xoinx, do you mean the first one or the second one?
In my judgment, 2 and 6 have the most potential; the rest are just funny and don't seem to be able to go anywhere.
I didn't say that's how you'd describe it, i said that's what it seems to be (that is, how i would describe it). Anyway, you're just proposing your own definition, which is completely different from the concept i was talking about.
Good, but that's not what i'm doing. I'm postulating that the contents of justice can be found in human nature, which is fairly immutable for the time being. In any case, as i've said before, justice is objective by definition, so it seems that what you're arguing isn't so much that justice is subjective, but that it doesn't exist or is irrelevant.
I think the problem is that i'm trying to argue (1) that there's an objective standard of justice by definition, while you trying to argue (2) that subjective opinions can't possibly form the basis of an objective standard. Is this right?
What I find odd: everyone has their own beliefs. No two people naturally have the same beliefs. Having this in mind, it is illogical to use your standards of principle in an argument without first mentioning that it is just your opinion and not fact.
Think of it this way: why would Person A feel justified in telling Person B that they are wrong in terms of non-factual evidence?
I don't see why that couldn't apply to any statement of fact.
A better, more purinent example: Joe thinks that anything not natural is vile and a testament to all that is wrong with mankind. Jane has a cancer that can be treated with certain drugs. Would you say that Joe would be in the right for hating Jane because she accepts what he believes is wrong in order to save her life? Why is it that Joe has any justification to impose his morals on to a person who does not share the same belief?
I would say that Joe is wrong, but i don't see how you could, beyond your subjective preference.
The standard of justice is determined by the standards that a society agrees upon:
-Steal from someone in the US, reimbursement + community service.
-Steal from someone in old Middle East, lose a hand.
-Steal from someone in Utopia, become a slave.
That's one definition of 'justice', but it does't seem like a very good one, since we say things like "slavery was unjust" and not "slavery would be unjust today" or "slavery seems unjust to us". Anyway, it's not the one i'm using.
There is no universal sense of justice. To say that there is one baseline of justice that every human being naturally follows is wrong. No one wants their property stolen? What about social communists? No one wants to feel pain? What about masochists? Etc. etc., you can't logically hold anyone to your standards or a society's standards unless that person accepts those standards as their own. This is key in the idea of citizenship: to live in a society, you must adhere to its rules.
It seems like you're just restating your position without giving any supporting arguments. I think i offered a fairly simple noncontructive proof that morality isn't purely subjective. (as for the communist thing, it's not technically theft if they don't mind.)
I agree with the first part of what you said, but the second part (starting with "it seems very odd") i don't get. To say that justice is relative strikes me as a bit like saying that geometry or chemistry is relative. Obviously, there's such a thing as human nature, which every human has, and by studying it, we can find out what works for societies and what doesn't, and how this relates to the idea of justice. If there were no standard of justice at all, arbitration would be impossible, and everyone would settle every dispute by violence.
To clarify what meant: not that common values determine what justice is, but that they reflect something in human nature. Just because some people have it wrong, or that no one has completely right, doesn't mean there aren't principles we can study. Also, i would say that justice is egalitarian by definition, is it not?
Of course there are sociopaths, asf., but the only thing you need is for most people to agree on what is and isn't a crime, and the vast majority of people are agreed that acts such as murder, assault, kidnapping, theft, and arson are crimes, and i would add that this is because they constitute a physical invasion of another person's person or property. Also, because justice is rooted in egalitarianism, it can't discriminate among persons, so kidnapping is just as much a crime when commited by private individuals as when commited by government officials, therefore we can say that the military commisions act (aside from being unconstitutional) is illegal, because it authorizes such kidnapping.
By the way, what do you have against anarchists? I'm an anarchist.
I remember being able to get a higher score with donkey kong than kirby, including lots of pacifist bonuses. It's just a matter of manipulating the cpu to kill themself/itself as fast as possible, which should work especially well in a tas.
Whoops. It was actually me who was using an older version. No wonder.
Edit after watching: very interesting; it might even be good enough to publish. Two questions, though: what's with the kraid fight, and why didn't you skip the zebeths?
I'm not quite sure how to describe swedish, but it has this nostalgic, childish sound that i really like. Japanese sort of has that too, but in a totally different way. Finnish, contra tolkien, to me just sounds like spanish, just not as bland.
Icelandic doesn't sound as good as swedish and it's morphology looks a bit scarry, but i'll probably learn it someday so i can take a look at hafronska. (Danish just seems a bit stupid compared to the other nordic languages; no offense to danes.)
er... not too much. Hopefully this will be the last time i'll have to apply a redesign patch.
Edit: the roms don't match. The patch you gave yields a rom whose crc is 08881c69. It looks as if you're using an older version of the headered rom. On my v2 headered rom, it desyncs after the missile set. On the patch you gave, it just desyncs at the start.
I have now, but i don't know what it does. How do you do the latter? I know neither how to specify rom images in snes9x, nor how to pass parameters through wine.