If you want to change your game from AMAZING to RETARDEDLY ADDICTING check out our, and (all parts of our realism and essential Sims 3 mods series) because we did all the hard work and picked only the best Sims 3 downloads to add reality and beauty to your game without you wasting your time going through pages of crap!Change the way you play the Sims 3 with this top ten list of up-to-date mods and add-ons provided by the great Nraas to greatly enhance your gameplay. After trying out a few of these mods you won’t know how you ever played without em! If you have just purchased a copy of the Sims 3 or had to reinstall everything this list is perfect if you want a solid set of downloads that won’t clutter or crowd your game. Even if you installed nothing after these 10 mods you are good to go. Always remember to save and back up your files before playing around with the game folders.If you’re a fan of realistic Sims and or Doctor Who you may want to check out our latestIf you do not know how to install.package files to your Sims game I strongly suggest you read to installing Sims 3.package files to ensure your downloads load correctly in game.Read on for the most useful Sims 3 mods from Nraas to date.Check out our take on.10. Allows you to load custom careers for your Sims.
A very well designed and complex mod that alters the romance and woohoo interactions available to Sims. You can change the settings on everything from active/inactive relationship requirements, age restrictions for relationships, allow near relation romance (incest) or teen and adult love.There’s two main add-ons for this mod:‘Scoring’ adds an “attraction” scoring system that adds a new layer of depth to your sims’ relationships‘Kama Simtra’ adds an optional woohoo skill to keep track how good your sim is in bed. Now THAT’S real.4. This mod performs the automated maintenance and control of the inactive population in your town, ensuring your inactive sims will progress on with their lives when you are not playing them. THIS IS A NEEDED ADDITION TO THE GAME THAT YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO LIVE WITHOUT.I highly recommend these add-ons as they enrich the game in ways you can only fully realize once you start playing:‘Expanded’ contains the Interaction Injection portion of this mod, and other parts not specifically required for progression.‘Extra’ contains the Map Tags system, Motive control, Inheritance, and other good stuff.‘NameList Tuning’ is a tuning file you can add seperately with this mod to load custom name lists for use by the base-mod.
Especially useful if you have a sim town of a specific ethnicity.Nraas has also included some add ons for this mod that add certain personality elements to your sims story, you may want to read the information on the site for those (and all these mods) as there is a ton of information about these personalities and how they work. I personally find that blazing while playing Sims 3 eliminates the need for artificial storylines in this way but I may try them again in the near future to see if my experience changes.
Sims 3 Abortion and Miscarriage mods. Don't know if it's also relevant but you can use Nraas MC to end pregnancy too. Or Debugenabler to set the hours of term. Don't know if it's also relevant but you can use Nraas MC to end pregnancy too. Or Debugenabler to set the hours of term. Yeah,but It's not as fun. Hospital Overhaul is a mod for The Sims 3 that adds surrogacy, IVF, sperm donations, abortions, and more to the game. Simlogical and the Dead End Cities. Hospital Overhaul (Scripting Mod) Abortion & Deworming. This mod allows Sims to end their pregnancy at the hospital and the criminal warehouse. It also allows infested male Sims to be dewormed.
Add-on with the personality types added in parenthesis below:‘Cops And Robbers’ (Robin, Cat, Vigilante, and Kingpin)‘Lovers’ (Bike, Casanova, Gigolo, and Tart)‘Meanies’ (Brat, Bully, Thug, and Harpy)‘Others’ (Loon, Mooch, Nerd, and Magnate)‘Vampires And Slayers’ (Dracul, Lestat, Nosferatu, Helsing, and Slayer)1. An extremely useful mod that adds functionality to manage the population of your town. The mod provides manual interactions for altering sims either individually or by whatever criteria you can think of.This mod has a few useful add-ons as well:‘Cheats’ adds a series of more advanced or “cheaty” interactions to the MasterController base-mod menu.‘Expanded Tattoo’ expands the number of locations provided in Tattoo CAS.‘Integration’ replaces in-game interactions with custom versions that call MasterController functionality.‘Progression’ adds interactions specifically related to StoryProgression, you must have that base-mod installed as well. Honorable Mention goes to:AntiMagicScroll:This mod replaces all recipes and compositions that are destroyed after a sim uses them.
Because we all know how annoying and unrealistic it is when that 30 dollar recipe book vanishes in a cloud of smoke after a single sim reads it.Now you can watch The Sims 24/7 on our new TV channel,. Click below!Written by Puff, a.k.a. JeanA lifelong gamer, master healer, and freelance writer that’s currently making a home of Florida. Click to find her articles on Zootgamer.
Basically, it is the fact that abortion kills a living being. A potential human, I would say, should be allowed to live as long as it doesn't harm its mother (the host someone would say). Is it not a crime for a woman to give birth to the rapist's child if she is forced to?China would basically force women to abort as well although it's for their own good that they shouldn't have more than a couple of children max.
Read the One child policy and you will see once you have a second child, you're fixed as a woman.I agree population control is all we need to cut down on 7 billion people. But what about incentives to have less children as well as child limits based on income?
What about people being allowed to adopt more and have less babies?We need ways to cut down on abortions as well but not by banning it. You need to have a part about maximising your pleasure/happiness not being at the expense of other's happiness and pleasure.Well, that's a bit of a contentious issue within utilitarianism. Do we act in a way that maximises the average happiness of everyone (average utilitarianism)? Or ensures society as a whole has the highest maximum happiness (total utilitarianism)? Or do we minimise suffering instead of maximising happiness (abolitionism)? Or do we do things that, if everyone did them, would maximise happiness (act/ utilitarianism)?I guess I'm actually closer to an act utilitarian, in that respect. And I'm a preference utilitarian, in that while I think happiness is the end goal, maximising the satisfaction of preferences is, I think, the best way to attain that.
Okay, so, for example, one girl is pregnant and she wants to do abortion. But I hit her in face and she falls in unconscious state. I put her in one room and she lives there until she bore. She is unable to do abortion. And she bore new healthy baby. So, everything is natural and I saved one life.Also, if I kill someone with my hands, that's natural.Why is then to be gay legal and kill someone illegal, when both is natural and we are all just animals.When cat kill mouse, it's legal!Ermmm. When I read that I was like.
I have to have read that wrong. But no, I didn't. I'm starting to think that that's not just an example due to everything you say in every single post you have.Are you really comparing the fact of being gay with killing someone?? Killing someone with your hands is not natural, as you are changing the course of nature and life. Being gay is as natural as being straight.
You're too extremist with your ideas and you're starting to look like Hitler to me.Whatever, a girl has her rights of deciding to abort if she wants. If she risks of dying for having the baby, would you make her have him/her anyway?? Okay, so, for example, one girl is pregnant and she wants to do abortion. But I hit her in face and she falls in unconscious state. I put her in one room and she lives there until she bore. She is unable to do abortion. And she bore new healthy baby.
So, everything is natural and I saved one life.Also, if I kill someone with my hands, that's natural.Why is then to be gay legal and kill someone illegal, when both is natural and we are all just animals.When cat kill mouse, it's legal!Oh no. I can't believe that there were people in the world who say that after nazis!!!How you can compare killing somebody with being gay!!??Gays don't hurt anybody only because being gay, but if you kill somebody you are hurting!!Anybody CAN'T tell you who you can kiss or love. Gays don't take out freedom of anybody, but if you kill somebody, you are taking out the freedom of the person you kill.Saying that animals are like humans and using it to say what is natural and what is not natural, you are 'agreeing' with natural selection. And if you are agree with this I can give you an advice: look for shaved people with adjusted trousers, military boots and swastikas and they will understand your ideas. They could be your best friends.And please, stop writing this.
No worries.So, to get back on topic; Ivan, as stated, your argument is incredibly poor. Look, medical abortions may not be natural, but neither are eyeglasses, pace makers, defibrillators, shunts, etc. And while the act of killing is natural, we, as a species, have evolved intellectually enough to the point to realize the disadvantages of murder within society. This is not a matter of natural v. Human; this is a matter of human intellect v. Other species.
We, as a species, have evolved, psychologically and sociologically, beyond any other animal in the world. We have learned that 'natural' does not always mean 'beneficial,' or rather, beneficial as defined by ourselves as a species, which historically has placed us above everything else. Only recently has this idea started to actually come into question, with new ideas and concepts being birthed, e.g. Environmentalism.That is both why we are often considered as 'special,' and why you completely screwed up the argument of naturality. What is 'good' and what is 'bad' for life, while in some aspects are objective, are subjective in others; by saying morality is objective, and only objective, you are disregarding the subjective aspects. You are posing a situation in black-and-white, either it is entirely objective or entirely subjective, when you state that morality is permanent, unchanging, objective, and universal. We can say slavery is 'bad' because it abuses human life; but on the other hand, slavery could also pose to be beneficial to a society.
THAT is subjectivity! We could argue it's wrong, yes, but as soon as you start using 'life' as a basis of argument, you are delving into subjectivity. Because 'life,' in itself, is subjective. Not even the concept that we are 'alive' is objective!I am saying that slavery is bad because it is detrimental to the individual. While it is unlikely to ever be the case, it is possible that there are circumstances under which slavery is the lesser evil, but it still remains morally wrong. I made an argument for this very concept when I was talking about killing in self-defense above. Killing is wrong, but sometimes it is the lesser wrong.
I'm not saying that every screw up or no-win situation is deserving of years in prison. I'm saying that these are things that are wrong and should not be performed lightly, but, under thorough consideration, may in some cases be the better option. This is not relativity, but contextuality. Relativity posits that the moral value of something can vary, allowing something to be good in some circumstances and bad in others. Contextuality means that the moral value does not change, but that the options may sometimes make a particular course of action the best course of action, even if it is morally wrong. It is a fine line, but it makes all the difference.
Relativity means that you can rightfully feel good about killing someone if there is no better option, contextuality means that you realize the weight of the actions but are left with no better option. It doesn't mean that you have to carry guilt around with you for the action, but it means that you can't just shrug it off without consideration. Quote:Right and wrong are subjective in just about every way! When you say, 'this action is wrong, regardless, and that is universal,' you are not being objective, you are being subjective!
Because you are believing that that action is wrong, that is your personal opinion and you are projecting it into a dogmatic status!Merely stating that I am 'being subjective' is not proof that I am being subjective. First off, I cannot be subjective, but my moral views have the potential for it, which is what I assume you meant. My views may be subjective, if by that you mean they may be only my personal views and not actually hold any weight or truth value, but that is only if you can prove that reality is subjective.
If reality is subjective then everything is subjective. If reality is objective, some things are objectively right and others are objectively wrong. You are, once again, starting from the premise that reality is subjective. Quote:You speak of benefit v. Detriment, but and while the actions already performed cannot be changed, the consequences, indeed, can be changed!
If someone kills another, the fact the victim is dead may not be changeable, but the consequences can be changed! Just an aspect of the consequences is objective. That he did something the resulted in the death of a person. Everything after that is subjective; his punishment is subjective, his attitude is subjective, how society judges this case is subjective.
What if it was in self-defense? Well now some people will argue, no, it was wrong to kill the other person, while yet others will disagree and say, it was justified. This is subjectivity! This is morality!You misunderstand the meaning of consequences. When I say consequences, I am not speaking of punishment.
I am speaking of the direct effects of an action. The effects of an action cannot be changed because they are in the past and the past cannot be changed. If we ever invent time travel, moral arguments may become moot because the consequences can be reversed, but in the mean time, the events of the past are immutable and have a specific impact on the present.Society's views may vary, but that simply means that some (or possibly all) people are wrong on that issue.
That is my assertion and what I have been providing arguments for throughout the thread. Merely stating that it is subjective does not refute my argument. This is the subjectiveness of morality.
I'm a utilitarian, I say whatever maximises happiness/pleasure is good, and whatever causes pain or a lack of happiness is bad. Many disagree. There doesn't seem to be any objectiveness here, and if there is, we're bad at working it out.Happiness is a quality that requires some level of awareness of one's condition, however, which is a quality that is unique to life, as we tend to group anything with any awareness into the category of life. Yes, it is a self-referential definition, but saying that you think whatever increases happiness is good means that you want what increases happiness of living things.I fully agree that we are bad at working out the objective standard. That's why there are so many different philosophies in existence. You and I can argue back and forth all day and never come to a perfect way of determining who is correct because the nature of human thought is that we base our ideas on certain unprovable assumptions. There are only two base assumptions that I have that I feel confident that I have a proof for: that there is objective reality (though it may not match up to our perceptions of it) simply because there must be some type of existence for our perceptions to have anything to observe; also because the assertion that there is no objective morality, should it be true, is an objective fact, therefore contradicting itself.
The other is 'I think, therefore, I am'. It has a very similar argument to my argument for objective reality, in that there must be something that I am for me to be able to perceive anything. Everything else is built logically on top of those base assumptions or is unsupported assumption.The fact that we cannot know certain objective facts with certainty does not mean that they aren't true. The argument can go either way, making it a fairly pointless argument if you actually want to make a case for something. It is human nature, though, that, no matter how much we may want to reject all assumptions, we will run on certain assumptions. I think this is for the best because we would be trapped in endless metaphysical crisis if we were to try to cast out all assumptions.I don't think that all philosophies are equal, however.
Some are based on shakier logic than others and some require much stranger base assumptions. I believe that relativity is one of these, so that is why I argue against it.One final note: You are a rather unusual utilitarian if you really believe in subjective morality while believing that that which maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain is good. If you believe that that which maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain is good as your own personal philosophy, but that other philosophies are equally valid for other people, then you are actually a relativist. If you believe that that which maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain is objectively good, then you are not carrying out your moral stance in a logical fashion if you think that only you are required to follow it, but that others can follow whatever (false) moral ideas they like. As I keep saying, I disagree.
Context in an action is both objective and subjective. It is not black-and-white. Almost nothing is purely objective, or purely subjective. And I don't think anything is ever, now, forever, and always has been, 'morally wrong,' because morality is a invention of human intellect, and human knowledge. To say it is eternal is dogmatic. You are sustaining a creation of man, and a set of morals that you personally believe into a position of authority that presides over all. A set of morals you personally believe in as unchanging and has always been and will be.
Dogma.I find it is bereft of context or relativity. Because no matter what happens, the context adopted is either you are right, or you are wrong. You could be 'less' wrong, yes, but you are still wrong. That is what is objective in your argument. If you do not follow 'our' moral values, my (as in you) moral values, you (as in everyone else) are wrong. You may say it is a lesser evil, but an evil nonetheless.
Regardless of the situation, if a deviant conclusion against the precedence of your morality should happen, your morality then no longer objective. If for all of man, a specific action is wrong, then one situation happens, just one, that justifies that action as a right, your entire argument is null, because it no longer has objectivity. Because it has gone against its own precedence.The context taken by your concept of morality is poor, and deprived of the simple fact that as a species are an emotional species. Your concept turns a blind eye to subjectivity. It is a flawed concept. It is, in my opinion, a concept of egotistical bullshit.2. Yes you can be subjective!
You are human! Humans ARE subjective! It is in our very nature! The only thing objective is that you are human, and that you are here in some context. And reality IS subjective! We can see a death, and we can agree that someone has died. We may disagree on the nature of death!
We may disagree on what death entails! We may disagree on what is the afterlife! We may disagree that there even is an afterlife! All of this is part of reality. Even the concept of reality is subjective.
Yes, shocking, isn't it, that there are arguments over what reality is. Over what life is.What you have been doing is picking one specific objective element in a situation, and using it, saying 'This is objective, this is my proof!' While ignoring everything subjective about that situation. Like murder, you take the act of murder as objective.
The act of murder is objective! But you take it, and say, 'it is wrong, this is objective.' It is not objective! Because I could argue this specific case was not wrong! That it does have justification, and that some could perceive it as a right, just as much as others could perceive it as a wrong. And THAT is contextualization!
You simply stand there, and say 'No it is always wrong, and if anyone disagree, they are false, incorrect.' That is not context! That is arrogance!Even the consequences are not absolute, lest you believe in a divine plan. The past is the past, true.
The present is the present, also true. But the future is vast with many possibilities. What we do now, in the present, will change the future in one of many possibilities. You are ignoring the future consequences, the future which is dynamic. Your view that encompasses only the past and present is a shallow one.And once again, I repeat, your concepts are dogmatic. And dangerous.
Because throughout the course of history, there are those societies which used such concepts, that all others are wrong, to impose some of the worst, most horrific, events. You may say, in retrospect, they were wrong. But this does not change the fact that they believed they were right! That they believed their morals were to be authoritative of everyone. Just like you are arguing now. That there are morals that all should follow, and those who don't are wrong, those who disagree are false.3. And lastly.I have supported myself plenty of times!
Mod Sims 3 Download
I am sick of your god damn bullshit! All you have been doing is lording over my opinions, dictating! I am fucking tired of hearing your asinine excuses that 'oh, I used logic!' Well a lot of fucking people used logic to justify the worst atrocities! And they thought their logic was pretty damn sound, too!
Sims 3 Mods
Sporadic, my bleeding ass! You either refuse to follow my logic, or you just feel so god damn superior that I could not possibly be accurate! I'll grant the benefit of a doubt and go with the former.
You have not backed up your logic with infallible logical arguments because I have torn them down! Your logic is no better than mine, and I am sick of you sitting there and presiding that my logic is flawed, ergo, I am incorrect! Pull your head out of your ass, o' mistress!I'm done with you! It's obvious you have no interest aside from sitting upon thine throne, judging in fallacy, superior because of your greater logic capabilities devoid of emotion or bias; a goddess among men, human no more. After all, you are 'probably right' because, god forbid, I dare be equaled to you in my own logic regarding my opinions, which are obviously much more flawed and simple than your otherworldly knowledge.
As I keep saying, I disagree. Context in an action is both objective and subjective.
It is not black-and-white. Almost nothing is purely objective, or purely subjective. And I don't think anything is ever, now, forever, and always has been, 'morally wrong,' because morality is a invention of human intellect, and human knowledge. To say it is eternal is dogmatic.Thank you Nekowolf for stating the bolded part, because this puts into words exactly why I believe Oaktree's argument is flawed. Survival instincts guide most of what life does, but that is not morality.