And you know my points regarding the impossibility of the design is also true. Hence, your only real response is the "it's just a game" non-argument. It's a deflection more than anything.
English
-
It's a completely valid argument. It's just a game, they can do whatever they want with it
-
I could make a game that has a police officers that allow you to murder them in broad daylight in public... and the fact that I CAN do it doesn't protect me from scrutiny for making that design decision. It's a pretty stupid decision... regardless of whether or not "it's just a game", which is why "it's just a game" is not a valid counter-argument. It's just dismissive... in which case, why even bother trying to argue?