Nintendo Fan Forum  

Go Back   Nintendo Fan Forum > General Forum > General Chat > Debate Forum

Notices

Debate Forum This is the Debate forum engage in serious debates here.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-29-2009, 02:11 AM   #1
Zakku
yeah
Points: 461, Level: 9
Points: 461, Level: 9 Points: 461, Level: 9 Points: 461, Level: 9
 
Zakku's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 252

My Mood: Spaced
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 28
Zakku has a spectacular aura aboutZakku has a spectacular aura about

Morality is subjective. (?)

I believe morality is always subjective. Be it by the word of man, of God, or anyone or anything higher, morality is and always will be subjective.

Not even God can provide man with objective laws. Even if God did exist, I and many others would proceed to disagree with him, because by MY moral code (which is practically nonexistent), the morals of any professed God are immoral. And the only thing that makes his morality more "right" than ours is the fact that he has absolute power with which to enforce it, but he chooses not to by not playing a very active part, therefore the morality of any human is superior purely because they can, and often do, act on it.

There are no consequences for behaving immorally unless another person with morality chooses to impose such consequences. Therefore God's morality isn't "objective", because he is the one that has decided to create consequences for behaving opposite to his morality. Morality cannot be a factual thing because if it was, it'd be provable and measurable scientifically. Morality, therefore, is nothing more than a concept that does not and cannot exist until it is defined.

Where ninety-nine people think one thing, and the one person thinks another, it's ninety-nine to one. Where ninety-nine people think one thing, and an infinite entity thinks another, it's infinity to ninety-nine.

Where two people think differently, whoever has the bigger gun wins. Where one person with a gun and an omnipotent being think differently, well, who has the bigger gun there? Exactly.

Assuming God exists, just because he is more powerful and wise changes nothing. He defines himself as "good", then he defines certain actions as "good" because he agrees with them. He defines behavior he does not agree with as "evil". Having a larger mind does not change the fact that he is creating definitions, rather than simply establishing facts, because morality cannot be factual. Morality is not a "thing", it is not a "force", it is nothing more than an idea.

God is no more right than you or I, and saying that "good is his nature" is circular logic, just as if I were to say that every choice I make must be good under the assumption that I myself am absolutely good. "I am X, X must be good. Therefore anything that is not X must be evil." This is a conclusion both he and I have come to in our own minds, and it's not something we can prove because there's nothing to measure it against but our own mentalities. I believe I am absolute good, you can't prove me wrong because there's no objective basis, simply an alternative opinion. God being "infinitely wise" doesn't change that in his case, it is the exact same situation - he defines the concept of "good" and then declares himself good, and then he defines the concept of "evil" and then declares that anything deviant to his will is such.

But then there's the argument that he didn't decide what is good or evil, but that he simply knows what is good and evil anyway. But the concepts of "good" and "evil" had to be invented and defined before they could exist. Without sentience, "good" and "evil" could not exist. They are concepts, they are not tangible "things". Without a sentience that can define it, there is no morality. If morality were objective, this would somehow mean that even if there wasn't a God, or a human, or any life in the universe, morality could somehow exist. The implication that God is simply declaring what is good or evil based on an existing standard implies that God is dictating existing rules which, if he is simply defining them, goes beyond himself. And since morality is a concept which must be defined before it can exist, this must mean that a higher sentience did that before him. And even if this is the case, which no good Christian would dare admit to, it is still subjective because that higher power had to make the decision and form an opinion before "good" and "evil" could exist. And then the same excuses could be made for that power, and the chain would be endless, but still subjective.

Further, God supposedly created everything, including the Heavens, and the Earth, and Hell. Therefore whether or not he defines "good" and "evil" himself, he created and enforces the consequences for it. Therefore you can't measure morality by how badly you'll be punished for something, because that's like saying if you're good, you get sweets, and if you're bad, you get coal. The guy who decides to create and enforce these consequences is enforcing it by his judgment, but his judgment is also subjective on that matter, because it relies on the definitions of "good" and "evil", which are concepts, and not actually tangible measurable qualities. Therefore even if there are consequences, they would only be considered objective if they were "natural".

But since God created the universe according to Christianity, nothing can therefore be "natural" because the entire universe was artificially engineered by him, and so if he decided to create such consequences, that's again his subjective decision. If, however, no sentient entity played a part in the universe, and morality still somehow had consequences which were measurable, they would still be subjective because again, we are the ones that have created and defined the concepts of "good" and "evil", and we are the ones that would decide to label these "consequences" as such. But as we all know, if I do something that is considered "evil", there is no inherent measurable quality in my act that makes it evil - it is simply the observer that calls my action evil. I might not even call it good, or evil, but simply an action that is neither. There is no "force" that acts against actions that are evil, and there is no "force" that is affected when one does good. Neither is there a force inherent to my actions that makes it "good" or "evil" - purely what the observer decides to call it based on their understanding of the definition of those two words.

I suppose Weber could give a decent account of it. He said quite rightly that nothing has inherent "meaning", but humans give things "meaning". Therefore when I commit a crime, such as killing, it is an observer that defines my action as "evil", but my action, in and of itself, has no inherent quality that makes it "evil" - evil is a word created and defined by man. If it had not been created, and if it had not been defined, it would not exist.

Therefore, even if God does exist, morality is still subjective. Even if something higher than God exists, morality is still subjective. Morality cannot in any way shape or form be objective. God's existence makes absolutely no difference, it simply provides a motivation towards certain moral laws, and a code of behavior, as opposed to certain laws that are necessary for societal sanity, and freedom to behave however you like within those boundaries. If you choose God's morality over man's, it's nothing more than favoritism, as with any morality. I prefer my morality to yours. I don't take that stance out of any belief that my morality is more "correct" than yours, because as I have explained morality cannot be "correct" by definition.

So, what does everyone else interpret? Discuss, if you please.
__________________

The goal isn't to achieve immortality, it is to create entities that humanity recreate as a mantra in your name for eternity.
Zakku is offline  
Sponsored Links
Old 08-29-2009, 03:35 AM   #2
marvman3
Rockn Dude
Points: 16,100, Level: 81
Points: 16,100, Level: 81 Points: 16,100, Level: 81 Points: 16,100, Level: 81
 
marvman3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Micronesian Islands
Posts: 1,387

My Mood: Rockn
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 43
marvman3 has a spectacular aura aboutmarvman3 has a spectacular aura about


Awards Showcase
Royalty Poster Joker Mufasa 
Total Awards: 4

PSN ID: PSN ID- marvman3 Xbox Live Gamertag: NOT AVAILABLE FOR ONLINE PLAY
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Henry Eden View Post
I believe morality is always subjective. Be it by the word of man, of God, or anyone or anything higher, morality is and always will be subjective.

Not even God can provide man with objective laws. Even if God did exist, I and many others would proceed to disagree with him, because by MY moral code (which is practically nonexistent), the morals of any professed God are immoral. And the only thing that makes his morality more "right" than ours is the fact that he has absolute power with which to enforce it, but he chooses not to by not playing a very active part, therefore the morality of any human is superior purely because they can, and often do, act on it.

There are no consequences for behaving immorally unless another person with morality chooses to impose such consequences. Therefore God's morality isn't "objective", because he is the one that has decided to create consequences for behaving opposite to his morality. Morality cannot be a factual thing because if it was, it'd be provable and measurable scientifically. Morality, therefore, is nothing more than a concept that does not and cannot exist until it is defined.

Where ninety-nine people think one thing, and the one person thinks another, it's ninety-nine to one. Where ninety-nine people think one thing, and an infinite entity thinks another, it's infinity to ninety-nine.

Where two people think differently, whoever has the bigger gun wins. Where one person with a gun and an omnipotent being think differently, well, who has the bigger gun there? Exactly.

Assuming God exists, just because he is more powerful and wise changes nothing. He defines himself as "good", then he defines certain actions as "good" because he agrees with them. He defines behavior he does not agree with as "evil". Having a larger mind does not change the fact that he is creating definitions, rather than simply establishing facts, because morality cannot be factual. Morality is not a "thing", it is not a "force", it is nothing more than an idea.

God is no more right than you or I, and saying that "good is his nature" is circular logic, just as if I were to say that every choice I make must be good under the assumption that I myself am absolutely good. "I am X, X must be good. Therefore anything that is not X must be evil." This is a conclusion both he and I have come to in our own minds, and it's not something we can prove because there's nothing to measure it against but our own mentalities. I believe I am absolute good, you can't prove me wrong because there's no objective basis, simply an alternative opinion. God being "infinitely wise" doesn't change that in his case, it is the exact same situation - he defines the concept of "good" and then declares himself good, and then he defines the concept of "evil" and then declares that anything deviant to his will is such.

But then there's the argument that he didn't decide what is good or evil, but that he simply knows what is good and evil anyway. But the concepts of "good" and "evil" had to be invented and defined before they could exist. Without sentience, "good" and "evil" could not exist. They are concepts, they are not tangible "things". Without a sentience that can define it, there is no morality. If morality were objective, this would somehow mean that even if there wasn't a God, or a human, or any life in the universe, morality could somehow exist. The implication that God is simply declaring what is good or evil based on an existing standard implies that God is dictating existing rules which, if he is simply defining them, goes beyond himself. And since morality is a concept which must be defined before it can exist, this must mean that a higher sentience did that before him. And even if this is the case, which no good Christian would dare admit to, it is still subjective because that higher power had to make the decision and form an opinion before "good" and "evil" could exist. And then the same excuses could be made for that power, and the chain would be endless, but still subjective.

Further, God supposedly created everything, including the Heavens, and the Earth, and Hell. Therefore whether or not he defines "good" and "evil" himself, he created and enforces the consequences for it. Therefore you can't measure morality by how badly you'll be punished for something, because that's like saying if you're good, you get sweets, and if you're bad, you get coal. The guy who decides to create and enforce these consequences is enforcing it by his judgment, but his judgment is also subjective on that matter, because it relies on the definitions of "good" and "evil", which are concepts, and not actually tangible measurable qualities. Therefore even if there are consequences, they would only be considered objective if they were "natural".

But since God created the universe according to Christianity, nothing can therefore be "natural" because the entire universe was artificially engineered by him, and so if he decided to create such consequences, that's again his subjective decision. If, however, no sentient entity played a part in the universe, and morality still somehow had consequences which were measurable, they would still be subjective because again, we are the ones that have created and defined the concepts of "good" and "evil", and we are the ones that would decide to label these "consequences" as such. But as we all know, if I do something that is considered "evil", there is no inherent measurable quality in my act that makes it evil - it is simply the observer that calls my action evil. I might not even call it good, or evil, but simply an action that is neither. There is no "force" that acts against actions that are evil, and there is no "force" that is affected when one does good. Neither is there a force inherent to my actions that makes it "good" or "evil" - purely what the observer decides to call it based on their understanding of the definition of those two words.

I suppose Weber could give a decent account of it. He said quite rightly that nothing has inherent "meaning", but humans give things "meaning". Therefore when I commit a crime, such as killing, it is an observer that defines my action as "evil", but my action, in and of itself, has no inherent quality that makes it "evil" - evil is a word created and defined by man. If it had not been created, and if it had not been defined, it would not exist.

Therefore, even if God does exist, morality is still subjective. Even if something higher than God exists, morality is still subjective. Morality cannot in any way shape or form be objective. God's existence makes absolutely no difference, it simply provides a motivation towards certain moral laws, and a code of behavior, as opposed to certain laws that are necessary for societal sanity, and freedom to behave however you like within those boundaries. If you choose God's morality over man's, it's nothing more than favoritism, as with any morality. I prefer my morality to yours. I don't take that stance out of any belief that my morality is more "correct" than yours, because as I have explained morality cannot be "correct" by definition.

So, what does everyone else interpret? Discuss, if you please.
Holy crap (literally).

Morality is how you perceive it.....
it can be judged by a group of people,
but everyone has their own intentions and desires....

It all depends.

Now bringing religion into it will only create more subjective views.....
if that's what you want...


Rockn.
__________________
marvman3 is offline  
Old 08-31-2009, 07:25 PM   #3
Zakku
yeah
Points: 461, Level: 9
Points: 461, Level: 9 Points: 461, Level: 9 Points: 461, Level: 9
 
Zakku's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 252

My Mood: Spaced
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 28
Zakku has a spectacular aura aboutZakku has a spectacular aura about

Of course, it's basically a question of individual morality, and how the members here perceive it.

And as some members here are religious, I'm trying to explain it's always subjective.

So, do you agree or disagree Marvman?
__________________

The goal isn't to achieve immortality, it is to create entities that humanity recreate as a mantra in your name for eternity.
Zakku is offline  
Old 08-31-2009, 07:32 PM   #4
Rin
Blade of Justice
Points: 39,512, Level: 100
Points: 39,512, Level: 100 Points: 39,512, Level: 100 Points: 39,512, Level: 100
 
Rin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: North Carolina, USA
Posts: 7,033

Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Rep Power: 157
Rin has a brilliant futureRin has a brilliant futureRin has a brilliant futureRin has a brilliant futureRin has a brilliant futureRin has a brilliant futureRin has a brilliant futureRin has a brilliant futureRin has a brilliant futureRin has a brilliant futureRin has a brilliant future


Awards Showcase
Royalty NFF 3rd Annual Award Level 100 Award Member of the Month Monster Poster Yoshi Poster 
Total Awards: 7

Send a message via Skype™ to Rin
I would be inclined to agree with you on this. Good or Evil isn't decided by any set code that exist outside of our own laws and standards, they exist because of our laws and standards. We ourselves have set what is right and wrong, but even then, one's own moral code of conduct is their determining factor if their actions are deemed wrong or right.

If I go off on a killing spree in a country with no law against it, or no sense of morality, would they tell me it's wrong? No, because there is no established law or code there telling me I can't do so.

I find it to be subjective, and I always will.

Last edited by Rin; 08-31-2009 at 10:57 PM.
Rin is offline  
Old 08-31-2009, 07:35 PM   #5
Zakku
yeah
Points: 461, Level: 9
Points: 461, Level: 9 Points: 461, Level: 9 Points: 461, Level: 9
 
Zakku's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 252

My Mood: Spaced
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 28
Zakku has a spectacular aura aboutZakku has a spectacular aura about

Precisely Rin.
__________________

The goal isn't to achieve immortality, it is to create entities that humanity recreate as a mantra in your name for eternity.
Zakku is offline  
Old 08-31-2009, 10:55 PM   #6
da Beef
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,038

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
da Beef will become famous soon enoughda Beef will become famous soon enough


Awards Showcase
Poster 
Total Awards: 1

dude, post this somewhere better


you know where
da Beef is offline  
Old 08-31-2009, 10:57 PM   #7
Rin
Blade of Justice
Points: 39,512, Level: 100
Points: 39,512, Level: 100 Points: 39,512, Level: 100 Points: 39,512, Level: 100
 
Rin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: North Carolina, USA
Posts: 7,033

Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Rep Power: 157
Rin has a brilliant futureRin has a brilliant futureRin has a brilliant futureRin has a brilliant futureRin has a brilliant futureRin has a brilliant futureRin has a brilliant futureRin has a brilliant futureRin has a brilliant futureRin has a brilliant futureRin has a brilliant future


Awards Showcase
Royalty NFF 3rd Annual Award Level 100 Award Member of the Month Monster Poster Yoshi Poster 
Total Awards: 7

Send a message via Skype™ to Rin
^ I second that notion.
Rin is offline  
Old 09-01-2009, 01:21 AM   #8
Zakku
yeah
Points: 461, Level: 9
Points: 461, Level: 9 Points: 461, Level: 9 Points: 461, Level: 9
 
Zakku's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 252

My Mood: Spaced
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 28
Zakku has a spectacular aura aboutZakku has a spectacular aura about

Quote:
Originally Posted by da Beef View Post
dude, post this somewhere better


you know where
I third that notion gentlemen.
__________________

The goal isn't to achieve immortality, it is to create entities that humanity recreate as a mantra in your name for eternity.
Zakku is offline  
Old 09-01-2009, 06:49 AM   #9
Xenon
The Space Pope
Points: 6,758, Level: 54
Points: 6,758, Level: 54 Points: 6,758, Level: 54 Points: 6,758, Level: 54
User owns 1x Rupee Bag User owns 1x Master Ball
 
Xenon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Australia.
Posts: 1,276

My Mood: Spaced
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 43
Xenon is a jewel in the roughXenon is a jewel in the roughXenon is a jewel in the rough


Awards Showcase
NFF Old Man Award Royalty Poster NFF Debater 
Total Awards: 4

Morality is, of course, subjective. Right and wrong are points of view; they are how we individually define them. Another analogy is the saying "One man's trash is another man's treasure". While one person might see something one way, someone else might see it another way. It's always been subjective, simply because we can't enforce punishments for doing the wrong thing without deciding what the wrong thing is.
__________________
Xenon is offline  
Old 09-01-2009, 07:48 AM   #10
Yelloflyte
Wikipedian
Points: 938, Level: 16
Points: 938, Level: 16 Points: 938, Level: 16 Points: 938, Level: 16
 
Yelloflyte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 168

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 29
Yelloflyte has a spectacular aura aboutYelloflyte has a spectacular aura about

Send a message via MSN to Yelloflyte
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Henry Eden View Post
I believe morality is always subjective. Be it by the word of man, of God, or anyone or anything higher, morality is and always will be subjective.

Not even God can provide man with objective laws. Even if God did exist, I and many others would proceed to disagree with him, because by MY moral code (which is practically nonexistent), the morals of any professed God are immoral. And the only thing that makes his morality more "right" than ours is the fact that he has absolute power with which to enforce it, but he chooses not to by not playing a very active part, therefore the morality of any human is superior purely because they can, and often do, act on it.

There are no consequences for behaving immorally unless another person with morality chooses to impose such consequences. Therefore God's morality isn't "objective", because he is the one that has decided to create consequences for behaving opposite to his morality. Morality cannot be a factual thing because if it was, it'd be provable and measurable scientifically. Morality, therefore, is nothing more than a concept that does not and cannot exist until it is defined.

Where ninety-nine people think one thing, and the one person thinks another, it's ninety-nine to one. Where ninety-nine people think one thing, and an infinite entity thinks another, it's infinity to ninety-nine.

Where two people think differently, whoever has the bigger gun wins. Where one person with a gun and an omnipotent being think differently, well, who has the bigger gun there? Exactly.

Assuming God exists, just because he is more powerful and wise changes nothing. He defines himself as "good", then he defines certain actions as "good" because he agrees with them. He defines behavior he does not agree with as "evil". Having a larger mind does not change the fact that he is creating definitions, rather than simply establishing facts, because morality cannot be factual. Morality is not a "thing", it is not a "force", it is nothing more than an idea.

God is no more right than you or I, and saying that "good is his nature" is circular logic, just as if I were to say that every choice I make must be good under the assumption that I myself am absolutely good. "I am X, X must be good. Therefore anything that is not X must be evil." This is a conclusion both he and I have come to in our own minds, and it's not something we can prove because there's nothing to measure it against but our own mentalities. I believe I am absolute good, you can't prove me wrong because there's no objective basis, simply an alternative opinion. God being "infinitely wise" doesn't change that in his case, it is the exact same situation - he defines the concept of "good" and then declares himself good, and then he defines the concept of "evil" and then declares that anything deviant to his will is such.

But then there's the argument that he didn't decide what is good or evil, but that he simply knows what is good and evil anyway. But the concepts of "good" and "evil" had to be invented and defined before they could exist. Without sentience, "good" and "evil" could not exist. They are concepts, they are not tangible "things". Without a sentience that can define it, there is no morality. If morality were objective, this would somehow mean that even if there wasn't a God, or a human, or any life in the universe, morality could somehow exist. The implication that God is simply declaring what is good or evil based on an existing standard implies that God is dictating existing rules which, if he is simply defining them, goes beyond himself. And since morality is a concept which must be defined before it can exist, this must mean that a higher sentience did that before him. And even if this is the case, which no good Christian would dare admit to, it is still subjective because that higher power had to make the decision and form an opinion before "good" and "evil" could exist. And then the same excuses could be made for that power, and the chain would be endless, but still subjective.

Further, God supposedly created everything, including the Heavens, and the Earth, and Hell. Therefore whether or not he defines "good" and "evil" himself, he created and enforces the consequences for it. Therefore you can't measure morality by how badly you'll be punished for something, because that's like saying if you're good, you get sweets, and if you're bad, you get coal. The guy who decides to create and enforce these consequences is enforcing it by his judgment, but his judgment is also subjective on that matter, because it relies on the definitions of "good" and "evil", which are concepts, and not actually tangible measurable qualities. Therefore even if there are consequences, they would only be considered objective if they were "natural".

But since God created the universe according to Christianity, nothing can therefore be "natural" because the entire universe was artificially engineered by him, and so if he decided to create such consequences, that's again his subjective decision. If, however, no sentient entity played a part in the universe, and morality still somehow had consequences which were measurable, they would still be subjective because again, we are the ones that have created and defined the concepts of "good" and "evil", and we are the ones that would decide to label these "consequences" as such. But as we all know, if I do something that is considered "evil", there is no inherent measurable quality in my act that makes it evil - it is simply the observer that calls my action evil. I might not even call it good, or evil, but simply an action that is neither. There is no "force" that acts against actions that are evil, and there is no "force" that is affected when one does good. Neither is there a force inherent to my actions that makes it "good" or "evil" - purely what the observer decides to call it based on their understanding of the definition of those two words.

I suppose Weber could give a decent account of it. He said quite rightly that nothing has inherent "meaning", but humans give things "meaning". Therefore when I commit a crime, such as killing, it is an observer that defines my action as "evil", but my action, in and of itself, has no inherent quality that makes it "evil" - evil is a word created and defined by man. If it had not been created, and if it had not been defined, it would not exist.

Therefore, even if God does exist, morality is still subjective. Even if something higher than God exists, morality is still subjective. Morality cannot in any way shape or form be objective. God's existence makes absolutely no difference, it simply provides a motivation towards certain moral laws, and a code of behavior, as opposed to certain laws that are necessary for societal sanity, and freedom to behave however you like within those boundaries. If you choose God's morality over man's, it's nothing more than favoritism, as with any morality. I prefer my morality to yours. I don't take that stance out of any belief that my morality is more "correct" than yours, because as I have explained morality cannot be "correct" by definition.

So, what does everyone else interpret? Discuss, if you please.
I interpret that you're wrong, principally because you don't seem to grasp what morality really means – at least in the sense we're discussing. Morality is not subjective, and there is no "your" morality or "my" morality. Why? Because morality is common to all humans. Even the nihilist knows what is right and wrong; he just chooses to ignore it. It's part of the human condition. Furthermore, we cannot "measure" morality; it is an abstraction, not something pliable or quantifiable.

Weber was wrong as well. All actions have moral value because morality is a human construct. To try and extricate the human element from determining what is moral and what is not ('it is an observer that defines my action as "evil", but my action, in and of itself, has no inherent quality that makes it "evil"') makes no sense at all, because morality is from humans and particular to humans. There is no exterior reference frame.
Yelloflyte is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


NFF Youtube Videos NFF Facebook page

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Nintendo Blog

Nintendofanforum.com is a Nintendo fansite and is not associated with or endorsed by Nintendo of America, Inc.
All trademarks and images belong to their respective owners.
Nintendo Wii