[NSFW] Hatred - A Mass Murder Simulator - Offended by the trailer? You're a hypocrite!

Yeah it must be incredibly difficult for you to understand context and grey areas from what I'm reading. Everything needs to be black and white, with clearly one rule to govern all. I'm afraid I can't quite agree.

 

The problem is video games do not cause violence - Frustration with the difficulty level do.

Here are a bunch of reports that say the same thing over and over. Frustration / Difficulty level with Video games cause violence not the content.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26921743

http://psychcentral.com/news/2014/0...ion-not-content-fosters-aggression/68225.html

http://www.ibtimes.com/recent-study-finds-aggression-video-games-due-incompetence-1569609

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...ifficult-games-do-says-new-study-9246838.html

Will the game make the people sick in the head? Maybe - I am not a Psychologist however. Just a developer.

So before you condemn a game make sure that you have your facts straight about video games and what they do to the human mind. Because this one day it could be your game. For having to much violence, sexual content or even too much fun.

 

There's a lot of different points in this thread...
Some are.. weirder.. than others

 

I was just reminding people that no one actually died in these games and they shouldn't call it "murder". Nice choice of "gravely" by the way. "Ask for me tomorrow, and you shall find me a grave man."

 

You're saying that others shouldn't fall for the lies of the media, well the "support the troops" is also a lie as well. The media doesn't support the soldiers fighting on the behalf of our democratically elected psychopaths. In America, they didn't cover the inadequate health care program of the Veteran Affairs until it was too massive to ignore. The media completely ignores soldiers who question the pointlessness of fighting endless wars with no results except costs in the trillions. They have no respect for soldiers. They use the "support the troops" lie to coerce complicity from the public.

Countries do in fact want to be left alone. There are countries that don't want foreign presence and that's their right, our focus should be defending our own countries if we want to prevent "Vietnam".

Western nations needn't intervene every time trouble happens in another part of the world, these countries do have their own militaries and resources, and security pacts with neighboring countries. Besides, the US and the EU are fast approaching financial insolvency and simply can't afford any more of these interventions, unless you want to us all to live in the streets and starve so that our governments can print enough money to pay for these costly and disastrous interventions.

 

I've only read the first one. I might take a deeper look later. This type of frustration doesn't make them want to hurt people. This might make them snappy and angry but not murderer angry.

It's pretty safe to assume that games were you a psychopath murdering innocent people will mess up your mind. I don't know about games messing with adults minds but I know that it definitely wont help children's minds.

 

I played GTA 1 and Postal 2 when I was younger. Around ten years old for me.
I am an upstanding citizen of society.

I know others who played it at a younger age.
Personally I find the art of Hatred pretty good for such a limited budget that they have.

 

I never said that I support the media. I also never said that the media supports our troops. I have no idea where you got that from. I agree though that they don't respect our troops.

 

You cant prove that you don't have any lingering effects by just saying it. I haven't met you so I don't know. You are probably nearly completely fine. I bet though that many small lingering effects could be traced back to playing immorally wrong games.

 

Hahaha... no, that is exactly my point. When you say "Developers should do whatever they want and ignore all complaints" you are turning it into a black and white issue, rather than being honest and saying something more like "Developers should sometimes do what they want but maybe some things might actually be bad, and they should ignore some complaints but maybe actually some complaints are valid and should be listened to" which would be accepting of shades of grey.

 

Lets meet then. I am a pretty nice guy. I do not have a web cam but I do have a mic.

I will PM you my Skype info

 

I would prefer not to. For security reasons its not completely safe to just met random people. Anyways I don't have a mic.

 

No problem.

 

Thank you for dropping it that easily.

 

Did it ever occur to you that it takes a certain disposition to play one of these games to begin with and that the game has no effect whatsoever?

The problem with "morals" is it is "morally" wrong to make a game that a digital figure shoots other digital people with digital guns and no one actually dies but it is "morally" right to go sit around a large oval track and root for a fiery crash which may actually kill someone. Or to watch two people beat each other nearly to death and sometime even that. And gladiatorial combat with a strange shaped ball where people have died in the name of gaining a yard.

 

Do you really want your countrymen to starve, live on the street, and have no future through austerity programs which will allow Western countries to have enough money to continue playing the disastrous role of world's policemen?

Iraq is much worse after Saddam. Libya, considerably worse after Qadaffi. I have absolutely no idea which countries you're referring to.

And absolutely not, the West does not have the right to intervene every time a citizen of their countries is harmed, unless a "Vietnam" scenario is exactly what you want. This is why diplomacy and the UN and the ICC exist.

 

It did. In this day and age though kids will play any game that their friends are playing. Especially since most kids are public schooled they all see each other every day and they will play these games to try to be "Popular".

You really aren't understanding what I mean by "morally wrong". I don't mean that it is morally wrong to shoot people with digital guns. I mean that the games morals are skewed. Its morally wrong to murder people. Its morally wrong to kill innocent people. It seems to me that the only way you can justify this game is by trying to trivialize it. Trying to make it sound so small that it doesn't matter. The developer himself says its a game about mass murder.

And I've never rooted for races.

 

Adult video games shouldn't be played by children and responsible parents don't let them. Morals have nothing to do with adult games. There age games already that do that, but anyone young enough to be susceptible to the bad morals this game conveys should not be playing them. And any adult who is choosing to play this is already attracted to this kind of game.

And others do root for crashes and even if you don't root for them you know they happen and you know people have actually died to entertain you.

 

Seriously? Were America. We can do anything that we set our minds to. The only reason why we are in a recession is because of our countries management.

I agree. Iraq is worse off then before. The reason is that we didn't sit around long enough to actually guarantee its safety. As soon as we won we left, leaving a power gap that could easily be filled by whoever was in control of the military at that time.

This is the exact reason we have terrorists in the world. If we let them kill our people and then don't do anything back they will see it as weakness. They will know that they can take our people and not receive retribution. If it was your family, your daughter, your son, wouldn't you want the worlds mightiest military to try to save them?

 

Its not as easy as that. Many kids have complete freedom on the internet. They can download games right off of Steam. No one watches them and they certainly wont watch themselves. Especially when the most popular kids in school are playing them they'll download it just to be considered popular also.

 

oops. meant to hit reply not like. Though I do like lively debate..
Anyway...

Again, it is those kids' parents' responsibility, not the gaming industry and adults who wish to play games like these should not be penalized because of bad parents thousands of miles away. Adults are allowed to make bad choices. that's why there is an age limit for anything someone considers morally wrong.

 

No amount of naive, wishful, positive thinking will erase any nation's budget deficit in the trillions, if not possibly quadrillions when derivative exposures are taken into account. The era of having it both ways is over. There's no escape from financial insolvency this time if more senseless wars and bloodshed continues. Continued Western interventions and wars will bankrupt the entire world and make it an extremely dangerous place to live - World War II on both LSD and steroids. Think sensibly about what you're arguing, your own livelihood could very well be at stake.

The invasion was premised upon fabrications and lies making it wrong and incredibly evil from the very start.

Wrong, I've already addressed this, the terrorists exist because they don't want our governments in their countries. They don't want our culture, they don't want our values, they don't even want our technology. They want us out.

 

Do you even read your links. This talks about social drawinism, has nothing to do with what we talk about.

Rupert Sheldrake, all other biologists think he is nuts, but you have the knowledge to decide that they are all wrong. Oh, he worked on para-psychology too.
Some scientists even took the time to look at his claims. Any replication of his (para-psychology) claims failed (read at least wikipedia before bringing up such nutjobs as scientists). What he writes in his books is not science.
If you claim extraordinary stuff, it requires a higher hurdle on your side to check that stuff. So if you say there is no evolution but come with Rupert Sheldrake, at least look what his critics have to say. And yes, 99.9% of biologists think he is nuts.

It is not science, because falsifiability is required for any scientific hypothesis:

Even the Pope believes we come from monkeys. And most sane people do. America is a world of its own, where the religious fundamentalists fight it like there is no tomorrow. This has also to do with education, where people are educated to think free and be critical, religion, populists and global warming deniers have a hard life.

Basic exercise on good CS colleges is to create a polygenetic tree construction algorithm. It builds relationship trees just from DNA (by minimizing difference between parent and child species), without knowing what animals DNA is given. Gives the same results as Biology when they build the tree based on other criteria. But yes, God did it so that it looks like that

That is just one example pointing to that evolution is very likely true. There are countless others, read about it. But I'm an idiot even arguing with you, I know...

Yeah, yeah. You don't believe in evolution. What about Einstein's relativity and quantum physics?
But you believe in aliens or demons that were the leaders of ancient cultures. With "archaeological evidence" that 99.9% of archeologists don't think lead to that crazy conclusion.

People like you don't get that science is about falsifiability, if you find a single thing that violates the theory, it is broken. And don't think there is conspiracy to hide stuff. Because if you find a counter example, you are the hero, you will be in science history. So the last thing a real scientist would do is hide that thing (except maybe if it is his own theory).
Till today there is nothing that disproves evolution, relativity or quantum physics.

 

True it is the parents responsibility. I completely agree with you. I think though that the distributers should lend the parents a hand. If they had simple obstructions put in place it would limit the kids buying games they really shouldn't be playing.

Lively debates are always so much fun.

 

I'm really sorry about the weird format. I cant seem to get the quotes down. Sorry.

 

They do. They label them as unsuitable for children under a certain age. And you need a credit card to actually buy games in Steam (I think you still do anyway). Developers and distributors are doing everything they need to do to help informed and responsible parents. But that in no way makes them responsible for bad parents who let their kids get away with virtual murder.

 

December will mark the second year my TV has been unplugged. I get my news online. I come across an article, find a few sites covering it, and then usually wait for a handful a youtube people to cover it as well (TJ kirk, dusty, phil mason, jacquelin glenn, kyle kulinksi etc etc). The stories I mentioned in this thread had video evidence so I'm not sure how that could be affected by bias haha.

No worries. They're shocking stories so it's an easy conclusion to reach. The good point made over it is: Why are these people always protected? Why can the police handle everything internally? Why can police admit to committing perjury and have nothing happen? Peace should be for the peaceful, I wish the worst on people likely to commit the worst. How does one help someone like the people in these stories? Are they going to have some kind of "Oh, I guess killing people is bad" epiphany?

Meh, troops. Would we even have to worry about them [ISIS and friends] attacking us if we didn't dick with them first? I appreciate that they're going to keep provoking fights until there's nothing but nuclear waste in the middle east because it'll keep me safe from the problem they created, but I would prefer peace. What would work best would be some kind of magnetic bomb that would randomly charge some specific metal that's only in guns and missiles etc, turning every weapon into the world into a mini gauss bomb and killing everyone in possession of one. Voila, world peace.

Hatred is just a kiddie version of the "No Russian" level from MW2. It's been done before. In hatred, you're playing a single person running around a neighborhood with over the top violence that has a major disconnect with reality. It's like Rambo unleashed in a neighborhood like mine. In "No Russian", however, you were in a small gang of russian terrorists at an airport. You couldn't even sprint in that level because the devs wanted you to slowly walk through an airport gunning down everyone. Given the time it came out, it was and is a much more controversial and violent scene.

Did that translate into reality in any way other than news headlines and discussions about it? Nope. It's been 5 years and we've yet to see someone inspired by MW2 walk around an airport open firing a light machine gun.

 

Does the label really do anything though? I thought it was just something that told the age they thought it should be for and that it didn't really do anything. Maybe I wasn't looking as hard as I should have. I'm pretty sure it still requires a credit card. Only the free games don't require credit cards. I think that now were pretty much agreeing with everything! I don't know what else there is to debate.

 

Saddam Hussein's dictatorship had absolutely nothing to do with the events of 9/11. . That was a deliberate and calculated media lie used to manipulate America and Coalition nations into blindly supporting a costly and disastrous invasion in Iraq. Overwhelming evidence has disproved any link between Al Qaeda and Sadam Hussein's regime. Bin Laden and Hussein were sworn enemies since the 1980's.

Yes it's a wishful "think positive" mindset and it's willfully ignorant of the amount of money already wasted on endless wars and bloodshed. The millions of dollars the US President has wasted on golf, parties and lavish hotels amounts to nothing when compared to the billions and trillions of dollars he spent bailing out large predatory financial institutions and for the wars, interventions, and misadventures in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and numerous other countries.

How about calling for the end of these senseless wars and investing those trillions of dollars into the economy and creating jobs, investing in infrastructure, paying off national debts, correcting the border situation, and creating a strong self defense? But you'd rather argue for revenge and retribution, which is exactly what the psychopathic terrorists want, too. Is this the world you want to live in?

 

Consider your dogma broken
http://atrueott.wordpress.com/forbidden-archeology/

Social darwinism led to the tragedies of the 20th century....... There was good reason why political types push this crap of Darwin's and skew his original intent. There has not been one shred of evidence of one species turning into another. Tenured biologists are frightened of Sheldrake because he has upset their apple cart. Your statements about parapsychology tells me what school of thought you adhere to..yet the evidence for it is overwhelming if one does the requisite reading and research. I have experienced and observed parapsychological phenomena since a child.



I have little else to say to you as you are only educated and are not a truth seeker. Your vitriol is palpable. I have upset your apple cart and you scramble madly to set it back up. You ain't gonna convince me of any of your BS> I have once believed in the infallibility of professional scientists when approached as it should be and it may be so but when clowns with tenure see their apple carts upset and their fave theories in dispute with real world evidence they hide it or drum the scientist out of the profession using seniority and phrases such as you use. Recently I read about a female archaeologist who discovered wet tissue and blood cells on supposed 65 million year old dinosaur bones. No way that should happen according to long promulgated theory. Instead of looking at the evidence the tenured assclowns drummed her out of the profession. They were frightened of the evidence. That is not science. That is edumacated dogma and grasping to their theories for the sake of a paycheque and pseudo-respect.. True science is not afraid of evidence.

 

So... I won?

 

Does not change cranial volume nor the sutures in the back of the skull. That method simply alters the skull shape in emulation of these creatures.. Keep going sonny.. It just shows your ignorance of facts.

 

Well congratulations for pulling the plug! I've had it gone for 2 years also I think and its much nicer then having it most of the time.

I wouldn't say that I am protecting these people. Just that I am trying to show that not everyone is horrific. And I am pretty sure that organizations are in place to make sure cops follow the law. I don't know much about the programs though so I cant come up with them off the top of my head.

I really don't appreciate your view on our military. They do so much for us and you want to kill them all. Its just crazy.

The difference with "No Russian" though is that you could skip it and that it wasn't the premise of the whole game. You weren't forced to play, you could choose. And after he did that he was punished. He died and they showed it later. It shows that there is negative consequences to your bad actions.

I don't think that it will ever translate exactly into reality. It was a minor part of the game and I forgot about it completely until now. Though there has been an increase in school shootings lately. You could connect that to it if you really, really wanted to.

 

Your first statement really gets me. "That was a deliberate and calculated lie used to manipulate America". That truly shows how much you have researched 9/11. More than 3000 people died in 9/11 including over 200 rescue personnel. Their deaths are still felt by their families and their friends and yet you have just diminished all of their deaths.

But the US President spending all that money is not showing anyone that were trying to stop the recession. No ones going to look and say "The President is saving money so we should" they will look and see that hes still spending money and follow right along in his example.

I don't argue for revenge and retribution. I argue that we have to present a strong outer face. If we back away when they kidnap and kill our citizens then they will continue to kill and kidnap our people. But if we show them that they cant do it and then escape they wont do it anymore.

 

Sure. We've both gotten our points across and have come to an agreement which is what debating really is. I would say we both win from this.

 

You either do not understand, are trying to shift the argument, or both. Bin Laden was responsible the 3,000 deaths, not Saddam Hussein. The false, fabricated link between Al Qaeda and Hussein's regime was used to manipulate and coerce the US under Bush, the UK under Blair, and various coalition nations into supporting the costly and disastrous invasion of Iraq.

The US President has dutifully served the interests of the military industrial complex, multinational corporations, and predatory financial institutions. Scapegoating him is an excuse for you to continue engaging in more belligerent, reckless warmonger posturing even as it gradually bankrupts the entire world and ultimately leads to what very likely could be most deadliest war in human history.

When our nations stop acting as the world's policemen, leave countries that want to be left alone, and begin investing in our own countries' self-defense, economies, infrastructure, and land/sea borders, we won't have to worry about all this primitive neanderthal "look strong" posturing as if we are some scared little children behaving as if the bogey monsters are everywhere out to get us.

 

"requisite reading and research" - like your Rupert Sheldrake, where I already showed you that none of the claims he made can be reproduced under scientific conditions? You only read the thing you want to be true, but not how it was refuted.

There are different prizes with millions of dollars to win if anyone can demonstrate any such ability. Yet, not a single person ever won. They are offered by multiple millionaires who are sick of people milking dumb people.

Like finding in which covered glass of 10 glasses is water (like you have 20 tries and 18 must be right or something). Same for a person holding a card and the other telling which one it is. And for all the other crazy stuff people say they can do.

Nobody ever won. Ever. You say all the people with such abilities don't want the money?

"...observed parapsychological phenomena since a child" - maybe it is in your head only.

I'm afraid of what your definition of science is from the stuff you bring up here.
You don't get that if I find a single example that invalidates a great theory from physics, then I'm a well known physicist tomorrow. I would be famous and maybe get rich or win a nobel prize. Why would I hide that. It is not rational. But no there is a big conspiracy, all scientists hide the truth from you. Much more rational?
Of course my single example must be verifiable by other persons. Not like the people you bring up here, that claim something crazy, but when others look at it they don't see the crazy.

So you say a large dog like a Great Dane and a small dog like a Chihuahua come from "micro evolution" in dogs? (We know it is evolution, there are pictures of dogs 100 years ago and they look very different from today's dogs thanks to humans breeding extremes).


But a horse and a zebra or donkey have nothing to do with each other? From pure looks one would say a horse and a zebra have a closer relationship than these 2 dogs. But horse and zebra being related is impossible in your worldview?

Science must be falsifiable. So there can never be definitive proof, otherwise it is not science.
I already wrote about polygenetic tree construction, and that it matches relationship trees created by different biological criteria. That is strong indication that species come from each other, it even shows which and it matches with biology. There are many other very strong indications. Just read about it or stay in your bubble.

Is there any such thing like multiple tests for Rupert Sheldrake's theories? No. It is not falsifiable, so there cannot be any tests, otherwise it could fail. He created it in such a way to sell books. To you.
(His previous business of para-psychology allowed tests and failed, bad for business. He probably never assumed that any scientist would test that crazy stuff. But he will not do that error twice.)

Edit:
You should read the stuff you link better... I just looked at your giants link.
1) There I followed one link ("In 2002, National Geographic reported a dozen Cyclops skeletons found in Greece that stood 12-15 1/2 Ft tall. That is 3 humans tall."). The article linked there says these are primitive elephant skulls, and that the old Greeks probably invented Cyclopses from wondering to what these skulls belonged. Very different from what the blog says the article says.
2) And one of the pictures is nice, you see that the chest is normal size, they just made the arms and legs longer. Faking curious artifacts was a big business back then, many cases are documented.
3) But all that many found skeletons are missing today, evolutionist conspiracy they say. But giants are no problem for evolution like the Neanderthaler is none, could be humans brother or cousin or father, whatever, evolution does not care.
4) Are you cereal?

 

I wondering what that all has to do with the original topic

 

When it becomes obscene, something along the lines of the Millers test.

 

I watched the video game trailer and I can honestly say that I felt nothing. What I note here is that Video games despite the vast improvements in graphics technology have not gotten to the point(at least for me) where they can create an emotional response. (what effect this has on kids is a different topic entirely, that is a matter for medical research which is well beyond my scope of knowledge)

So, while watching these trailers (I saw several), I felt nothing but I am not immune. I do feel genuinely sickened when I watch footage of actual brutalization of people. I do however feel that with advancements in graphics technologies video games will be able to reproduce gore in more detail to the point where they could produce emotional responses almost as intense as the ones some of us have to actual violence.

 

I don't think that will ever happen for me.
Watching a clip of someone actually being murdered has had a huge impact on me, and such clips have fundamentally changed me, and put me in a psychological limbo for days. I watch a lot of shock gore movies, and even when they look real and they are done VERY well, the impact is incredibly minimal and fleeting, because I KNOW it's not real. That makes all the difference to me. This is why fiction has to try so hard and keep pushing extremes, because even a much milder reality is so much more shocking.

 

That is very well put.
More than the depiction of violence its the realization of harm being done to a human being that really agitates ones mind.

 

I didn't mean you protecting the police, I went into the context of my remembering the casters talking about other officers. If not all officers are bad, why are the good officers then preventing any recourse for the actions of the bad officers?

I don't hate the military specifically. I think anytime a gun is fired, it should backfire and explode, killing the shooter. If only bad people have guns, only bad people die. If only good people have guns, why do they need them to fight unarmed bad people? If both sides fight, the end result would be about the same. I know having more than 1 self aware organism in a population can cause violence, but I really do wish there could be peace without weapons.

"No Russian" is such a small part of the game yet it's so much more controversial. The motivation for the protagonist in hatred is that he's got some screws loose and things people are worms and should not live. The motivation for the protagonists in "No Russian" is that you're part of a terrorist organization and your intent is to kill people to cause both death and emotional trauma for your enemies. It's premeditated vs hatred's sudden you wake up one day and decide to kill everyone. The only realistic part of that game is how in America you could be that mentally unstable and procure so many firearms without anyone figuring out why before you've already committed 1-2 (or more) massacres.

Don't play the correlations game with me, I'm the best at it and I'm already a really silly, dark comedian who will cross every line you think there is protecting your psyche when talking to me I also attend school in Newark and it's flu season so I could connect lines between students getting mugged with how many times people sneeze in a day. Every week we are sent notifications of robberies that happened during the week. And the numbers match up! The kid who sits next to me in my thursday night class sneezes 1-3 times every class. And how many people are mugged that week? The numbers show 100% correlation.

 

Yeah, basically this.
As long as there's a great distance between you and the bad things that happen, everything is fine.

So far I can only think of two modern military shooters from the last few years, that didn't fall under this category.
The first one would be CoD 4 that has morals in a nice grey, as opposed to the - now default - black and white bullshit.
The second one is Spec Ops The Line, which is an anti war game.

 

My point was not that combat is morally right; it is that there is a difference in the gameplay. Again, I am not saying that playing Halo capture the flag with your friends is a "morally right" thing to do, it's not morally anything. I'm saying that something like capture the flag, deathmatch, or even single-player campaign mode is a game where you are competing with other people/AI shooting back at you, and the fun comes from the combat, not from watching the death animation. Much like paintball. Playing paintball doesn't mean you condone dropping napalm on civilians in real life.

 

Wow. Actually wanting millions of people to die in real life is WAY WAY worse than anything any video game will do, ever. As a gun owner and target shooter who has never hurt a fly, your comment disgusts me in ways that I cannot even describe. What a horribly bigoted little person you are to assume that we are all evil, violent people despite every single bit of evidence to the contrary. Wow. Just wow.

 

What a sad thread this has become. Hatred indeed.

 

I didn't click any links or research this game, but all of the discussion and premise of the game reminds me of POSTAL.

When it first released, it was criticized a lot. You basically just massacre everyone because you're insane.

A fun game at the time, although quite violent. Then again, I don't know what it is like really. I was a teenager when I played the demo, and teens think that all kinds of stuff is awesome.

 

That's essentially what my point is.

"Adrenaline rush", or "it's not innocent people". What essentially amounts to absurd justifications being given for their own taste for unnecessary bloodshed and gore portrayals. If it was really about the adrenaline rush or the experience of feelings they attribute to "combat", they could play Madden NFL, NBA Live and countless other non-violent team sports and strategy games.

With games like "Hatred", peoples' hypocrisy is going into overdrive to prove how good and innocent they are now that they've found something that crosses their own personal limits for what's essentially harmful and counterproductive behavior. Heaven forbid someone actually attributes Call of Duty as "war pornography" for how it objectifies extreme violence in explicit details and creates a false, contrived narrative of war mostly out of touch with reality, because it's an "adrenaline rush", "it's not innocent people", or even" that's not supporting the troops".

 

I'll rephrase that just a little then, since apparently it's necessary.

I wish every time an item is used for violent purposes, the perpetrator is instead slain by the item.

Better? Geez, you'd think within the context (and all of my previous posts), you would understand what I was saying. If you're aiming a gun at anyone, it'd be lovely if it fired backwards through the barrel and you splattered your own brains all over the wall, if your intention was to kill. But - if that was in order to protect someone and you don't ignore the premise I'm giving, the person threatening the person you intended to protect would be slain by their own weapon the moment they actually tried to do anything, so your interference and attempt to take a life would be unnecessary.

I have multiple posts advocating for peace and you take 1 line out of context to make it look like I'm advocating random violence against innocent people. That's truly disgusting. I've stated multiple times there should be peace and that violent entities should annihilate one another. So, no, if you're not violent I don't assume you are. I assumed nothing. I said only the violent should be a victim of their own violence.

It is amusing, however, that you've made an assertion while accusing me of doing so. Is it bigoted and horrible to desire peace? Is it bigoted and horrible to wish evil intentions manifested as karma immediately to stop horrible things from being done? I'm sure no one thinks so, but please feel free to disagree.