I promised myself I wasn't coming back, and yet...
I hope you are joking. If you think that saving hundreds of millions of lives by killing Hitler is "morally ambiguous" then your moral compass is somehow fcked up. Maybe you also think that people shouldn't kill someone in self-defense when they are attacked and should, instead, allow the attacker to kill them as well? It is ridiculous but less absurd than your example with Hitler.
I would say his moral compass is better-aligned than yours, if you believe killing Hitler is comparable to self-defense, whether murder to protect oneself is moral or amoral. For the record, incapacitating your assailant is the only acceptable answer to "how should I deal with someone who is threatening my life?" What amount of force is necessary is dictated by the level of threat that individual/animal/etc poses to you. You wouldn't put a gun against the head of a wheelchair-bound senior who can barely function.
There is no "being objective" in morality, but at least my point of view makes perfect sense and is supported by more people.
In the land of make-belief, sure. For the grand majority, though, "objective morality" is actually a thing that exists. It exists for anyone above the age of 5, who knows all bad guys aren't Saturday Morning cartoon villains and all heroes aren't hulking masses of muscle or toothpick-thin waist barbie dolls. It's called "reality", and it doesn't substantiate your perception of morality. It opposes it significantly, actually.
The default action on a highly-valued military target (as good ol' Adolf would have been) would be to capture him alive so as not ton martyr him. When you martyr people, you embolden their supporters. Outright killing them because of some childish sense of morality is the kind of idiocy that keeps wars going, not ends them.
If someone tries to kill you then you have the full right to kill them back or to do something that is less terrible like rape or physical assault. By the way, what do you think about kidnapping someone and forcing them to live in the cage, just like animals?
Evil to punish evil isn't justice. It's demonstrating that there is no moral compass guiding that society. It's a society not governed by morality or laws, but by individual discretion. You don't get to rape Hitler because he's a piece of shit. You're just proving you're likely a worse piece of shit because your misdeeds don't end at the genocide of millions. You're clearly interested in also validating raping anyone you feel is morally-opposed to your perspective on "justice."
It would be a terrible thing to do to an innocent person, but if it is a criminal then it is completely justified and those cages are called prisons. All around the world people are kidnapped against their will and forced to live in confinement, do you think it is amoral? If, by your logic, it is amoral to do bad things to bad people then the whole law enforcement system is terrible, lol. And I would say that confinement and kidnapping are worse than rape.
I'm curious, based on the fucked-up "morality" you've presented so far, what constitutes an "innocent person" in your mind. I would assume, based on what you've said, is anyone who agrees with you. That's a dangerous precedent, since it means according to you, anyone is free game for "punishment" if they so much as spill water on you.
Prisons are not equatable to cages. Aside the cells sometimes being smaller than a broom closet, a lot of prisons have a semi-functional reform system intended to assist criminals in becoming contributing members of society. Yes, the US and (to a lesser extent) Canada need significant reforms in their prison systems. Yes, we need to stop privatizing the system for personal financial gain. But, to equate a system designed to reform criminals to a small, barely-acceptable space meant to transport animals is a gross over-simplification akin to a child's comprehension of geometry.
The law enforcement system is also something you clearly have no understanding of. The system is meant as a means to deter potential offenders and to stop those offenders who commit criminal acts. Obviously, you can't account for cowboy cops or "loose cannons", but the system is, in theory, a means of prevention and protection. To simplify it in the way you have demonstrates your loose grasp on this matter. I advise you to not further embarrass yourself with your ignorance by quitting this subject altogether.
Yeah, I only consider ADV sections as sex scenes, it is how things are by a definition. By the same logic, you can just ignore text in any reverse rape game and just imagine in your mind that it is MC who is the one in command, lol.
"How things are" by your definition isn't how things are, overall. It's you trying to force your own stupidity on something. Stop that.
Also, how people choose to experience a game is subjective. If they want to ignore the text or acknowledge it, those two are as valid to each other and no greater or lesser in their individual experiences. I don't think breeder games or VN's are anything aside shovelware unworthy of even existing, but I don't go telling their audience that their tastes or experiences are invalid, either.
I also think if you want a debate on BABBY'S BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF MORALITY, you shouldn't need to flood your own thread with it. Message the guy directly or start something in the off-topic section.
