OT: Words fail me

[Atrocities]

alarikf I think the law about child molestation would apply to your example. So long as it is not illegal, I can see no reason for "banning" a game that you are free to choose not to buy.

Now if it was being force fed to me like spam email or pop up adds, then yes, I would be for passing laws to prevent it.

I agree with the rating system for games. Its a very useful tool for parents. And I agree that any parent that would buy such a poorly tasteful game should be beaten if they bought it for their kids to play.

I agree that some things are harmful to society as a whole, but when ever we as individuals have the ability to decide for ourselves, government should not step in. Like I said, if this crap was being forced upon me, via tv, radio, bill boards, phone calls, or emails, then yes, I say put a stop to it. There are some lines that should not be crossed.

But when we start passing laws that do away with our freedom of choice, we give up that which makes us free. I would never buy a game like this, but my neighbor might. I would never presume to tell him that he is wrong for buying it, because it is his right to choose what he buys. I would choose not to associate with a sick SOB like him in that situation, but I would never support a law that limits his freedom to buy such trash.

I guess living in America, and not under an imperial state, has somewhat spoiled me. I do apologize if my desire to keep my right to choose offends any one who feels that I as an adult should not have such rights.

And personally, I would have thrown the book at Janet Jackson for what she did. A ward drobe accident my arse.

[AMF]

But, my entire point is that it's not YOU who I would be concerned about - it would be the kids who get the game, what types of people they grow up to be because of it, and how that affects all of us since we are part of a society.


I don't get your point about child molestation. Child molestation, by definition, is not the act of two consenting adults. (mayeb I forgot to say "adult" - my bad if so). Can you elaborate on what you mean?

[Atrocities]

alarikf said:
But, my entire point is that it's not YOU who I would be concerned about - it would be the kids who get the game, what types of people they grow up to be because of it, and how that affects all of us since we are part of a society.


I don't get your point about child molestation. Child molestation, by definition, is not the act of two consenting adults. (mayeb I forgot to say "adult" - my bad if so). Can you elaborate on what you mean?

I was responding to the comment about the 10 year old being sodemized. That would be child molestation and quite illegal.

When you give up a right or a freedom, in this case just the choice to choose whether or not to buy a game, you give up a lot more than you bargin for. If the law makers can take an inch, they will take a mile. Never give up your rights, no matter how well the law makers package the deal. They will lie to you, bold facely at times, to get you to agree with their POV and allow them to pass their freedom stealing laws.

Because people were willing to compermise and give up freedoms, we now must deal with laws that a few years ago were laughed at when proposed. In a few more years the things that we say will never become laws because they are laughable, will be law. So the line must be drawn, drawn here and now, this far, no further. We have already given up far more than we should in the name of Politically correctness and I am not alone when I say to hell with giving the liberal left, or uber religious right any more power than they already have.

[Starhawk]

LOL you hate the left, hate the right and don't quite fit in the middle

For your info btw AT I am a Christian and a very "faithful" person though sometimes the organized religion part is a bit much, well anyway my point is not all of us are the uber right you know I agree that if a whiny minority is always allowed to have their way we'll all be screwed in a few years.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

AT: Your point about something being laughed at first and accepted later is exactly my point. I very much fear and expect that that is what will happen, not with this game, but with this type of game.

Also, on the point of laws that diminish our freedom, I say never when it comes to our rights. However, privileges, like being able to drive a car are another thing.

Anyway, of that tangent...

I'm happy with this thread. We've had a generally calm, rational discussion. (Even me, and I wasn't particularly calm when I posted it.)

[Atrocities]

I would really embrace a few restrictions on the media though. Not on the 1st amendment, but on the media itself. I would be for limiting what they could say without having facts, I would before making them accountable when they make mistakes or broadcast / publish, wrongful information that harms people, and require them to prove the truth in what they say. Words do hurt people, and they do harm the society as a whole when they are spoken in deliberately to mislead. I would be for protecting peoples right to privacy and putting an end to the stocker photographers that plague the popular Hollywood crowd. I would make it a law that if the story is BS, that it must contain a disclaimer saying that the story is a fraud as to protect the person to whom the story was written about.

Enough with the media being used as a propaganda machine. Make it a law that if the media is reporting news, it must be neutral and un-bias, and I mean truly unbiased, no more Liberal CBS B.S. or fair and balanced lies from FOX. Make the news truly about just being the news, and if they wish to defer, make it a requirement that they state the purpose of the deferment. IE that they are stating an opinion not based on fact, or they are drawing a conclusion based on such and such facts. If these rules would have been in place than Dan Rather would not have been humiliated by the fake documents last year, and OJ would have been convicted.

Additionally, the news media SHOULD never be allowed into a courtroom. They should be BARED from reporting about a criminal case while it is under investigation or facing court proceedings. I am of firm belief that a lot of people have been cheated out of justice because they were convicted or cleared in the court of public opinion long before they ever stepped foot into a court room. The media has NOT RIGHT to ruin a person’s life just to make copy. Look at what they did to that Richard Jewels guy a few years back. They all but convicted that poor bastard for the Olympic park bombings and it turned out he was completely innocent.

That is only one example of how the media has used its unbridled power of opinion, and not fact, to destroy someone’s life.

We need checks and balances in the system to prevent fraudulent and deliberate misuse of the 1st amendment without limiting or restricting the amendment itself.

Remember when the 1st amendment was written our founding fathers couldn't even begin to conceive Television or radio.

News Papers are held to a higher standard than the news media like CBS or Fox. So why not establish laws that protect 1. a person’s privacy, 2. their right to due process, and 3. their dignity.

How many people have been wrongfully convicted because of the feeding frenzy wrought by the media? Hell the media even tries to influence elections by telling people that X party has won 30 minutes after the polls open so Y party should just stay home. They tell us what we should believe, they tell us what is right and wrong even though we know that what they are telling us is a load of crap. They force feed ridicules over hyped news stories to use on a daily basis without ever really giving us any news. They are now, more often than not, heavily slanted with a political agenda that is as complex to figure out, as it is easy to see.

I mean we all knew that Dan Rather and Ted Turner hate the Republicans, and love the Democrats, and vice versa for Denis Miller and Bill O'Riely.

Don't get me wrong, I like entertainment, I just don't like entrainment posing as news. Especially when it destroys a person or their right to due process.

[Sivran]

As for Bill O'Reilly, you need only listen to the emails he reads at the end of his show to see that he is even-handed in his criticism.

[AMF]

Atrocities said:
But when we start passing laws that do away with our freedom of choice, we give up that which makes us free. I would never buy a game like this, but my neighbor might. I would never presume to tell him that he is wrong for buying it, because it is his right to choose what he buys. I would choose not to associate with a sick SOB like him in that situation, but I would never support a law that limits his freedom to buy such trash.

I guess living in America, and not under an imperial state, has somewhat spoiled me. I do apologize if my desire to keep my right to choose offends any one who feels that I as an adult should not have such rights.

And personally, I would have thrown the book at Janet Jackson for what she did. A ward drobe accident my arse.

See, we agree in part. I think, fully, that two consenting adults, in their own privacy, hey, let them chop each other up and make stew out of themselves. I don't care.

But I am not talking about that, at all.

When you say "I do apologize if my desire to keep my right to choose offends" you're using loaded language. No one is talking about taking away your right to choose anything in your own life. You can totally stay home and play your own version of "pimp out chicks" - whose stopping you? So long as you and your GF both consent, you can do anything you want (as far as I am concerned, not sure about the limits of the law, but this is my opninion here).

It's the effect on *society* I'm talking about.

But, hey, how do you square your statement that :

And personally, I would have thrown the book at Janet Jackson for what she did. A ward drobe accident my arse.

with your beleif that this card game is just fine? I mean, you're really going to tell me that the former is worse?

Oh, but here's a cogent and funny article you should read about it:

"U.S. Children Still Traumatized One Year After Seeing Partially Exposed Breast On TV"
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4104

I mean, woo hoo, an exposed breast! Call out the cops! Can't have that! (but, hey, headless bodies, blood and guts, that's fine...)

[dogscoff]

If my comments in this thread seem vague, flippant and self contradictory, it's because I'm not sure where I stand.Nevertheless I'm going to rant on authoritatively.

I believe that ppl should be able to make films, books, games, whatever, about anything they like, as long as access to negatively-influential material is restricted to adults. That there is a significant market for sick stuff like this pimp-game reflects a greater problem in society, but that shouldn't be allowed to interfere with freedom of speech. I guess I'm saying that I see this pimp-game as more of a symptom of the mysoginist attitudes prevalent in society, not a cause.

I'm reminded of some utter cretin of a woman I saw on TV a few years back. She was complaining about South Park, saying it was disgusting that stuff like that should be marketted at children. What she totally failed to grasp was that South Park was NOT aimed at children- however she had clearly ignored all the "18" stickers and bought her kids the video without a clue as to its contents, and THEN complained about the content.

This game will suffer from similar problems- in the hands of well-adjusted adults, it probably isn't harmful, and the game's age rating will reflect that. THe problem is that moronic parents who can't be bothered to consider how they are raising their children will go out and buy this game for their eight-year olds. Well, maaybe not in the case of a board game, but certainly in the case of a computer game like GTA. I guess many parents still look at computer games and think that they can't be any more sophisticated or influential than space invaders.

Spare the children, eat the parents. That's what I say.

[AMF]

dogscoff said:
Spare the children, eat the parents. That's what I say.

Yeah, I agree fully.

Censorship or governmental attempts to control social values or mores are a terrible thing and, in my opinion, should be avoided at all costs. South Park the mOvie was all about that - and was, incidentally, one of the best movies I've ever seen.

All I was trying to get at was

1) The debate over where, if anywhere we draw that line of deceny, and
2) The fact that it's ridiculous to say that such things have no effect on society at large, and
3) the concept that, no matter how much a lkot of people would like, we all do live in a society not just a bunch of individuals in the same geographic location. And that has implications for our individual actions.

Alarik


3)