Your link missed an important bit, and showed me ALL the TES factions, then I realized that it should point here:
http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Factions_%28Online%29

Anyhow, I bet you're correct and the 3-way faceoff was between:
Aldmeri Dominion (SW corner of map)
Daggerfall Covenant (NW corner)
Ebonhart Pact (NE corner)

...Presumably to allow for PvP control zones, etc. Interesting, thanks.

Still, the MMO nature will make it difficult or impossible to include many if not most of the key things that I enjoy in a TES game, so I still think that this is a long shot for me personally.

This video includes none of the messages whispered to you by the universe and doesn't even attempt to explain the pact of secrecy with God and Satan atop the mountain of sugary mind matter. This is worse than the Dune movie. My suspension of disbelief is shattered.

>> ^peggedbea:

>> ^NetRunner:

How about the people who will go out, and donate money, volunteer for, and vote for a guy like this? Can they be saved? Can the rest of us be saved from them?

i find this really interesting. i have two really, really badass friends. They're eclectic neo pagans. They support gay marriage. They love pre-marital sex. They love kinky sex. They give their children advice on masturbation and safe sex. They are not themselves swingers, but they hang out with lots of them. They smoke pot. They both have master's degrees in health science fields. They decorate their "yule" tree with pentagrams. They're really intelligent, groovy people. and They love Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin. I can't even ask them about it because we made a pact a long time ago that we wouldn't discuss politics. Because it makes our heads explode. BUT THIS MYSTERY IS MAKING MY HEAD WANT TO EXPLODE.


That is the most fucked up thing I read here on videosift.

>> ^NetRunner:


How about the people who will go out, and donate money, volunteer for, and vote for a guy like this? Can they be saved? Can the rest of us be saved from them?


i find this really interesting. i have two really, really badass friends. They're eclectic neo pagans. They support gay marriage. They love pre-marital sex. They love kinky sex. They give their children advice on masturbation and safe sex. They are not themselves swingers, but they hang out with lots of them. They smoke pot. They both have master's degrees in health science fields. They decorate their "yule" tree with pentagrams. They're really intelligent, groovy people. and They love Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin. I can't even ask them about it because we made a pact a long time ago that we wouldn't discuss politics. Because it makes our heads explode. BUT THIS MYSTERY IS MAKING MY HEAD WANT TO EXPLODE.

WTF, you are insane, "rape the [C]onstitution"?

Do you know what a corporation is? It is a financial instrument, a pact between society and investors to encourage investing while keeping a person's house and finances shielded from being put at risk by creating products.

It has nothing to do with anything in the Constitution. It REALLY has nothing to do with electing politicians. The only thing that has happened in the last 30 years is that corporations now control elections and put more money into campaigns than individuals. Corporations have realized they can make more profit by buying politicians which reward them with favorable laws and regulations and kickbacks nad contracts at the expense of citizens who suffer from the corporate greed.

Look at the BP oil spill or Enron or corn subsidy or sugar tariffs or bank bailouts or GM bailouts or mortgage crisis. In general, corporations best interest goes directly against a health society and the health and prosperity of citizens.

So it may bring a little more light to your topic above. As I felt this was rather condescending and a personal attack to some degree(even though I am atheist), especially when it comes from someone who claims to have a spiritual connection to God, a good and moral person. There is only ONE Christian way, ONE true religion, and we are all an affront to the light and helpers of the dark. Those that don't hold these beliefs are Gods enemies.

The truth by its nature is exclusive. On the question of what 2 + 2 equals, there are an infinite number of wrong answers and one right answer. Does the fact that there are an infinite number of wrong answers diminish in any way the exclusive truth of the right one? Should we say because there are so many potential answers that there is no actual right answer? Obviously not, so why do you think it is any different for the question of God?

Matthew 12:30

Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

I take heavy stock only in science now. If there is a God it will wait till after my death for my attention--for to follow one here, I may in the end hurt someone. Like in your post above or in broader implications like homosexuality and various other randomly adhered laws and traditions (honor killings, suicide bombers and jihad, corporal punishment, suicidal group pacts, etc...) that consider some people a dangerous threat due to a religion's view.

Hebrews 9:27

And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

You will not have that opportunity. After you die you will enter into the judgement of God. It is not something you can put off even for tomorrow, but you are not guaranteed tomorrow. You need to get right with God before you die, or you will face judgement for your sins.

Vincit Omnia Veritas, this Latin phrase sums up what I'm willing to follow the most and what I hope is actually true for most of us humans--a true philosophical debate. That is why science gets my attention above all others, philosophy for some moral quandaries and comedy to help in a lot of situations were the outright truth may not.

Only the truth can set you free. Everything else is dwelling in the vain imaginations of mankind.

/I did say I wasn't going to comment on @shinyblurry again, but I thought the way he responded to me was a prime example of a mental attitude towards those he may consider to be in the wrong and that it may give insight into your example above. It seemed almost misanthropic, but I certainly will not label shiny as such as that is up to the person to confirm; certainly not me.

I am telling you what the word of God says. I know that you see me as something else, and you can place any label that you like upon me, but my only intention is to share Gods truth.
>> ^kceaton1

@dannym3141

Great post, it brings up a good philosophical and theological question. I'm assuming in your post with @xxovercastxx you referred to @shinyblurry 's response; if this was not true, please state otherwise. But, this comment should be able to standalone by itself, I think.

@shinyblurry commented on my post above elsewhere (in my blog), where I said basically, "I was a believer in God, I felt his presence or more accurately the Holy Ghost's presence...". His literal response to one of my more important parts of my life (even though I am fully atheist now) was this: (in my blog, if you wish to read it directly; this is also located a few posts above here as well)
"There are two kingdoms in this world, the kingdom of darkness and the Kingdom of Heaven, and they are both supernatural kingdoms. You can get a supernatural experience in a false religion, but it is just a corrupt copy of the real thing. Were you feeling a burning sensation in your chest? What you were feeling wasn't the Holy Spirit, or the presence of God, but the false spirit that pervades the mormon church. The presence of God is something that goes beyond feelings and sensations. This is how people get duped into false religions, because they get a spiritual experience from a false spirit."...

So it may bring a little more light to your topic above. As I felt this was rather condescending and a personal attack to some degree(even though I am atheist), especially when it comes from someone who claims to have a spiritual connection to God, a good and moral person. There is only ONE Christian way, ONE true religion, and we are all an affront to the light and helpers of the dark. Those that don't hold these beliefs are Gods enemies.

I take heavy stock only in science now. If there is a God it will wait till after my death for my attention--for to follow one here, I may in the end hurt someone. Like in your post above or in broader implications like homosexuality and various other randomly adhered laws and traditions (honor killings, suicide bombers and jihad, corporal punishment, suicidal group pacts, etc...) that consider some people a dangerous threat due to a religion's view.

Vincit Omnia Veritas, this Latin phrase sums up what I'm willing to follow the most and what I hope is actually true for most of us humans--a true philosophical debate. That is why science gets my attention above all others, philosophy for some moral quandaries and comedy to help in a lot of situations were the outright truth may not.


/I did say I wasn't going to comment on @shinyblurry again, but I thought the way he responded to me was a prime example of a mental attitude towards those he may consider to be in the wrong and that it may give insight into your example above. It seemed almost misanthropic, but I certainly will not label shiny as such as that is up to the person to confirm; certainly not me.

I think they're straight - they've always has a pact that (just to be crazy/stupid), if they ever got on the Jumbotron, they would kiss. Their friend sitting between them looked shocked, like WTF just happened.

Makes for great comedy...

>> ^LarsaruS:

>> ^jwray:
>> ^LarsaruS:
Morals, morality and ethics does not exist. They are complete bullshit people make up and they change constantly. What is considered morally and ethically right by you might not be seen that way by the person sitting next to you. And 25 years from now how you feel about the morality and ethics of an action probably wont be the same as today. This is why Morals(tm) should have zero to do with lawmaking and government decisions. It just creates a lot of BS down the road. Like this non-issue.

As both an atheist and a liberal, I vehemently disagree with this. Only actions that harm others without their consent should be illegal. Only actions that harm others without their consent are capable of being immoral. Actions which are immoral are a subset of those that harm others without their consent. Actions which should be illegal are a subset of actions which are immoral.
"You can't legislate morality" is just a copout to prevent the masses from forcing their inane bronze-age-myth derived morality on everyone. Real morality and just law are perfectly compatible.

Maybe I misunderstood/misread you but to me it seems like you feel I believe gays should not be allowed to marry? Since I believe they should be able to I feel like you must have misunderstood me. My comment was only directed towards the flawed notion of morals, morality and ethics as an absolute set in stone ~2k years ago in a desert. This is also why the entire gay-marriage-controversy is utter BS. It is make belief morals enshrined in law fucking real peoples lives up for absolutely no reason at all.
I completely agree that actions that harm others without consent should be illegal. However, I do not like your circular reasoning for the reason why it should be illegal. I believe that it should be illegal because it hurts another human being not because it is "immoral" as morals are fluid and changes a lot. 500-1500 years ago rape and pillage during war wasn't seen as immoral, just effective. Today you get court martialed and possibly shot/hung for it.
If your actions cause pain or discomfort to another human being try to refrain from it, or they might do the same to you (or worse!). That is also the reason why you shouldn't mess with people. Because if you break the I-wont-try-to-kill-you-and-you-wont-try-to-kill-me pact that we base our coexistence and civilization on you might just cause your own demise.


It's not circular reasoning. It's redundant explanation of an axiom (one of many).

Not every action that harms others without their consent is immoral or should be illegal:

1. Train is about to hit 10 people, but you can pull a lever that will make it go on a different track and hit 1 person instead.
2. You run a business. You have underperforming employee. You fire underperforming employee.
3. Some instances of self defense.

Don't let the bronze-age-myth fools soil the name of morality so thoroughly that you stop bothering to use the word except mockingly.

>> ^jwray:

>> ^LarsaruS:
Morals, morality and ethics does not exist. They are complete bullshit people make up and they change constantly. What is considered morally and ethically right by you might not be seen that way by the person sitting next to you. And 25 years from now how you feel about the morality and ethics of an action probably wont be the same as today. This is why Morals(tm) should have zero to do with lawmaking and government decisions. It just creates a lot of BS down the road. Like this non-issue.

As both an atheist and a liberal, I vehemently disagree with this. Only actions that harm others without their consent should be illegal. Only actions that harm others without their consent are capable of being immoral. Actions which are immoral are a subset of those that harm others without their consent. Actions which should be illegal are a subset of actions which are immoral.
"You can't legislate morality" is just a copout to prevent the masses from forcing their inane bronze-age-myth derived morality on everyone. Real morality and just law are perfectly compatible.


Maybe I misunderstood/misread you but to me it seems like you feel I believe gays should not be allowed to marry? Since I believe they should be able to I feel like you must have misunderstood me. My comment was only directed towards the flawed notion of morals, morality and ethics as an absolute set in stone ~2k years ago in a desert. This is also why the entire gay-marriage-controversy is utter BS. It is make belief morals enshrined in law fucking real peoples lives up for absolutely no reason at all.

I completely agree that actions that harm others without consent should be illegal. However, I do not like your circular reasoning for the reason why it should be illegal. I believe that it should be illegal because it hurts another human being not because it is "immoral" as morals are fluid and changes a lot. 500-1500 years ago rape and pillage during war wasn't seen as immoral, just effective. Today you get court martialed and possibly shot/hung for it.

If your actions cause pain or discomfort to another human being try to refrain from it, or they might do the same to you (or worse!). That is also the reason why you shouldn't mess with people. Because if you break the I-wont-try-to-kill-you-and-you-wont-try-to-kill-me pact that we base our coexistence and civilization on you might just cause your own demise.

I didn't like that question from the interviewer, asking if the teenagers were making pacts to get pregnant. Next he'll be trying to paint a picture of these girls wanting to best UK teen pregnancy rates (the highest in Western Europe).

My next piece of opinion will probably result in me being torn a new one, but ahh to hell with it - it's about time we in the Western world started taking China's policy of 1 child per family seriously, plus the necessary education to make our younger members of society aware of why such steps will help us all in the long run.

>> ^bobknight33:

Why lies? The man has done nothing to indicate this . He believes in GOD. There is nothing wrong with that.
>> ^gwiz665:
lies



I hope you aren't familiar with Robertson. Your absolutely right on there being nothing wrong with believing in God. That is not what most thinking people have against Mr. Robertson. Instead, they hold it against him that he repeatedly stirs up fear and/or hatred and claims to be doing it in the name of God. That's something that should make him MORE offensive to those that do believe than to those that don't.

Mr. Robertson on the Haiti disaster:
"It may be a blessing in disguise. ... Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. Haitians were originally under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon the third, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you will get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal. Ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other."

Those devil worshipers had it coming and maybe they can turn this into a blessing by abandoning their heathen ways. Pat's record needs to be better known so nobody defends him by accident anymore thinking he's being persecuted for believing in God. He's being persecuted for acting like God is the same kind of hateful fear monger that he himself is.

When you say" The POINT is that the government can't sponsor one religion over another, and can't persecute one religion over any other." Your are right to a point. All religions are to allowed to be expressed . but when the religion calls for the murder of others for not conforming or converting then the religion has gone too far.


What if there was a religion that called for the annihilation for all people that does not subscribe conservative mindset? Would you and leftest friends be so tolerant then? Oh wait the Muslim are the ultimate conservatives. Every one else are their leftest. They are here to kill you and me!

From above Quantumushroom has it right. Do you really want that shit living near you or you family.

>> ^KnivesOut:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Lincoln said it best: "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." Any religion besides islam is believable when its reps call for peace and tolerance. 7th century savages are not believable. thereligionofpeace.com

It doesn't fucking matter if you don't like their religion! I think Islam is full of wrong ideas too, but that's completely beside the point.
The POINT is that the government can't sponsor one religion over another, and can't persecute one religion over any other.
It wouldn't matter if this were a church of satan, scientology, wikka, or jesus. They're all the same in the eyes of the state (or at least they should be).

>> ^quantumushroom:

Lincoln said it best: "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." Any religion besides islam is believable when its reps call for peace and tolerance. 7th century savages are not believable. thereligionofpeace.com


It doesn't fucking matter if you don't like their religion! I think Islam is full of wrong ideas too, but that's completely beside the point.

The POINT is that the government can't sponsor one religion over another, and can't persecute one religion over any other.

It wouldn't matter if this were a church of satan, scientology, wikka, or jesus. They're all the same in the eyes of the state (or at least they should be).

Lincoln said it best: "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." Any religion besides islam is believable when its reps call for peace and tolerance. 7th century savages are not believable. thereligionofpeace.com