The purpose of my original post was simply to address the "Everyone who pirates is a dickwad" comment. I pretty much just wanted to say that, even though I had in fact pirated GC2, I didn't consider myself a dickwad, since I did eventually come to buy it, and am now invested in the series as a result. I have been exposed to a lot of games through piracy and later purchased those games as a result. My intention was just to communicate that not all pirates are scum of the earth. I admit that I was overzealous in my attempt to sugar coat piracy and my response(s) got a little out of hand. Thankfully I don't mind getting into long discussions. I am also not above changing my mind. The viewpoints that many of you have expressed are valid, and there is no doubt that my opinion carries a heavy bias in favor of my long history in the piracy scene. With that said, I do feel that I should probably shut-up ad piracy and focus on buying more games outright. I apologize if i offended anyone. Please buy your games!
PS: I didn't realize this was in a general forum that links to what appears to be the Elemental Forums, which resulted in more attention than I anticipated.
This is not a personal attack since I don't know you, it's not even an attack, it's a very direct observation.
Pirating a game is a dickwad move. Pirating movies is a dickwad move. Pirating music is a dickwad move. If the cost of entry is to high, then don't participate. Your wants and needs are not always the same. The things you want to try or should try don't always line up. If you think something is too expensive, don't waste time on it, and look elsewhere. If the cost is prohibitive and the retailer/publisher/developer loses your business over it, their problem, not yours. Using this circular logic of yours, what's to stop anyone from stealing your car, house, wallet, underwear etc? But, they love your brand new Toyota Camry, MB e550, Porsche 911. If not yours, then from the dealer, or food or whatever...
When someone pirates anything, they are stealing from the people that produced the goods, returning later and buying said goods is not a valid justification for the original act. Having said that, it's your life, your choices, it is just a video game or song or movie, and not a car, house, someones personal item. That's the kind of logic that thieves use, and.. well, you know where this goes.
Again, I am just showing you the other side of your logic, please don't thin that I have any feelings towards you personally.
Theft is theft. Some types of theft are much worse than others, but at the end of the day, theft is theft. If you stole something, be smart and STFU about it. Pretend you didn't and get on with your day. Next, you'll be posting about how killing is good and go into great detail about the benefits of killing. I realize that I am using a very extreme example, but it follows your logic. Sorry buddy. You're a thief. Had you been a quiet thief, no one would have ever known. I', not judging because I don't care, and I understand your stance, but I think you are still wrong.
It's not so much an extreme example as a poor one. The result of killing, just like anything else, can be good or bad. The action is always bad, but the end result can have a positive outcome. Have you ever heard of the death penalty? Or maybe a little event in our history called WWII and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? It's actually a very unreal event in history to consider, both in terms of actual lives lost, and morality as an exercise.
"The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective due to the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members"
The targets were picked specifically to include maximum casualties. The entire point was to cause as much death and destruction as possible. Hiroshima was also a military target, but represented a great amount of collateral damage in terms of urban population and infrastructure. Include the fact that it was located between mountains, which were thought to help create a "focusing effect," and you have yourself an ideal target. It was a very successful operation, with 90,000–166,000 killed in Hiroshima alone.
Were these acts of killing wrong? Did they benefit a greater good? Would the war undoubtedly cost more lives on both sides if it had been allowed to continue? Could it be argued that by killing over and hundred thousand, lives were saved? You brought up the example. Not even the act of killing is entirely black and white.
I just saw that. What strange logic. You are right that maybe my choice of examples was poor, but theft often leads to worse crimes, especially when perpetuated on a person. I am not implying that your pirating will lead to other crimes, I don't know you at all. But theft is theft, and in the act of committing theft, many things can happen which often includes horrendous violence. Does that make more sense?