoming the enemy. Trying to build a free society by use of oppression and mass murder is something that is doomed to fail and to turn into the thing it has sworn to fight. One day you might by able to comprehend that.

1. Freedom of speech (and with that the right to get information from every legal source) is a basic human right
2. Your examples are punishments for breaking laws, but censoring what older people can watch, hear or read is a limitation of a basic human right enacted without any prior law breaking.

So your examples are all reactive while censoring older people would be proactive. That is a huge difference.

Oh and saying “stabbing people is bad, now go to time out” or “don’t drink raw milk, you’ll get sick” is not limiting the behavior of people, it is giving them information to change the behavior on their own… or they don’t and then they (and the people around them) have to live with the consequences.

The law the grants freedom of speech exists to protect opinions and texts that some (or even most) people find offending or don’t agree with. A law that only protects speech that everyone agrees with is a law not needed, because nobody will ever fight that words or wants to censor them.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Oh yes, I am sure that the Nazis back then said the same about cleansing the german nation, the benefits for the Volkskörper outweigh the losses that one generation would have to suffer.

The same can be used to ban alcohol for everyone:

See the trick is this: does “mentally fit” apply, even in the case of otherwise mentally healthy individuals? Addiction can affect anyone and the less tech savvy more so. We have no issues with limiting the physical behavior of the people we care about when they cannot handle it anymore (e.g. we’ll drive grandpa around when he can technically do it, but shouldn’t). While some do kick a fuss about it (for understandable reasons) ultimately, society at large is pretty OK with the whole deal.

Now we have them exposed to substances that are arguably harmful to their health and the health of the people around them (e.g. drug-related crime). At what point does their right to drink alcohol cede to their mental health? For anyone really? We cede rights to do things when they harm ourselves and others often. Why is this different?

So are you ok with a new prohibition

“We can build our utopia, we just have to kill everyone who doesn’t agree with us” doesn’t sound very right in my ears. It sounds like something where one should ask “are we the baddies?”

That is not helping or support, that is enforcing your will on someone else in the disguise of help. Oh and I am sure that they will be fully informed about that cost and its implications.

So what basic rights should we strip them also? The right to vote? I mean, if they are not capable of making valid decisions about what to watch/read/think then they can’t be capable of making valid decisions to vote! And lets remove Freedom of Speech fully, it only gets misused to enable nasty opinions and thoughts that “the correct and good” people don’t like.

There is a huge difference between “influence the behavior of our loved ones” and acting as a dictator who censors where the adult and mentally fit loved ones can get their information from.

Yeah, stripping adult people from some of their basic rights sound like a perfectly fine idea.

Official Mod support often gets added later, Starfield for example was launched without and it was added later. This is a general trend nowadays, mod support for Baldurs Gate 3 (as an non Bethesda example) was added later too.

I am sure Oblivion Remastered will get mod support, and I would be very surprised if mod support will not also come with Creations integration.

Blizzard tried this with the Dark Pathways Bundle for Diablo 4 before, 30$ to change the colors of the Town portals. Was not very successful!

The Bethesda feel is way I buy the games, the Bethesda feel is what makes the games. So I really hope that the Bethesda feel is still there.

Can you name only one, of the many tries, where a socialist state worked?

Oh but i am sure those are all no true scotsman… I mean no true socialist states.

And we have seen how great socialist countries work, every single time was a huge success with benefits for everyone…