Slashdot Mirror


Christian Group Prepares To Mark Wii as 'Porn Portal'

Citing the Wii's ability to browse the internet via the Opera browser, a Christian group based out of California is planning on targeting the console with a smear campaign, Kotaku reports. The site has gotten ahold of a leaked press release from the upcoming 'Porn Talk' media event. From the release: "Like many new gaming technologies, the Wii's wireless internet capabilities make it a portal to porno. 'Parents think the computer is the only way for their kids to get porn on the internet. Unfortunately, they are dead wrong,' says Mike Foster, founder of ThePornTalk.com. 'Gaming devices like the Wii and the PSP aren't just for fun games anymore. You're able to surf the net, chat with friends, email, and view porn because of its internet access. Kids know this but parents don't!'"

565 comments

  1. Son, what are you doing in there? by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Playing with my Wii."

    "Oh, ok. Carry on."

    First joke!

    1. Re:Son, what are you doing in there? by mangu · · Score: 1

      "Playing with my Wii."

      "Oh, ok. Carry on."

      "And what are you shaking so much?"


      "I'm using the wiimote."

    2. Re:Son, what are you doing in there? by SDEggbert · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Playing with my Wii."

      "and this new console from Nintendo is pretty cool too!"

    3. Re:Son, what are you doing in there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wii would like you to play with yourself.

    4. Re:Son, what are you doing in there? by EonBlueApocalypse · · Score: 1

      Sweet! Now I just gotta figure out how to point with my left pump with my right.

    5. Re:Son, what are you doing in there? by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      There's a porno portal in my pants. It's all gay porn though, so I don't pay any attention to it. Don't swing that way, you know?

      --
      It's been a long time.
    6. Re:Son, what are you doing in there? by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      I don't get these Christian groups. Why are they scared of the competition of some game console? Everybody knows that the most deprived porn is still found in the Bible.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    7. Re:Son, what are you doing in there? by Crizp · · Score: 1

      I challenge you to find anything in the bible of the levels of depravity that is swap.avi. Or other crazy fetishes out there. No, not a Christian. But I've read the thing several times. Have you?

    8. Re:Son, what are you doing in there? by GWBasic · · Score: 1

      "Playing with my Wii."

      The other weekend a 10-year-old girl asked me, "Can I play with your Wee?" My eyes bugged out of my head, and I almost gave her mother a WTF look... Until I realized that she was looking at my Wii's box!

    9. Re:Son, what are you doing in there? by jfredett · · Score: 1

      I direct you to any of the following. Noting that I have not seen (nor do I plan to see) "swap.avi", I would assume that it is a relatively gruesome display of a number of sex acts. I'm not interested in scarring my brain with such things. So you can tell me if this par's up. Also note, I am a relatively (as much as I can be) unbiased Agnostic, I don't particularly care what side you are on, this is just a response to Crizp's request. Ezekial 23 link to online version http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekie l%2023;&version=9; Highlights: 2) Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother: 3) And they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity. 4) And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah. 5) And Aholah played the harlot when she was mine; and she doted on her lovers, on the Assyrians her neighbours, 6) Which were clothed with blue, captains and rulers, all of them desirable young men, horsemen riding upon horses. 7) Thus she committed her whoredoms with them, with all them that were the chosen men of Assyria, and with all on whom she doted: with all their idols she defiled herself. 8) Neither left she her whoredoms brought from Egypt: for in her youth they lay with her, and they bruised the breasts of her virginity, and poured their whoredom upon her. 9) Wherefore I have delivered her into the hand of her lovers, into the hand of the Assyrians, upon whom she doted. 10) These discovered her nakedness: they took her sons and her daughters, and slew her with the sword: and she became famous among women; for they had executed judgment upon her The passage goes on to describe how Aholah's sister is even more promiscuous than Aholah. Her fare is similar. The story of Lot's escape from Sodom & Gomhorrah Genesis 19 Link: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&cha pter=19&version=9 Highlights: (just one verse, I think that should cover it.) 5) And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. For those who do not know the story, the "men" they are talking about are actually angels, eventually, Lot decides to give the mob his two daughters to rape instead of the two men. Later (I think in chapter 20, if memory serves) Lot's two daughters commit incest with their father, because they thought that it was the end of the world, and they would need to repopulate it. There are several more examples, I think of Joseph and his Master's wife -- though I must admit, that one is significantly more tame than the former two. Revelation's treatise of the "Whore of Babylon, mother of Abominations" (I think that was the title.) All the verses were in the King James Version.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un Sig.
  2. In other news.... by Fried-Psitalon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Parent groups prepare to label real life as "violent and filled with adult-related content." ....seriously, folks. Access isn't the issue in the modern era; teaching kids good judgment is.

    --
    The ability to communicate well does not directly correspond to the ability to communicate intelligently.
    1. Re:In other news.... by RexRhino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Parent groups prepare to label real life as "violent and filled with adult-related content." ....seriously, folks. Access isn't the issue in the modern era; teaching kids good judgment is. Yes, but in the eyes of the nannie state facists, that just means that the government needs to eliminate all adult-content from real life.
    2. Re:In other news.... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Parent groups prepare to label real life as "violent and filled with adult-related content." ....seriously, folks. Access isn't the issue in the modern era; teaching kids good judgment is. This is a religious pressure group, you can't teach good judgement if you don't have any yourself.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    3. Re:In other news.... by colanut · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This Onion article seems appropriate: Teen Exposed To Violence, Profanity, Adult Situations By Family

      Seriously though, other than money and the spot-light, what are these people looking for.

    4. Re:In other news.... by Amouth · · Score: 1

      i can't wait for them to do this them selves.. i mean really.. that means they woln't procreate ..

      right????

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    5. Re:In other news.... by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      i can't wait for them to do this them selves.. i mean really.. that means they woln't procreate .. right???? I think you misunderstand them... It means that they will only do the naughty things in order to procreate, strictly as their duty and never to have fun. But having no children would deprive them of having the pleasure of saying "won't someone think of the children"?
    6. Re:In other news.... by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 1

      Perhaps another issue in the modern era is making sure parents what the issues are. I doubt this is a smear campaign any more than people pick on computers for being porn portals. The real issue is that parents, who may already moderate and educate their children with computer use, know that modern game consoles have the same capabilities.

      My dad does not type. Nor has he ever used a mouse. I abused the heck out of that in my early high school years.

      In other news nerds vehemently defend the porn industry for undisclosed reasons. I've been there- done that, I'm finished pretending porn could be a good_thing.

    7. Re:In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of which, why does the title mention that the group is Christian? I'm sure there are non-Christians who won't be buying a Wii for the very reason that it's easy to access porn and difficult to put parental controls on it.

      I'm not saying it's a particularly good reason not to get a Wii, but don't judge religion, judge stupidity. (and please pass on the religion = stupidity comments, they are past tired.)

    8. Re:In other news.... by timeOday · · Score: 1, Insightful
      That's what passes for "+5 insightful" on slashdot now? An smear with precisely zero rationale given to support it?

      Never mind that their assertion is correct - you can use the wii to pull down anything and everything from the 'net.

      I just love to hear all the childless slashdotters speculate wildly about parenting. It's a good reminder of how easy it is to imagine solutions to problems you've never addressed yourselves. Hint: not even the best parents can make kids start out with good judgement. The age at which a kid is ready for Mario Kart is not the same age at which he is ready to avoid goatse.

    9. Re:In other news.... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Religion is stupid, a hopeless belief in one of a panetheon of mutally contradictory super beings held together with fictious fairy stories and arcane rituals. I can't think how else you'd describe this if not as stupid.

      Whether or not you believe people who fully subscribe to these practices are stupid or not is something you will have to decide for yourself but personally I know which side of the fence I'm on and I don't need any talking bushes to help make my mind up.

      I'm sure there are non Christians who share these same concerns about the wii ( the Taleban spring to mind for one ) but you can usally bet that campaigns such as these have far more religious backing than non religious backing.

    10. Re:In other news.... by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Funny

      Jeez, posting Onion articles That agree with the real article is happening so often now that it's almost becoming a meme! How fucked up can society get?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    11. Re:In other news.... by XSforMe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know this is Slashdot and we never RTFA, but in case you mistakenly managed to locate it (here), you would see that this Christian Group does in general give a positive review of the console. It only goes as far as warning the parents about the Wii's ability to be used as a browser and how to enable parental control on it. Period.

      But then again, how would the poster of the original review generate traffic to his website if it was not by sensationalism?

      --
      My other OS is the MCP!
    12. Re:In other news.... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Do you know that there really are christian pre-marital classes explaining future couples that sex isn't always dirty ? That you sometimes have to do "it"...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    13. Re:In other news.... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sure, because there is no way the Wii would come with Extensive Parental Controls...Because, like everyone knows, Nintendo absolutely leads the field in games that have nothing but blood, guts and violence.

      As a non-childless Slashdotter, speculating wildly about my obviously meaningless to you life experience as a parent, I find it perfectly easy to play the stuff my daughter plays, and watch the things my daughter watches, and to manage the parental controls accordingly, thereby making sure she won't encounter porn until she wants to encounter porn at least not where I can control it...And don't tell me kids are smarter than me at this particular activity; if there is a way to find porn, I'll have found it long before she will--finding porn is like a male geek superpower.

      And for the record: "Porno" is so hilariously 1970's it really gives you a good idea of the level of technology these jokers are comfortable with.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    14. Re:In other news.... by McFadden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Speaking of which, why does the title mention that the group is Christian
      Err...because the group is Christian?
    15. Re:In other news.... by TWX · · Score: 1

      There are (I'm getting married, had to go through a class that does call sex during marriage as "a renewal of the sacrament of marriage"), but most don't acknowledge pre-marital sex, whether for pleasure or for procreation, as being acceptable.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    16. Re:In other news.... by roesti · · Score: 1

      Access isn't the issue in the modern era; teaching kids good judgment is.

      Why do you hate America?

    17. Re:In other news.... by Samah · · Score: 3, Funny

      In other news, archeologists have discovered what they believe is a missing page from The Bible. If proven to be legitimate, it is believed to go at the front of the book and reads:
      "The following works are entirely fictional and any relation to real events or persons, living or dead, is pure coincidence."
      --Red Dwarf

      --
      Homonyms are fun!
      You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
    18. Re:In other news.... by valkraider · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I just love to hear all the childless slashdotters speculate wildly about parenting. It's a good reminder of how easy it is to imagine solutions to problems you've never addressed yourselves. Hint: not even the best parents can make kids start out with good judgement. The age at which a kid is ready for Mario Kart is not the same age at which he is ready to avoid goatse.


      Who says we are all childless?

      I have a 6 year old and a Wii.

      Kids have to learn judgement, and some of that learning comes through exposure to bad judgement.

      Goatse is only really bad because we are conditioned as a society to think it is bad. Kids have very little of that conditioning yet. They usually only apply context to things via the reactions of the ADULTS around them.

      If a 5 year old saw goatse - they would probably say something like "that is a butt" and maybe by this time a "gross" or a couple "poop" jokes might come out of the whole experience. And they would forget all about it and go on. They are not really interested in goatse, my kid would just keep browsing looking for the "Cat, I'm a Kitty Cat - and I dance dance dance" video...

      But if an adult FREAKS OUT and says that it is BAD - then instantly goatse sticks in the memory. That is how kids learn.

      When a toddler falls down and bumps their knee in an empty room when they think no one is watching, they just keep going. But if the look around and see that mom or dad are jumping up to "help" them, they will start crying. They key in to our reactions, emotions, and responses.

      Nothing teaches a kid to swear faster than telling them they should not swear, or by covering their ears when others swear. We have NEVER censored ourselves or our friends or our TV or movies, and our child has no problem with swearing at all because he doesn't think that it is anything special. And we have made clear distinctions between what behavior is OK at home vs. at school vs. in a restaurant etc etc etc.

      But nothing sells like Pr0n - so there is no faster way to increase the popularity of the Wii than to brand it a Pr0n machine. :)

      And as others have noted. The browser can be turned off, and parental controls can be applied. Easier on the Wii than on the family computer...
    19. Re:In other news.... by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > Access isn't the issue in the modern era; teaching kids good judgment is.

      No. Listen up, I love the Internet. But way back in the 90's when I was selling access I would be blunt with parents on the issue of kids & the Internet. Being in Louisiana I'd use this as an example: "The Internet is great, there is just about anything you could ask for on it. And that is also the bad part. Unless you are the sort of parent who would take the kids to Mardi Gras and tell em to "Have a good time, we will meet back up here in the morning." you won't turn kids loose unsupervised. Because the horror stories in the news aren't even close to describing what lurks in the horrid dank corners of the 'net." No, kids should NOT have unrestricted Internet connectivity in their room. Somewhere in the teens, yes. Exactly when depends on the maturity level of the kid in question.

      It is easy to understand why Nintendo wants Wii to get Internet access. But they really need to put in an interlock so parents can have the option to disable it. For a Wii in the living room it would be great, for a unit intended to be installed in a pre-teen's bedroom it would be a dealbreaker for me if not for the fact I'm a geek and could just kill access at the router.

      Because the Internet is NOT 'child safe' and I like it that way. There is really only two ways this can play out in the end, either we make the whole Internet 'child proof', turning the greatest wonder of the modern age into one huge smarmy Disney/Nick horror or we have to say "No, the Internet isn't for small children." and limit em to a whitelist of safe domains.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    20. Re:In other news.... by renegadesx · · Score: 0

      I hate fucking Christian groups

      --
      Make SELinux enforcing again!
    21. Re:In other news.... by Joebert · · Score: 1

      Nonsense.
      If we get them hooked on drugs & porn early, they'll die or run away much earlier than age 18.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    22. Re:In other news.... by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Speaking of which, why does the title mention that the group is Christian? I'm sure there are non-Christians who won't be buying a Wii for the very reason that it's easy to access porn and difficult to put parental controls on it."

      Because it is a prime principle of the Christian right to be anti-sex in any form. Anti-sex to the exclusion of being anti-war or anti-exploitation or anti-racist or anti-poverty or anti-anything that really matters to the lives of real human beings. It is precisely these Christian fundamentalist reactionaries who are so hung up on the largely mythological dangers of pornography who make all this noise. To bring up the statistical fact that some vanishingly small group of non-Christians also suffer from this very same mental peculiarity has nothing to do with the true nature of this story.

      "I'm not saying it's a particularly good reason not to get a Wii, but don't judge religion, judge stupidity. (and please pass on the religion = stupidity comments, they are past tired.)"

      Except that, with the exception of a very small percentage of scholarly intellectuals, the more religiously oriented a person is, the more likely they are to BE stupid. Sorry if this sounds like trolling, but you put the terms "religion" and "stupidity" on the table and you have to expect someone (like me) to raise the valid question of what, exactly, the relationship IS between the two. And, unfortunately, the latter varies directly with the former.

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    23. Re:In other news.... by azakem · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, you yourself remind of one of those religous nutjobs you claim to despise. Same smug sense of moral superiority, same need to openly denigrate the intelligence of those whose do not share your beliefs, same intolerance of diverse beliefs. When you judge the intelligence of others based solely on their religous alignment, you do everyone involved a great disservice. Being the victim of intolerance doesn't give you a free pass to inflict the same on others.

    24. Re:In other news.... by Phisbut · · Score: 1

      It is easy to understand why Nintendo wants Wii to get Internet access. But they really need to put in an interlock so parents can have the option to disable it. For a Wii in the living room it would be great, for a unit intended to be installed in a pre-teen's bedroom it would be a dealbreaker for me if not for the fact I'm a geek and could just kill access at the router.

      You do know that you can password protect the Wii's Internet access, right? Killing the connection at the router is not a good measure, since your neighbor might have an open router.

      --
      After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
      - The Tao of Programming
    25. Re:In other news.... by timeOday · · Score: 1

      And I agree that if the parental controls are in place, this group should certainly spread that information, and not just paranoia. Information is far more useful than blanket accusations of stupidity, which is what I was responding to.

    26. Re:In other news.... by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > You do know that you can password protect the Wii's Internet access, right?

      No, don't have a Wii. Personally don't own a console and haven't since the 2600. But I did hook up the grandkids with a Gamecube for Xmas and when they get a little older a Wii would be a natural next step since it is backwards compatible. Good to know the "Big N" was on the ball though.

      > Killing the connection at the router is not a good measure, since your neighbor might have an open router.

      So it can't be locked to an ESSID or to secure connections? That would be weak. But anyway, I have more of a problem with neighbors associating to my open AP than accidentally picking up others. I see a few others, but all fairly weak signals.

      And yes my AP is open, I don't care if the guy next door borrows some bandwidth now and again, I tell em it's ok. Yes there are risks, but if we all fort up and lock everything the world is a crappier place. I like finding open access points so the Golden Rule says I should return the favor.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    27. Re:In other news.... by Homr+Zodyssey · · Score: 1

      Well spoken, akazem. Bravo.

    28. Re:In other news.... by Chutulu · · Score: 1

      and because christians and sex don't mix well together

    29. Re:In other news.... by kir · · Score: 5, Funny

      Goatse is only really bad because we are conditioned as a society to think it is bad. Kids have very little of that conditioning yet. They usually only apply context to things via the reactions of the ADULTS around them.

      I completely understand what you've said and agree with most of it (in fact, I too have a 6 yr old and live by similar "rules" in my house), but...

      GOATSE MAN! GOATSE!!!!! That shit changes your life when you see it. I mean... AAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    30. Re:In other news.... by StarvingSE · · Score: 1

      Junior Anti-Sex League... here we come...

      --
      I got nothin'
    31. Re:In other news.... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      f there is a way to find porn, I'll have found it long before she will--finding porn is like a male geek superpower.

        Ahem. Finding porn on the internet is so easy it happens to some people accidentally :)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    32. Re:In other news.... by cyclop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh no, I'm not "intolerant" with religion because I am a victim of intolerance too.

      I'm "intolerant" (that is, I think religion is 100% moronic -not that I harm a single hair of religious people, of course) because it's purely believing in fairy tales, no more, no less. It's a problem of philosophical judgement, not a problem of "not sharing my beliefs". It's you that have beliefs to share with other -I simply don't have beliefs of this kind.

      --
      -- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize /. comments with a sig attached to the end.
    33. Re:In other news.... by timpaton · · Score: 1

      the government needs to eliminate all adult-content from real life

      If we could eliminate sex from real life, there'd be no more children needing to be thought of.

      Then could go back to taking responsibility for our own actions.

      I don't see a problem with that.

    34. Re:In other news.... by Knara · · Score: 1

      Yeah but that's like, vanilla, boring porn. Unless it's an "attack" of some sort, then it's stileproject porn, which is another topic entirely, I think.

    35. Re:In other news.... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


        For varying definitions of "vanilla porn" I think ;)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    36. Re:In other news.... by Thaelon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wish I could mod you +83 Insightful. Actually I'd much rather prohibit sensationalist bullshit and speculative "news" from getting on the main page, but hey I'd settle for appropriately modding up voices of reason.

      Rules of thumb:
      If your headline could be considered flamebait, it's not news.
      If your headline ends in a question mark, it's not news.

      --

      Question everything

    37. Re:In other news.... by ArcherB · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm "intolerant" because it's purely believing in fairy tales, no more, no less. It's a problem of philosophical judgement, not a problem of "not sharing my beliefs". It's you that have beliefs to share with other -I simply don't have beliefs of this kind.

      A majority of scientists believe in global warming. Therefor, global warming is true. Those that disagree should lose their jobs and certifications because they are either stupid, ignorant or bribed.

      A majority of people in the world believe in God (about 2/3, I believe). So, according to the rules we here at Slashdot have set up to deal with global warming deniers, that makes religion correct and those that disagree either stupid, ignorant or bribed.

      So, what's your story?

      (I know the logic is ridiculous, but, hey, if it's good for global warming, then it's gotta be good for religion!)

      Back on topic... if we had enforced ratings on games, game buyers could go tell these people where to stick their WiiMote since kids could not buy any of the "violent or sexually related games". As to the Wii having the Internet browser and the Internet being violence and porn ridden... well, take that up with the DOD!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    38. Re:In other news.... by Sj0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It would also, ironically, get rid of the future generations who will be expected to pay off the 9 trillion. That's why someone has to think of the children -- because someone has to pay for all this shit!

      --
      It's been a long time.
    39. Re:In other news.... by Sj0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it would be VERY simple to put parental controls on it:

      Here's your Wii. Here's your access point.

      Don't set your kids Wii up with the code for your access point.

      Wow. That was tough. I mean, it took all of no time at all to do.

      Of course, I'm probably not going to have to convince YOU.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    40. Re:In other news.... by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Verily. I have no empirical evidence to support the existence of God (Some people think existence proves the existence of God, but the thing is, because we exist, we can't argue that we don't. All the places in the universe that don't have sentient life can't ponder how God must not exist because there's no life there.

      Let's say you find a car, abandoned, in a place that's dark and rotten and forgotten, and it's obvious that the car has been abandoned for years, and the previous owner is long dead with no next of kin, and for some reason by law that entitles you to take it, and it starts up and runs and is perfectly ready to drive for 100,000 miles. You can't argue that you must have bought the car because it's unlikely that you found a car like that. You've got a car, and there's no proof that you bought it (no reciept, no cash gone from your bank account, no loans to pay back), but there's a piece of paper saying it's yours and you drive it everywhere. Because the evidence points to something, you can't argue that either you bought a car or you don't own one, because you do own one, no matter how unlikely it is.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    41. Re:In other news.... by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      I got so caught up in my analogy that I missed my point.

      Despite this belief of mine, I don't treat theists of any stripe differently, because they're human just like I am, and they believe their truths just as I believe mine.

      There are 'religious atheists' out there, people who want to talk all day about how stupid the majority is. I find myself staying away from these people. Life is too short, and we don't have any strong enough standards to definitively say anything. Furthermore, if I could believe in God, I would. It's a wonderful and uplifting belief which removes the need to constantly search for meaning and evaluate what you're doing even if it's the same thing everyone else is doing.

      With God, you can say "If I follow these rules, I will have led a good life.", but if you're a nihilistic atheist, you can only say "I know I exist because I think I exist and if I didn't exist I couldn't think I exist because there'd be nothing to think. Beyond that, we live in a meaningless, valueless, senseless world. Any desires I have need to be questioned because they don't necessarily correspond to real needs, any morality I hold has to be questioned because it doesn't necessarily resolve to any solid first ethic, any opinions I hold have to be questioned because they could be illusions of my own understanding. The ways we're told we should live are all subjective views and don't even have to be logically consistent because they too are illusions. With all this, should I live, and if I decide somehow that I should, how should I?"

      Not everyone has the desire or the ability to become an atheistic, nihilistic philosopher for life. Some people just want a direction, a way to live, and if that's through God, then I consider them my equals for living as humans, just as I do, with the information available to them, just as I do with the information available to me, with the values they choose to believe in, just as I follow the values I choose to believe in.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    42. Re:In other news.... by HolyCrapSCOsux · · Score: 1

      But somehow Christians DO manage to multiply.

      --
      0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
    43. Re:In other news.... by ByteofK · · Score: 3, Funny

      GUH! Yeah cos we do it with other humans, of the opposite sex, in the appropriate orifice, hence allowing us to replenish the earth, one of the first commandments from God. Anything with animals, an exit door, or with the wrong sex is not going to replenish the earth. The meek shall inherit the earth. So shall those who know how to make babies rather than just putting their baby juice in places it don't belong.

    44. Re:In other news.... by Bob-taro · · Score: 1
      I think the evidence is against you there. I agree that you can probably make an experience worse by "freaking out" about it, but carelessly exposing kids to porn can seriously mess them up. They might just not understand it and think nothing of it, but I wouldn't assume (and I personally know some examples to the contrary). I think the point here is just to make parents aware. I'm a pretty technical person, but I bought my 11 yr old a Nintendo DS and didn't know it has built-in wireless chat until afterwards. It wouldn't have bothered me as much, except I had repeatedly refused his request to network the computer in his bedroom (outsmarted by an 11 yr old!). Sure, you can't just keep your kids in a bubble, and especially in this day and age teaching good judgment early is an important part of parenting, but you can't just abandon them, either.



      I can't speak for all Christians, but I believe there is something spiritual about sex, and that's why people who suffer sexual abuse have such a hard road to recovery. There's a lot of deviant, evil stuff out there on the net that is bad for EVERYONE (including adults). Many adults who supposedly have better judgement are lured in by this stuff, so if you can protect your kids from this temptation, I think you should. Say what you will, that's my opinion.

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    45. Re:In other news.... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Well for most slashdotters anything that Christians do inherently bad, misinformed, and not based on reality. They fail to comprehend that Christianity covers a very wide range of views, while the core basic beliefs are similar there is much more diversity on other issues. Some Christian sects are very liberal Pro-Choice, For Gay Rights, Believe in evolution... Others are very conservative where anything anything that is not written in the bible has to to be false or evil. And the bulk of them are somewhat in the middle and have more middle ground views, and use their religion to help people and focus on personal redemption and less to convert everyone to their religion. They must realize that Bible Thumpers represent Christians just as well, As a 25 year old Hippy wanna be who lives with their parents never showers or bathes represents IT Professionals.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    46. Re:In other news.... by Darlantan · · Score: 1

      Meek...inheriting...earth.

      So you're saying Christianity is on the way out?

      --
      Fill in your four or five-letter word of wisdom here _ _ _ _ _.
    47. Re:In other news.... by VirusEqualsVeryYes · · Score: 1

      I have a 6 year old and a Wii.
      Well, yes, we could have guessed that second part.
    48. Re:In other news.... by harks · · Score: 1

      You realize.... the Earth doesn't need to be replenished, and that the whole procreation thing seems to be handling itself just fine without encouragement?

    49. Re:In other news.... by ClassMyAss · · Score: 1

      I just love to hear all the childless slashdotters speculate wildly about parenting. It's a good reminder of how easy it is to imagine solutions to problems you've never addressed yourselves. Hint: not even the best parents can make kids start out with good judgement. The age at which a kid is ready for Mario Kart is not the same age at which he is ready to avoid goatse.

      You are presuming that being a parent somehow imbues one with more knowledge about how best to be a parent than a person possesses naturally on the basis of having been parented. Personally I think this is untrue - parents tend to be tired, bitchy, and irrational because of the fact that their kids (rightfully, I might add) don't succumb to parental desires to rear tiny carbon copies of what they wish they were like at that age, in hindsight. I would venture to guess that you'd get much better parenting advice from those that have never had to fight through the emotionally draining process.

      On that note - there is very little that you can do to positively influence your children that they don't already do for themselves. You can certainly screw them up by being abusive, or spoiling them, but honestly, kids don't need to be sheltered from the real world. For the most part they are uninterested in it, and if they are not, they'll find a way to find the information anyhow.

      And as disturbing as goatse may be (though to be honest, I am lucky enough to have been spared the sight), how many people can you count in your life that have been subject to negative consequences as adults as a result of having viewed a twisted sexual picture as a child? How many people have grown up messed up in the head because they snuck a peek at daddy's Playboy when they were eight years old? I can't think of a single one; frankly, I don't think our children need nearly as much protection as we delude ourselves as a culture into thinking. Kids are resilient, and it takes quite a bit to screw them up - a few pictures viewed by choice on the internet do not a deviant make. I would be very curious to hear what the supposed "damage" that this stuff does to a child is, and why it's taken so seriously, especially since I've never seen an example that proves its reality...

    50. Re:In other news.... by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      Um, because the group actually is Christian? I suppose if they were instead fundamentalist cat-worshippers, the article would have mentioned that too. Frankly, I read a couple of articles on this already, and it seems their concerns are the typical "sex bad" attitude of a lot of fundie Christians, rather then an actual examination of any sort of problems with the Wii and its' ability to access the internet.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    51. Re:In other news.... by glitch0 · · Score: 1

      from theporntalk.com: "A parents attentiveness to this process and willingness to talk frankly to their child at this stage will be important for the teen to be able to discern the dangers and consequences of exploring porn." (emphasis mine) Will someone please explain to me how porn is dangerous? Will you get hurt if you watch two people having sex? Will you die? Will you grow hair on your palms?

      --
      -Glitch "We all know Linux is great...it does infinite loops in 5 seconds." - Linus Torvalds
    52. Re:In other news.... by cloudwilliam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Most of the bad publicity for Christians comes from the Catholics. I as a Christian am very anti-Catholic."

      Unlike the upstanding paragons Pat Roberts, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Fred Phelps, Jimmy Swaggart, Robert Tilton, and Ted Haggard? Jim Jones? David Koresh? Or were you thinking of those really great guys John Calvin, Oliver Cromwell and Cotton Mather? How about Southern antebellum churches and their wholesale advocation of African slavery? And let's not forget that absolute bastion of solid Protestant virtue, the Ku Klux Klan. Sure, freed slaves and their descendants were their main focus, but they hated Catholics too.

      No one's saying the Catholic church hasn't done some fucked up shit, but they aren't the only ones with issues.

    53. Re:In other news.... by memojuez · · Score: 1

      I just love to hear all the childless slashdotters speculate wildly about parenting. I must point out that a lot of them aren't as clueless as half the so-called parents out there.
      --
      Signature applied for, Patent Pending
    54. Re:In other news.... by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      You're right. Mollycoddling sensitises children to certain taboos. And these certain...concerned...parents, this is exactly what they want. They want their kids to react negatively every time they see something their parents consider "bad". They want them to pass it on to their kids.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    55. Re:In other news.... by nhaines · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, but by "built-in wireless chat", you should realize that it has even less of a range than, say, walkie-talkies. Maybe about 120 feet with any walls or buildings around, and maybe 300 feet or so if you're facing someone else with a DS. It's also a bit flakey, so I would imagine the "stranger danger" factor is practically nil.

      If, on the other hand, you mean the online play over the Internet, well, it's all anonymous, nickname-only random matches with others, with no communication in most games, and the ability to send positive, pre-defined messages in some others. In order to personally communicate with anyone at all, you have to trade 12-digit "friend codes" with another and each has to register the number on his own copy of the game, and even then it's per game.

      On the one hand, I wish there were something more flexible but on the other hand it makes online games practically grief-free (except for people turning off the power when they're losing.

    56. Re:In other news.... by Hooya · · Score: 1

      > I have a 6 year old and a Wii

      if you have a 6 year old, goes without saying you have a Wii..

      but then you could have a 6 year old with your partner being the one with the Wii.

      baahh..

      if you have a 6 year old, one of you certainly has a Wii. no, that doesn't sound right either. i give up. but there's a Wii involved somewhere..

    57. Re:In other news.... by McFadden · · Score: 1

      Religion is stupid, a hopeless belief in one of a panetheon of mutally contradictory super beings held together with fictious fairy stories and arcane rituals.
      Actually I think it's rather smart.

      1. Invent an imaginary man in the sky as an excuse to impose your own petty bigotry on other people.
      2. Claim that it is unethical and wrong to criticize you because of your "faith".
      3. ...
      4. Profit! (...err sorry - wrong joke - but hey... in the case of the religious right, maybe not!)

      I can't think of many other made-up stories that have stood the test of time so well.
    58. Re:In other news.... by JimDaGeek · · Score: 0, Troll

      You just named a bunch of messed of "Christians". I think anyone with some education can tell the difference.

      Don't you?

      Can you tell the difference between some Muslim like Osama bin Laden and a normal Muslims that doesn't call you an "infidel" and want to cut your head off?

      Come on. You are an educated dude. Use some sense and don't lump all people into the same "group". There are a lot of good Christians out there. There are a lot of good Muslims out there. There are a lot of good Jews out there. There are lot of good atheists out there, etc.

      --
      General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
    59. Re:In other news.... by UglyTool · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Dude, no...Just...no

      A majority of the evidence says global warming is true. A majority of the scientists say global warming is true because that what the evidence says.

      The same, however, cannot be said of religion. There is no evidence, so it doesn't matter what the majority of people believe.

      But you are correct. It is good enough for global warming to have the evidence...

      Where does that leave religion?

    60. Re:In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just them. The **AA has the same ideas about protecting their content from us heathen thieves.

      The ONLY solutions for the religious groups and the **AA would be to remove the eyes, ears, hands, and tongues of the people. No see, no hear, no touch, no talk about it.

      Nevermind that it would deprive many people of something resembling a productive life. Short of removing body parts, there is NO other way to protect either the content or the people FROM the evil things they might see or hear or say -or steal.

      But even those draconian measures would not stop people from thinking about things. Getting inside the minds of the people is the next goal. In the past, religions tried to influence thoughts by torture, threats of torture, etc. Now, they just get governments or pharmo companies to pass out drugs of one sort or another.

      Only when we are deaf, blind, mute AND drugged out of our minds will we be safe from evil content, and the content safe from people who want to steal it.

      I don't know why any such person would want to be alive. If the human race ends up like that, we will have blown a few million years of effort to advance the species and live, dammit, live. We'd be pathetic little creatures who deserve to get extincted. And we would too. Never see it coming.

    61. Re:In other news.... by JimDaGeek · · Score: 1

      Did you go to the website of TFA? It doesn't sound like it. Go and read their site. While I, as a Christian, think they are off their rocker in this "effort", doesn't mean that they are a "bad" organization. From what I have _read_ (I know nothing about them besides their site), they sound like they really want to help the less fortunate.

      However, I will agree with anyone that this current effort seems kinda stupid.

      Oh, and please stop lumping all Christians into the same "bible-bashing-you-are-all-going-to-hell" pool. It makes you sound like an idiot. Seriously. How would I sound if I said all Muslims want to cut off your head? Most people would mark me as a troll.

      There are a lot of Christians out there (just like a lot of Muslims) that don't follow the stupid dogma of the big "churches". Stop lumping us all together please. :-)

      --
      General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
    62. Re:In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... but evidently NOT a lot of good catholics out there? nice stealth bigotry, dude.

    63. Re:In other news.... by JimDaGeek · · Score: 1

      I said there are a lot of good Christians out there. I didn't say Catholics. If you are a Catholic and consider that more important than being a Christian, well, the last thing you need to worry about is my "stealth bigotry". Seriously. If being a member of a "church" is more important to you than the religion you proclaim, then, IMO, you need to re-check your "religion".

      I don't belong to any "denomination" for a reason. I don't want the crap that man introduced to "religion".

      I could go on for pages about the problems of the Catholic "church", please don't ask me to. :-)

      --
      General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
    64. Re:In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AFAIKIDNHK (AFAIK I do not have kids), but:

      But if an adult FREAKS OUT and says that it is BAD - then instantly goatse sticks in the memory. That is how kids learn.

      Nothing teaches a kid to swear faster than telling them they should not swear (...)

      In the other hand, they must be teached as to understand that's not normal.

      How one does that?

      -jl

    65. Re:In other news.... by Meostro · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hate fucking Christian groups Why exactly is it that you hate fucking them?
    66. Re:In other news.... by DavidShor · · Score: 1

      As a honest question, where is pre-martial sex prohibited in the bible. I scanned Leviticus(where most of these weird regulations are) and did not see anything.

    67. Re:In other news.... by DavidShor · · Score: 1
      "If we could eliminate sex from real life, there'd be no more children needing to be thought of."..."I don't see a problem with that."

      You are clearly not a guy.

    68. Re:In other news.... by MartinJW · · Score: 1

      If they want to ban anything it should be the bible, that thing is full of filth and debauchery.

    69. Re:In other news.... by renegadesx · · Score: 0

      1) They seem to lead the pack when it comes to lack of parental responsibility, how everything is society's faulty 2) They are fucking hypocrites, they claim they love free speech yet they don't want you to talk about certain stuff 3) they are fucking stupid, 53% of Americans believe the earth is 6000 years old. I am willing to be AT LEAST 52.9% are Christians 4)(this can be put under #2) but with all the problems in the world, they seem to be all for a "war on indecency" which limit's peoples freedoms 5)They are so pushy, every day I get annoyed by some fucking Christian group wanting me to join, sometimes I say not interested they leave me alone, other times they will annoy me telling me im going to burn in hell and everything till I tell them I will press charges if they don't fuck off 6) Thou shall not murder, unless its war which is mass murder (merges into #2) 7) they don't respect other peoples beliefs, its ok to respect Christianity, but if a Christian sees an atheist, or someone from Islam etc, they think "he/she is just misguided" where they are either pitted or looked down upon 8) Ignoring facts, #3 is just blaitent stupidity but uses the same example. They look at actual facts yet they think evidence right infront of them is a less credible source than a 1700 year old book 9) Misconceiving their own faith, nowhere in the bible does it mention that the earth was 6000 years old, its Christian ideology, so if they believe the earth is 6000 then they also have to believe the earth is flat and placed smack bang in the middle of the fucking universe 10) Trying to push their religious beliefs on to the political system, hence pushing their religious beliefs onto EVERYBODY, its arrogant and quite frankly insane They claim to love freedom but freedom and dogmatism are complete opposites

      --
      Make SELinux enforcing again!
    70. Re:In other news.... by Eiron · · Score: 1

      You may not get hurt or grow hair on your palms, but did you know that 100% of the people who have been in or watched porn will eventually die? 100%. Frightening.
       
      I don't have the statistics to back this up, but I suspect more porn watchers die every year than smokers and fat people combined.
       
      Porn kills.

      --
      Apathy; it does a body good.
    71. Re:In other news.... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      You are right I am intolerant of religious beliefs but I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I'm also intolerant of people who believe it's a good idea to strap bombs to themselves and blow up trains or people who believe that kidnapping young children for sexual purposes is a good idea. I'm sure you're also intolerant of a lot of beliefs which people around the world have.

      I don't think people are necessarily stupid for holding religious beliefs, it could be they have been brought up in isolation or are unaware of the scientific developments since biblical times however when people are aware of the alternatives to religious beliefs and still make the choice to ignore rationality then I would say that they are making a stupid decision. Certainly one stupid decision doesn't make someone an idiot but it's more likely to make them an idiot than if they hadn't made a stupid decision.

      I don't subscribe to the belief that anything goes, if I see someone about to throw himself off a cliff because of his beliefs then I am going to intervene and explain why his beliefs are wrong.

      Can you explain exactly why I should tolerate every belief anyone chooses to subscribe to and why I shouldn't say when I believe that belief is wrong ?

    72. Re:In other news.... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      if you have a 6 year old, goes without saying you have a Wii..

      but then you could have a 6 year old with your partner being the one with the Wii.

      baahh..

      if you have a 6 year old, one of you certainly has a Wii. no, that doesn't sound right either. i give up. but there's a Wii involved somewhere..
      Bah, the 6 year old might be adopted. And both partners might have a Wii. Or none of them. Ha!
    73. Re:In other news.... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Personally I don't think you need any sort of belief in God to decide that you want to live a good life, whether you believed that it was God, or cabbages which dictate how you live it makes no difference because at the of the day it's not God and its not cabbages which decide how you live your life it is in fact you and this doesn't change even if you don't believe that God, or cabbages created the universe.

    74. Re:In other news.... by kripkenstein · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's also worth mentioning that many of the Catholic church's oft-mentioned errors are in the past, not the present. For example, they accept evolution. Creationism is a Protestant thing, not a Catholic one, for the most part (although there are also Jewish, etc., creationists, perhaps under other names).

      Yes, the Inquisition was wrong, and persecuting scientists was wrong. But, interestingly, Catholicism has moved past that. (Perhaps Americans are not aware enough of that fact given the strength of Protestantism in their country, hence Protestantism is often considered simply 'Christianity'? No idea, I don't like in the US.)

    75. Re:In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where does that leave religion? Neither here nor there - you cannot assert that something is false through lack of evidence.
      You can't assert it's true either. So you should probably either go gather some evidence, or just shut the fuck up and not comment on it either way.
    76. Re:In other news.... by cyclop · · Score: 1

      Obligatory Richard Dawkins quote: "As my colleague, the physical chemist Peter Atkins, puts it, we must be equally agnostic about the theory that there is a teapot in orbit around the planet Pluto. We can't disprove it. But that doesn't mean the theory that there is a teapot is on level terms with the theory that there isn't."

      --
      -- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize /. comments with a sig attached to the end.
    77. Re:In other news.... by Anaerin · · Score: 1

      Where's my "+1 Colbert" option? Pornography? A great threat to our children, or the greatest threat to our children?

    78. Re:In other news.... by Modesitt · · Score: 1
      Like many other things the bible is supposed to say, it's only possible to find it if you're already conditioned to look for it. The bible babbles a lot about 'sexual immorality' and how very bad it is. What it never comes out and says is "Having sex before marriage is bad". Seriously, here's the so-called money quote so many will bring up.

      Run away from sexual sin! No other sin so clearly affects the body as this one does. For sexual immorality is a sin against your own body.

      That's supposed to clearly and unequivocally state that premarital sex is bad.

      Alternatively, people will throw quotes at you about marriage and how awesome it is. All that tells you is that you shouldn't cheat.
      --
      Everyone on my foe's list is an evolution denier.
    79. Re:In other news.... by svunt · · Score: 1

      If your headline ends in a question mark, it's not news.

      But by ending your headline with a question mark, you can guarantee having your story tagged "yes, no, maybe, fud, notfud" - and who in this crazy world couldn't use a bit of that sort of predictability?

    80. Re:In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree 100%. Indeed, by the same logic the cross could deemed pornographic as it might be used as a dildo (an extreme example, but you get the point). Few christians would acknowledge it as a valid point though.

    81. Re:In other news.... by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      "Meek...inheriting...earth."

      You hear that? Blessed are the Greek. Apparently he's going to inherit the Earth.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    82. Re:In other news.... by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      I never said that you need to remove yourself from a belief in God to want to lead a good life. My point is a belief in God sets up certain first principles. If you believe in God, then you've got a set of morals and a certain philosophy and goal which comes with the belief in God. A nihilistic atheist has nothing. You can't say that your morality has any basis. You can't say that your goals have any meaning. You can't even say with any certainty that the outside world exists.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    83. Re:In other news.... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      If you believe in God, then you've got a set of morals and a certain philosophy and goal which comes with the belief in God. Not really you don't, if you were to poll everyone who believed in God about their morals, philosophy and goals you'd find they varied enormously on an individual basis. For instance at one point a belief in God allowed you to burn witches whereas it probably doesn't allow this today.

      You can just as easily use a set of morals, philospohy and goals by a belief in yourself and your immediate society without any reference whatsoever to mysterious entities whos existence you have no evidence for.

      It has never been God who provides your moral code or goals, it has always been society since God doesn't talk to people on an indidiual basis ( on the occasions when it's claimed he does this leads to people starting suicide cults in rainforests ) but his "words" are interpreted by the elders in society and passed on to others as the best method of living which is the exact same thing which would happen if there was no religion and the development of societies with no God based religions backs this up.

      What a belief in God or religion does do is promote adherance to moral codes which may not fit in well with the way society is operating at the current time by imposing moral guidelines which may have been valid 2000 years ago but have since become unhelpful to societies development. Inevitably it is religion which changes it's "interpretation of Gods word" to suit the society the religion is operating in rather than the opposite way round which is yet further evidence for where your morals are actually derived from. In cases where religion is in a position to change society to its idea of morals you end up with disfunctional societes such as Afghanistan under the Taleban.
    84. Re:In other news.... by Elsan · · Score: 1

      Normally you need a Wii to have a child so there's no need to specify.

    85. Re:In other news.... by Drantin · · Score: 1

      It's also possible that it's just a correlation with their consumption of dihydrogen monoxide...

      --
      Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
    86. Re:In other news.... by cloudwilliam · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm an atheist. I just don't lump all Catholics together, the same way you don't lump all Protestants together. When people act poorly, they usually do it for personal reasons; but if they are a person of some influence over others who look up to them and trust them, that doesn't prevent them from using whatever organization they belong to, secular or religious, as leverage.

    87. Re:In other news.... by MirthScout · · Score: 1

      Because it is a prime principle of the Christian right to be anti-sex in any form.


      I wish they were better at behaving this way. The world would be a better place in a few decades.
    88. Re:In other news.... by TWX · · Score: 1

      That's pretty much my conclusion too. I think that it's all kind of stupid, really.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    89. Re:In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a honest question, where is pre-martial sex prohibited in the bible. I scanned Leviticus(where most of these weird regulations are) and did not see anything.
      The Bible calls it fornication. Use a concordance and find every instance of the word. Read the entire chapter...if not book...to get to the actual context.
    90. Re:In other news.... by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

      And until such time as parents have taught their kids good judgement might it not be a sound idea to keep poor influences out of their lives?

      --
    91. Re:In other news.... by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry how many have you been through? what qualifies you to say that most pre-marriage classes dont include information about Sex? Among the Christians I know and have discussed pre marriage counseling with (five or six couples) all of them dealt as much with sex as anything else. Any biblical based marriage counseling will tell you that its a wonderful gift, and physical and spiritual bond, and an experience more pleasurable than most anything else you can do. What snarks off people who bash chriustians as prudes is the belief that sex by nature forms a spiritual bond (ie you are tied to the person you have sex with) and thus is *only* ok in marriage.

      --
    92. Re:In other news.... by ElleyKitten · · Score: 1

      So it can't be locked to an ESSID or to secure connections? That would be weak. But anyway, I have more of a problem with neighbors associating to my open AP than accidentally picking up others. I see a few others, but all fairly weak signals.
      You have to manually set up each connection, it won't automatically find connections to connect to, and if you set up parental controls the kids need to enter a pin to do that. If you don't set up parental controls and just block the wii from the router (though it would probably be easier to set up parental controls, but maybe you don't have a router) the kids probably won't be able to connect to something, since the wii won't scan for networks, but the smart kid will type in "linksys" or "default" and probably find something. Parental controls aren't that hard to set up, and they're a better solution than anything else.
      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    93. Re:In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think there is anything stealth about you "stealth bigotry".

      As a Catholic, I don't see your point. You talk about churches and religion as if they are mutually exclusive. What Catholics refer to as the Church is the whole congregation of Catholics and their relationship with God. "Church" is not an affiliation with a specific priest, parish or even tradition. I believe you have a lot to learn about the Christian faith as a whole. To say Catholicism is not Christian is like saying Sunnis are not Muslims.

      You say "I don't want the crap that man introduced to "religion"."

      I'm wondering exactly where you get your belief system if it is void of anything humans have contributed.

    94. Re:In other news.... by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

      It is excluded as Fornication which is by definition the act of sex outside of marriage. " "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

      --
    95. Re:In other news.... by UglyTool · · Score: 0

      So you should probably either go gather some evidence, or just shut the fuck up and not comment on it either way.

      My point is, I suppose, is that there have been thousands of years to gather evidence to support one religion over another. There has been much less than that (10%?) that has been needed to gather evidence to support global warming.

    96. Re:In other news.... by JudeanPeople'sFront · · Score: 2, Funny

      Shut up, Big Nose!

    97. Re:In other news.... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      smear with precisely zero rationale given to support it? Smear? What have religious pressure groups done that demonstrate good judgement?

      Prohibition?
      The superbowl overreaction?
      The burning of the beatle's albums in the "bigger than jesus" days?
      The "play tatoos with LSD in them are being sold to kids at corner stores" urban legend?
      Harrassing and bombing medical clinics because the perform abortions?
      How about trying to ban modern biology from schools? Or force-feeding a braindead woman because of reflex muscle contractions of the face that look like precious smiles?

      How many examples do you want? I didn't have to offer rationale because everytime a religious pressure group releases a statement, it is blatantly devoid of good judgement.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    98. Re:In other news.... by xalres · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, all in the past. Except for, you know, that whole kid fucking thing. But as recent news has shown, protestants don't seem to be very good at keeping their dongs away from the sunday school either.

      --
      If whales learn how to use weapons we're all screwed!
    99. Re:In other news.... by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      Hey! Your nose is going to be three foot wide across your face by the time I've finished with you!

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    100. Re:In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh..

    101. Re:In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you favor the NIV, a cleaned-up and dumbed-down KJV -- whose faith to the original text is already questionable.

    102. Re:In other news.... by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

      I dont prefer any one but I like the NAS. I have no problem with the KJV and when doing a detailed study (rather than just my daily quiet time) I read more than one translation and usually reference the greek and hebrew from which is was drawn.

      --
    103. Re:In other news.... by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

      It is very clearly addressed as fornication!

      --
    104. Re:In other news.... by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

      Your take is wrong, this is coming from someone who lived that life and found every justification under the sun for it. It was not until I wised up and stopped liveing that lifestyle until I realized how damagin both to myself and the woman of the hour it really was. In totality the Bible clearly comes out against premarital sex.

      --
    105. Re:In other news.... by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      "I mean... AAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!"

      The really scary part is when you hear the echo...

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    106. Re:In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you bother posting this drivel?

    107. Re:In other news.... by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      wrong book of the five think stone tablets and consult #7 and #10

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    108. Re:In other news.... by mink · · Score: 1

      Because for many years I thought "Horse with no name" was a Neil Young song?

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    109. Re:In other news.... by jfredett · · Score: 1

      The point of those passages is to discourage people from being rampantly promiscuous. Obviously, Doing so can cause problems, STD's, Unwanted Pregnancy, etc. The Author of that passage (Paul, as I remember, Corinthians, maybe?) is trying to warn people to avoid that practice because it could be deadly, and literally cause harm to your body. Not to mention the emotional issues, its often alot more trouble than its worth. Paul isn't trying to say, (AFAIC) that extramarital sex is bad per se. But rather, that its probably not worth the hassal. It's probably safer for you and the person you love to just not do it. Eliminate the possibility of something bad happening. No?

      I don't think Paul would be stupid enough to say "Don't do this, ever, if you do, your going to hell" because that would just galvanize the people to want to do it more often. Look at the Christian movement in it's early years. The very fact that Rome tried to stop them only galvanized and actually popularized their movement. This is a common human response, Paul would have known that, it wouldn't make sense for him to yell at the "misbehaving" Corinthians, that would have just made things worse. Instead, he tried to appeal to thier reason.

      I think that Christians these days forget that fundamental fact. You get more flies with honey, than with Vinegar.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un Sig.
  3. Wii Portal? by SpiffyMarc · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I really feel like there's an opportunity here to make a joke about Wiis, and portals, and... eh, I don't know. I think it's finally happened. I think I'm out of jokes about the Wii.

    1. Re:Wii Portal? by minvaren · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think you could still Wiip one out if you tried.

      --
      Big! Strong! Wow! Tada-O!
  4. give me a break by theStorminMormon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It may be a little sensationalist, but the basic point is fine. "Guess what parents, kids can also access teh pr0nz0rz using the PSP, Wii, etc." If they were trying to get the Wii banned or something, that would be one thing, but just trying to help parents do their job (again, with a little extra sensationalism) is really no cause for controversy.

    -stormin

    --
    The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    1. Re:give me a break by Skadet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed, and the summary's characterization of the press release as a "smear campaign" is simply inflammatory flamebait.

      Shame on you, editors.

    2. Re:give me a break by MindStalker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes it is, simply because sensationalism in and of itself is wrong. Selling an idea without providing concrete evidence for and against is classic car salesmanship in its essence. We as a society have put up with such blatant misinformation for so long, and certainly shouldn't put up with it from our clergy. Well given if we didn't 99% of churches wouldn't exist. But thats another story.

    3. Re:give me a break by theStorminMormon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes it is, simply because sensationalism in and of itself is wrong. Selling an idea without providing concrete evidence for and against is classic car salesmanship in its essence.

      Sounds like someone got carried away with a metaphor. The difference is that a car salesman is actually selling something for real: and getting money on false premises. The sensationalism here is not being used to sell a car. And it's not "blatant misinformation". Kids could get porn through the Wii. That doesn't mean you should burn your kids Wii, but parents should be aware of the capabilities of the toys their kids have.

      Penny-Arcade did a similar story when some local affiliate did an expose on the fact that your kids can chat with anyone using a DS Lite. It was a sensationalist story, but it's worth trying to keep parents informed of the capacity of their kids toys so that they can make their parenting decisions accordingly.

      The fundamental message of this is just: your kids can get online with a Wii. I want parents and *everyone* to know this so that we don't have more silly sue-MySpace type lawsuits when some kid manages to build a bomb online or hook up with a sex predator on a Wii.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    4. Re:give me a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      After digging through all the links I finally think I found the article all this blogging is about. Seems pretty calm reasoned and nonsensational to me.

    5. Re:give me a break by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter, your still "selling" an idea. Our society has come to tolerate the idea that arguing to win is the only thing that is important. Either way this is quickly delving into an argument in and of itself. You have valid points, but my original idea was that such sensationalism is bad even if a part of your message is accurate.

    6. Re:give me a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yes it is, simply because sensationalism in and of itself is wrong. Selling an idea without providing concrete evidence for and against is classic car salesmanship in its essence."

      I'm sorry -- since when is selling a car "wrong"? Annoying and smarmy, car salesman may be, but they're not "wrong" because they try to get people to buy their product. Now, if they make a false representation, like if they said that there's nothing wrong with the car when they know it to have a bad transmission or whatever, that's totally different. But they are not supposed to be acting in an objective manner.

      Similarly, this group does not make any claims to be an objective source of truth, nor do they make any false representations about the Wii -- indeed it can access the Internet without any child controls, which quite frankly could well be surprising even to reasonably computer-literate people. I certainly didn't expect Internet access to be free and open when I bought my Wii.

      Now, if people want to insist that their clergymen be a little more rational and objective, then that's certainly their right, but quite frankly, that CLEARLY is not a primary criteria for religious people in America these days.

    7. Re:give me a break by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Talking of Penny Arcade:-
      "The Same As It Ever Was".

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    8. Re:give me a break by Gideon+Fubar · · Score: 1

      That's fine, as long as the parents are themselves encouraged to use the technology, or at least to be comfortable with it's application. In this case, the sensationalism appears to be born from fear, or at least has been given that spin somewhere, and that's good for noone.

      Don't teach parents to fear network connections. Teach them to set up decent firewalls and encryption, and maybe play an active part in their kids' lives instead of relying on a tv/console/computer.

      --
      http://www.xkcd.com/354/
    9. Re:give me a break by IceCreamGuy · · Score: 1
      I concur, while it is sensationalist, they do have a very valid and rational point. From TFA:

      So the solution lies in parents getting the facts and then talking to their children about expectations for online activity. Foster believes that, "Whether it is the home computer or these new gaming consoles, porn is easily accessible. The Wii is an amazing console and tons of fun but parents need good info on how to keep kids safe."
    10. Re:give me a break by brianosaurus · · Score: 1

      Pr0n isn't the only thing you can get online!

      CORONA, CA - The Nintendo Wii gaming console has a wiittle God problem. That's right; this seemingly innocent family game console has a dirty little secret. It has the dubious ability to access religious propaganda via the internet and most parents are not aware of this fact.

      Like many new gaming technologies, the Wii's wireless internet capabilities make it a portal to Jesus. "Parents think the computer is the only way for their kids to get prayer on the internet. Unfortunately, they are dead wrong," says Mike Foster, founder of ThePornTalk.com. "Gaming devices like the Wii and the PSP aren't just for fun games anymore. You're able to surf the net, chat with friends, email, and accept Jesus because of its internet access. Kids know this but parents don't!" ...

      --
      blog
    11. Re:give me a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just have to say that your homepage link kicks ass.

    12. Re:give me a break by Zonk+(troll) · · Score: 1

      The Penny Arcade comic you're referring to is this one (02/09/2007).

      --
      "The Federal Reserve is a fraudulent system."--Lew Rockwell
      End The FED. -
    13. Re:give me a break by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Our society has come to tolerate the idea that arguing to win is the only thing that is important.

      Aren't you worried that you're coming to embody that idea?

      You have valid points, but my original idea was that such sensationalism is bad even if a part of your message is accurate.

      And a message can be accurate even if it is sensational. It goes both ways. You accept that the GP has valid points, but can you accept that the group in question also has valid points -- specifically that many parents are not aware of what the Wii is capable of, and should be educated so that they can decide what to do, including using the parental controls that they also may not be aware of? Or must you argue to win, and completely deny any legitimacy to your opponent even though it doesn't make sense to do so?

      Frankly I see most of the sensationalism coming from the Kotaku article, but I also see that as trained conditioning to a world in which Jack Thompson and people like him will decry video games themselves as the finger of Satan diddling your kids. Does that sensationalism thus mean that we should not be cautious of these Christian activism groups?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    14. Re:give me a break by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...burn your kids Wii...

      Interestingly, no matter how you interpret this sentence, your kid will not be looking at porn anymore!

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    15. Re:give me a break by Khuffie · · Score: 1

      Have you read the press release? The summary and the writeup on kotaku are sensationalists. Never did the press release say they are attacking the Wii with a smear campaign. All they said was that it could access the internet, and hence porn, and most parents don't know about this, and their goal is to educate parents, not stop the Wii.

      From the press release: So the solution lies in parents getting the facts and then talking to their children about expectations for online activity. Foster believes that, "Whether it is the home computer or these new gaming consoles, porn is easily accessible. The Wii is an amazing console and tons of fun but parents need good info on how to keep kids safe."

      Seriously editors...what the hell's wrong with you?

    16. Re:give me a break by nuzak · · Score: 1

      > Seriously editors...what the hell's wrong with you?

      The editors get an extra button on Firehose to post an article to the front page. That is all they do.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    17. Re:give me a break by eltonito · · Score: 1

      Kids could get porn through the Wii.

      I would argue this point. I have a Wii and I've used the browser and about the third thing I used the browser for was porn. One of the downfalls of browsing with the Wii is that it supports so few formats using it to view porn is nealry pointless. Sure that leaves us with photos, but browsing pages full of thumbnails is pretty obtuse on the Wii.

      So yeah... kids *could* view porn on a Wii, but they'd have to be pretty desperate.

      I would equate viewing porn on a Wii to moving apartments in a VW Beetle. Sure you could do, but there are much easier ways to accomplish the same thing much faster.

    18. Re:give me a break by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is how a parent can organize and pay for connectivity and still not know the thing is connected? Are there really any parents out there that are this monumentally stupid, has anyone here met one?

      And furthermore, if such parents really do exist then it's little wonder that the "kids are smarter than their parents" because these hypothetical, technologically naive, parents are either suffering from senility or must trully be as dumb as dog shit.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    19. Re:give me a break by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      ha ha, thanks :)

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    20. Re:give me a break by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Actually, I hadn't looked at the root article at that point in time yet. And yes the root article really isn't sensationalist (at least in that one article). For a site thats intention is to provide antiporn info to parents it does a decent job. The Kotaku, and many other news site aren't being very balanced though. The original poster though was trying to make a point that sensationalism wasn't bad if the message was accurate, and I simply disagree.

    21. Re:give me a break by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      "It may be a little sensationalist, but the basic point is fine."

      That's what the OP (me) wrote. How does this equate to saying "sensationalism wasn't bad if the message was accurate"? I was addressing "the basic point", not the sensationalism or the message as a whole.

      -stormin

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    22. Re:give me a break by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      Are there really any parents out there that are this monumentally stupid, has anyone here met one?

      Clearly not a parent. Here's a scenario: family has a cable modem. They use a wireless router. Possibly unsecured, but even if it is kids can probably figure out password (and may even have set it). Parents are concerned about porn and other online activities, so the family computer is in the kitchen or other high-traffic area. No computers in the bedrooms.

      But they have no problem putting a TV and a Wii in a bedroom. They are paying nothing extra for the connectivity to the Wii, and the kid could easily get onto the wireless without them ever knowing.

      And furthermore, if such parents really do exist then it's little wonder that the "kids are smarter than their parents" because these hypothetical, technologically naive, parents are either suffering from senility or must trully be as dumb as dog shit.

      Not grokking wi-if doesn't make someone senile or "dumb as dog shit". There are plenty of extremely intelligent people who just don't do tech, or at least don't understand all of its ramifications.

      -stormin

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    23. Re:give me a break by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Clearly not a parent."

      Actually I am on my way to becoming a grand-parent, my son built and ran his own BBS at the age of 12 (circa 1992).

      "Not grokking wi-if doesn't make someone senile or "dumb as dog shit".

      That is not what I said.

      "Here's a scenario: family has a cable modem. They use a wireless router."

      Who set this up and pays for both the connection and the Wii, the kid or the parent? Granted that some parents may spend so much on expensive hardware and services for their kids that they don't have a clue what their kids are doing, but I would also put those "parents" in the dumb as dogshit categegory.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    24. Re:give me a break by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      Look all I'm saying is that parents are paying for internet connectivity to the family computer. They may have no idea that the Wii is capable of latching onto that Wi-Fi. Should they know this? Yes. Are they "dumb as dogshit" if they don't? Hardly.

      Actually I am on my way to becoming a grand-parent, my son built and ran his own BBS at the age of 12 (circa 1992).

      I'd say that pretty much disqualifies you from being able to comment on parenting and technical issues. Obviously tech is a huge part of your life - it isn't for everyone.

      -stormin

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
  5. So? by maxume · · Score: 2, Informative

    The hysteria is silly, but it's not like they are making up the fact that it enables access to the internet at large. It sucks for the kids, but with crazy parents, lots of stuff sucks for the kids.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    1. Re:So? by Dan+Slotman · · Score: 1

      That's a good point. However, I wonder if this group has launched similar "porn-accessible" awareness campaigns for cell phones. Although a lot of conservative groups view technology distastefully in general, many seem particularly against video games. I wouldn't be surprised if they give the Wii or the "Playstation Pornable" (PSP) a worse rap than browser-enabled phones.

  6. Perverted Christinas by fatalwall · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't know about you, but I didn't even think of using it for that until now!

    1. Re:Perverted Christinas by Kamots · · Score: 1

      Same.

      My Wii is going to get a lot more use now.

    2. Re:Perverted Christinas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't get too excited. Recently Porn Tube stopped working. They updated their player to a version of Flash beyond the capabilities of the current Wii browser.

    3. Re:Perverted Christinas by UserGoogol · · Score: 5, Funny

      For fuck's sake, the thing has a one-handed controller! How could you not?

      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
    4. Re:Perverted Christinas by nuklearfusion · · Score: 1

      This is a group that has figured out how cell phones, and ipods are portals to porn.

      --

      There's no such thing as a stupid question, but there sure are a lot of inquisitive idiots.

    5. Re:Perverted Christinas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For fuck's sake, the thing has a one-handed controller! How could you not?

      Bobby! Bobby! You're shaking the wrong one!
    6. Re:Perverted Christinas by Diablo1399 · · Score: 1

      Ahahaha, you've got a point there.

  7. As a Christian myself... by dada21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...I look at Jesus' words and actions as significant and the previous story before Him and insignificant in terms of how we live. In my opinion, when Jesus said "Judge not others" He meant it.

    Christians who judge others haven't read their Bibles. It is time to move forth, Christians, read your Bibles, and get out of people's lives, especially the lives of non-Christians.

    Embarassing, to say the least.

    1. Re:As a Christian myself... by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      The two largest Christian communities, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, don't subscribe to the doctrine of private interpretation of Scripture. Instead of saying "As a Christian myself...", which lumps RCs and EOs in with you as if you share the very same beliefs, you should really have been more specific.

    2. Re:As a Christian myself... by dada21 · · Score: 1

      My beliefs in my faith leave no room for denominations or an unlimited variety of faiths -- to me, the Body is the Body, regardless of how they want to segregate themselves from others, or what they believe.

    3. Re:As a Christian myself... by Coryoth · · Score: 1

      In my opinion, when Jesus said "Judge not others" He meant it.

      So out of curiousity, when he was asked what one must do beyond knowing and following the 10 commandments in order to be admitted to heaven and he replied "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor", do you think he didn't mean it, or are you just not that interested in eternal life?
    4. Re:As a Christian myself... by arakon · · Score: 1

      Dude, my mod points ran out at midnight. That's probably the most intelligent thing I've ever read coming from someone professing to be of a certain religion on Slashdot. Don't Judge, lest ye be Judged. It's too damn bad most people don't have better things to do than stir up shit for other people. I don't fancy myself a practicing "Christian" but I have read the Bible, and I think there are a lot of social ideas that people on the whole need a better grasp on. My Favorite is "Neither a lender nor borrower be."

      --
      "If I were bound by all laws everywhere I'm sure I would have committed a capital crime somewhere."
    5. Re:As a Christian myself... by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Saying "As a Christian" and then talking about typically Protestant behaviour is as muddled a way of speaking as a Mexican saying "As a member of the species homo sapiens I eat tacos and celebrate Cinco de Mayo" when the real defining issue is his nationality.

    6. Re:As a Christian myself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christians who judge others haven't read their Bibles.

      And yet you are judging Christians who judge.

      Lord Almightly, where is Judge Judy when we need Her?

    7. Re:As a Christian myself... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Informative

      So out of curiousity, when he was asked what one must do beyond knowing and following the 10 commandments in order to be admitted to heaven and he replied "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor", do you think he didn't mean it, or are you just not that interested in eternal life?

      You are mistakenly quoting the law. Under the law it was incredibly difficult to get to heaven. Under grace, it's as easy as:

      "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." --John 3:16

      A reading of Galatians backs this up.

      "We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." --Galatians 2:15-21
    8. Re:As a Christian myself... by dada21 · · Score: 1

      "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor"

      Actually, I did something similar to this about 18 months ago -- I did sell almost everything I possessed and distributed all of the extra to a variety of charities in my area, and invested in a charity of my own. E-mail me for details.

      That being said, I believe the Kingdom message was focused on the Early Church, prior to His second coming which I believed happened in 70 AD, ending the Age/the Covenant of Abraham and David. With that ending of the Covenant came the end to the Commandments and the Law.

      It doesn't undo what Christ said about the basics of living, rather than the Kingdom perspective -- in my opinion two totally separate things.

      I also don't believe in having to do anything to get to heaven, whatever heaven may be -- not works, not faith, not action or follow-through. :)

    9. Re:As a Christian myself... by dada21 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. There is a lot of Truth there regardless of whether or not you believe it is the Word of God, God-inspired, a historical account of a really cool dude, or just some fictional thoughts. The biggest problem with Christianity are Christians, to paraphrase Gandhi.

    10. Re:As a Christian myself... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      So when the bible says that you should kill your children if they are disrespectful of their parents, you do it?

      If not (which I certainly hope), how can you base morality on the bible if you've got your own selective critera which parts to pick?

      (I'm asking this, because you've said, "Christians, read your Bibles [..and act upon it]".)

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    11. Re:As a Christian myself... by daigu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My sense is that Mark 4:24 and the related quotes from the other gospels is that it is about the basic moral principle of being careful to apply the same standard by which you judge others to yourself. I think it is a mistake to read it that we should not judge at all - but rather that we should judge fairly and not be hypocrites.

      The reductio argument for your position is that if we are unable to judge, then it would mean that we must tolerate behaviors such as murder, torture, lying, sexual abuse and so forth. I think this is an obvious problem with your position, and I think Jesus himself speaks rather loudly that this is not the case with his actions in Matthew 21:12.

      That said, I agree with the spirit of your post. Loving one's neighbor as oneself means sharing relevant information - such as the Wii is web-enabled and all that entails, but it also means searching our heart to discern the difference between loving concern for one's neighbor and judging them as if we were God - and doing our best to act in accordance with the former.

    12. Re:As a Christian myself... by oddfox · · Score: 1

      How is it being judgmental to inform someone that they're ignoring one of the key tenets to the religion they profess to prescribe to? And if by some strange twisting of the English language you do manage to get me on a technicality here, I hope you don't consider it a negative judgment, just someone saying "You're doing it wrong!" It's not a debatable point that Jesus taught his followers to not mete out judgment because it is simply not their place. There's plenty that's up for debate and interpretation with regards to the Bible, but not that point. Too many people forget this.

      FWIW I'm an agnostic.

      --
      "We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
    13. Re:As a Christian myself... by russellh · · Score: 1

      So out of curiousity, when he was asked what one must do beyond knowing and following the 10 commandments in order to be admitted to heaven and he replied "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor", do you think he didn't mean it, or are you just not that interested in eternal life?
      To answer that you have to also answer : was Jesus speaking to everyone for all enternity, or was he speaking to the people he was speaking to? Just askin'. I mean, when he said "take up thy bed and walk" does this mean that the followers of Christ should personally do that, every day? Or must we dig through all this nuance about context and translations and metaphor and stuff to get it. Although the character of Jesus as depicted in that book is way cool, it just so happens that I'm not a first century Hebrew nor am I disenfranchised enough to follow a prophet around the desert, so I doubt he was speaking to me. But I can understand many of his points in general... afaik.
      --
      must... stay... awake...
    14. Re:As a Christian myself... by Venerable+Vegetable · · Score: 1

      How exactly are they judging here? Telling the truth or pointing out flaws is not the same as judging. If you actualy read the press release you'll notice that they are generally positive about the wii, but think that parents should be more aware of the "dangers".

      Besides that, taking one sentence from the bible out of context and then using it literary is rather silly.

    15. Re:As a Christian myself... by nagora · · Score: 0, Troll
      read your Bibles,

      Oh, yeah, read what "Saint" Paul wanted you to read. That's not the same thing as what Jesus wanted you to hear. Not the same thing at all; that's why the bastard scuttled off to Rome, away from all those irritating people who knew Jesus and could contradict Paul's pathetic claptrap.

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    16. Re:As a Christian myself... by oddfox · · Score: 1

      Here's a rather quick follow-up after doing some Googling and reviewing of some expert opinions and analysis, etc... I wish I could retract my previous post because, quite frankly, the contradictions and muddied waters with regards to this topic make my head spin (No offense to those who've come to terms with their own interpretation). In any case, there seems to be some weight to the claim that Christians are to allow God to judge the unbelievers, and Christians are to judge other Christians by the same measurements they use for themselves.

      --
      "We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
    17. Re:As a Christian myself... by Johnny5000 · · Score: 1

      That being said, I believe the Kingdom message was focused on the Early Church, prior to His second coming which I believed happened in 70 AD, ending the Age/the Covenant of Abraham and David.

      I've never heard anyone claim the second coming happened already... where does this belief come from?

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    18. Re:As a Christian myself... by flynt · · Score: 1

      So not only is your god mutable, but at one point in time (approximately two thousand years ago) it punished people for myriad minutiae (I'm thinking of Leviticus here)? Is this really your worldview? I'm curious why you think your omnipotent god changed its mind all of a sudden?

    19. Re:As a Christian myself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FWIW I'm an agnostic.

      By definition, being agnostic is not worth anything.

    20. Re:As a Christian myself... by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 0

      Er... hate to break it to you, but todos naciones tienes uno Cinco de Mayo. (Broken Spanish, I know.)

      All nations have a Cinco de Mayo ... well, at least those that use the Gregorian calendar, which is anyone that wants to interact with one that does.

    21. Re:As a Christian myself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slow down cowboy, you're trying to reason with these people. Expect several half-assed rationalizations here with no actual logical argument. Here I'll try one.

      1. Either the Bible is the infallible word of god, or it is not.

      2. If it is, we should live by every word of it, regardless of what society teaches us is "right". This includes killing children and all the other things mentioned in the Bible.

      3. If it is not the infallible Word of God, either some parts are from God, or no parts are from God.

      4. If some parts are from God, we have no way of guessing which they are, since he hasn't sent another book telling us which ones. If you think you know which parts are from god, you must be a prophet of god.

      5. If no parts are from God, we should treat the bible as a historical/philosophical book, and take what works, but never think it is actual "truth".

      WHICH ONE OF THESE CONCLUSIONS WOULD LEAD TO THE BEST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS?

    22. Re:As a Christian myself... by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Right, and how many nations celebrate it?

    23. Re:As a Christian myself... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      It is because of these kinds of Christians that I am reminded of the words of Gandhi:

      I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    24. Re:As a Christian myself... by shudde · · Score: 1

      I'm reluctanctly forced to agree with you. To me however the Body is a pasta dish and my God created your God a week last tuesday.

      Pastafarianism... now faith isn't just for the deranged.

    25. Re:As a Christian myself... by edflyerssn007 · · Score: 1

      All, no one skips straight to the 6th. As for the GP, the word was tienen.
      -Ed

      --
      So you see what had happened was....
    26. Re:As a Christian myself... by ChibiOne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right, and how many nations celebrate it?

      Only one: The United States of America. More specificaly, the White House and the Mexican-Americans in the US.

      Mexico does not celebrate the Cinco de Mayo. It is remembered of course, as an important (and one of the very few) military victory of the Army against a foreign enemy (the French), but it is NOT an official hoilday.

    27. Re:As a Christian myself... by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The best way to relize there is no personal god is to study the bible.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    28. Re:As a Christian myself... by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      To "celebrate" a day suggests that there is a celebration arranged. For most nations, the sixth is a day like most others.

    29. Re:As a Christian myself... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Now he knows what it feels like to post anonymously.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    30. Re:As a Christian myself... by edflyerssn007 · · Score: 1

      There was no change of mind. Jesus came and his sacrifice (sacrifice was required for atonement of sins) was all that was needed. Because Jesus was perfect, he could actually pay for everyone's sins thereby making all that is now necessary was to just accept his sacrifice for ourselves. That is the doctrine of grace.

      -Ed

      --
      So you see what had happened was....
    31. Re:As a Christian myself... by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      My apologies, I meant to write that the fifth is a day like most others.

    32. Re:As a Christian myself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "judge righteous judgment" John 7:24

    33. Re:As a Christian myself... by oddfox · · Score: 1

      Not worth anything? Well that's a peculiar way of looking at it... It's not like I put that at the end there to go "'sup bitches, shout out to all my agnostic homies!" I was simply stating that I don't commit to any particular dogma and god(s). It's called covering your ass and preventing people from assuming the wrong thing.

      I don't know why I even bother to respond to Anonymous anymore...

      --
      "We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
    34. Re:As a Christian myself... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So not only is your god mutable

      What's the point in being God if the rules don't follow your whim? :P

      Actually, the law is based on a single promise. The promise of eternal life to Adam and Eve. The problem was that Adam and Eve failed to follow the single law they were given (don't eat from the tree at the center of the garden) and were cast out. But that's not entirely fair to their descendents, so they each had the choice to live their life according to the promise given. The 10 Commandments were a set of laws God gave to the Jewish civilization so that they would know how to conduct themselves in a pure form. If one sinned, they were required to atone for that sin. The most common atonement was to slaughter a lamb as a sacrifice. This was symbolic of the fate that would await the savior. You see, in Judaism, they believed in Christ before he came. Those who continue to practice Judaism believe that he hasn't arrived yet.

      The harshest penalty (death) was reserved for only the highest crimes, murder being the most obvious. Even then, you'll note that God was merciful in many sitations, sparing the the life of the individual.

      at one point in time (approximately two thousand years ago) it punished people for myriad minutiae (I'm thinking of Leviticus here)

      You need to be more specific. Leviticus set up the laws under which the Jewish people lived. They did not differ all that significantly from the laws we live under today. The only thing that's changed is that today's laws are not as hard and fast as those of the old testament. e.g. When you sleep with a virgin woman outside of marriage, it may be "wrong" from a Christian perspective, but the law doesn't require you to marry her and pay the father 100 shekels of silver. Today's law in Christian societies recognizes grace, which the old testament did not. This follows a general societal pattern of placing greater value on life. If you look back in history to the period in which Leviticus was written, the humans of the world did not place a very high value on an individual's right to live.

      I'm curious why you think your omnipotent god changed its mind all of a sudden?

      He didn't "suddenly change his mind". First off, the savior was promised to the Jews long before he arrived. The primary purpose of the Bible is to track his lineage, going all the way back to Adam and Eve. It was important that Jesus be a son of man and not of the Niphilim. The Bible also tells us that Jesus spent time in the place of imprisioned spirits (hell? purgatory? I'll leave that to the scholars) preaching to them so that they might also be saved.
    35. Re:As a Christian myself... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Tener no es feriar. Tu ingles esta roto?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    36. Re:As a Christian myself... by MightyYar · · Score: 1
      I'm not a Christian, but I went to Catholic school. Catholics, while they get a bad rap, actually have logical, reasoned arguments for all of this stuff. After all, they have been studying the Bible for thousands of years, and have been pretty open to scientific discoveries for the last 50-100.

      1. Either the Bible is the infallible word of god, or it is not. It is the word of God, as written by man. Like man, the written word of man is fallible.

      2. If it is, we should live by every word of it, regardless of what society teaches us is "right". This includes killing children and all the other things mentioned in the Bible. Two-part answer. One, much of the rules in the old testament are left behind as soon as Christ died. I don't know how the Jews would answer this. Part two is to see #1 and understand that the Bible was written by several human authors.

      3. If it is not the infallible Word of God, either some parts are from God, or no parts are from God. I think that they would say that it is "inspired by God". Or that the authors were guided or led by God.

      4. If some parts are from God, we have no way of guessing which they are, since he hasn't sent another book telling us which ones. If you think you know which parts are from god, you must be a prophet of god. Ahhh, this is what the Pope is for. The Church is guided by God in the same way that the Bible was written by God. The Vatican is there to help Catholics sort all of this out. After all, we can't ALL devote our entire livelihood to studying the Bible.

      5. If no parts are from God, we should treat the bible as a historical/philosophical book, and take what works, but never think it is actual "truth". I'm with you on this one, and this actually isn't far off from the belief of the Catholics. The main difference is that they believe the Bible to be at the very least divinely guided and inspired. That is, it does convey the will of God.

      WHICH ONE OF THESE CONCLUSIONS WOULD LEAD TO THE BEST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS? I have no idea. I won't pretend that my world view is better than a Christian's.
      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    37. Re:As a Christian myself... by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Whoa whoa whoa, I'm not saying anything about celebrating it, just that they *have* a Fifth of May. You were acting like Mexico is the only country with a Cinco de Mayo. Hey, guess what -- the UK has a Fourth of July! Funny how that works out.

    38. Re:As a Christian myself... by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      If you'd bother reading my original post, you'll notice that I used the word "celebrate" in relation to the date, I didn't make merely the general remark that it exists for Mexicans.

    39. Re:As a Christian myself... by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Oh, I caught that. I'm just talking about the general tone of your remark. If you were looking for examples of things unique to Mexico, "Fifth of May" ain't gonna cut it.

    40. Re:As a Christian myself... by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      No, but the placing of the term "celebrate" with "Fifth of May" should serve as something fairly easily identifiable as related specifically to the stereotype of Mexican culture.

    41. Re:As a Christian myself... by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      I'm just messin' with ya. Chill out. Let me buy you a taco. Too bad I can only order it from Mexico ... ;-)

    42. Re:As a Christian myself... by Mursk · · Score: 1

      Ramen!

      --
      "This thing does science so hard, you say, 'I've never seen that much science.'" -Sam
    43. Re:As a Christian myself... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Mexico does not celebrate the Cinco de Mayo. It is remembered of course, as an important (and one of the very few) military victory of the Army against a foreign enemy (the French), but it is NOT an official hoilday.

      Mexico absolutely does celebrate Cinco de Mayo. I hear it's a *huge* holiday in the state of Puebla, and it is an official holiday nationwide. What it is not is Mexico's independence day. That's September 16th.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    44. Re:As a Christian myself... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Mexico does not celebrate the Cinco de Mayo. It is remembered of course, as an important (and one of the very few) military victory of the Army against a foreign enemy (the French), but it is NOT an official hoilday.

      Mexico absolutely does celebrate Cinco de Mayo. I hear it's a *huge* holiday in the state of Puebla, and it is an official holiday nationwide. What it is not is Mexico's independence day. That's September 16th.

      Correcting myself -- After looking it up, I'm not so sure. It was definitely celebrated in Veracruz (mainly by school kids putting on dance exhibitions), where I lived for a couple of years and many web sites, including the English Wikipedia, call it a national holiday. However, the Spanish Wikipedia says that it's not celebrated much outside of Puebla. Googling further, I found a few other web sites that call it a regional holiday, rather than a national holiday -- and some that say both!

      So, I withdraw my claim that it's a national holiday.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    45. Re:As a Christian myself... by ChibiOne · · Score: 1

      Sure, man. Just felt an urge to clarify that. :)

    46. Re:As a Christian myself... by spacebird · · Score: 1

      So then why does the article say "Christians," and not "Fundamentalist Protestants?" It's naive to say that all Christians aren't immediately lumped in with the wackos by this kind of headline.

      --
      What, me? Never.
    47. Re:As a Christian myself... by niXcamiC · · Score: 1

      Technicaly he didn't say not to judge people, just not to judge people unless you also want to be judged. There is quite a difference.

      --
      Chances are any disscution on Slashdot will degrade into a flamewar about ID/Christianity within 14 posts.
    48. Re:As a Christian myself... by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1
      I'm exhausted (assembly midterm today and server problems at work) so forgive me if this seems more like a stream of conscienceness, without any citations, than an actual post.

      With that preamble aside, my scattered thoughts are as follows:

      Jesus says do not judge, but he never said not to be minimally observant!

      He says that he is the Son of the Living God and that the fruits of the Spirit will attest to that. How, then, could we say that he has the fruits of the Spirit, unless we consider his actions, words, deeds, and his life, death and resurrection. Simply put, he states that he is the real deal and to test it for yourself. I was an atheist before I came to know Him; but, I found that he backs his claim. Was that to judge him? No.

      I believe that the kind of judgement being talked about could be likened to the men who brought a woman, caught sleeping around (or to that effect, see disclaimer at top), and were ready to stone her to death. All of them, just as much sinners as she was, just as deserving punishment under the law, having forgotten that - were ready to take her life. And what does Jesus say? 'Let the man who has not sinned throw the first stone'. I believe in that moment he gives himself permission to throw the first stone (can't remember where, but he later asks if anyone can really accuse him of ever sinning and no one could), since he was perfect in nature and character. All he had to do was throw the first stone and everyone else could have finished the job, so to speak. The only there who could rightfully condemn her, and he doesn't. Thus, we see the grace of God. And, the nature of man, looking past his own woeful shortcomings and somehow assuming the right to be judge, jury, and executioner.

      The bible also talks about an open rebuke being better than hidden love (proverbs?), and speaks of rebuking your brother, privately, out of love for him. My best friends in the Body will take me aside and let me know I'm acting like a fool when I am. My friends from before my revelation of Christ merely talk about me behind my back to eachother and then each, in turn comes back to me to tell me what so-and-so has been saying. Is that a judgement on them; no, it's merely a matter of fact I've experienced. But, do I open up to them very much; well... based on my observations, it would not be wise.

      I guess to sum up my thoughts on the matter (and to get to bed, at that), judging seems to offshoot directly from pride (let us not forget God resists the proud - take a look at any one of the numerous examples of the prideful in the bible), where we put ourselves 'above' someone else. When we forget that there is not one righteous amongst us. We are told to test the spirit behind things, does it produce good fruit? Is it inspired from love, self-control, or the rest of the fruits of the Spirit that I can't think of this time in the morning? I don't know the people from the article, their motivations, or intentions; that's between them and God, and none of my business.

      Sorry, I get longwinded when I'm tired.

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    49. Re:As a Christian myself... by grolschie · · Score: 1

      Excellent post! Very well articulated. I wish that I had mod points. :-)

    50. Re:As a Christian myself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That being said, I believe the Kingdom message was focused on the Early Church, prior to His second coming which I believed happened in 70 AD, ending the Age/the Covenant of Abraham and David. With that ending of the Covenant came the end to the Commandments and the Law.
      Preterist?
    51. Re:As a Christian myself... by daigu · · Score: 1

      I disagree with you. To demonstrate, I think the most unambiguous case is self-reflection - where you are judging your own behavior. Self-reflection is an important part of a spiritual life and it is an instance of judging.

      Pride comes into the equation when we judge inaccurately in a way that inflates our perception of importance beyond the actuality - if we attribute more to ourselves than to others, if we assume an infalliability in our judgment that rightly belongs to God, etc. I believe this is why you hear so much about humility - which is an underestimation of our importance - as an antidote.

      However, judge we must. Without judgment, you can have no morality, no basis to differentiate between good and evil, and no basis for community (especially a spiritual community - which is necessary to the spiritual life to temper individual mistakes and to discern God's continuing revelation).

    52. Re:As a Christian myself... by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      Looking at the press release, I'm not sure it's so much about judging as about "raising awareness."

      You're able to surf the net, chat with friends, email, and view porn because of its internet access. Kids know this but parents don't!

      Sounds like they are concerned that parents are so clueless that they might not be aware kids can do this. Personally, I'm not sure this is the way to solve the problem of clueless Christian parents. I tend to think that blaming the parents and calling on them to wake up is more effective than blaming the device. It's too much of a copout to let parents have this excuse. "Oh, I tried to raise them right, but I didn't know just how bad things were, and I didn't know just how many ways they could get to it. It's not my fault." If your a Christian parent, I say, yes it is. "Awareness campaigns" (or "smear campaigns") like this just help contribute to the thinking that it's hopefully for parents to ever outsmart their kids and keep up with the modern world, and make them think it's okay not to try.

    53. Re:As a Christian myself... by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      Good post, but I hate to tell you that "Neither a lender nor borrower be" is from Shakespeare, not the Bible. :) But you might be thinking of "Owe no man anything but to love one another" (Romans 13:8).

    54. Re:As a Christian myself... by dada21 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the common term is preterism, and there is a huge following of Christians who espouse at least a partial-preterist perspective. MOST preterists don't go to a "church" though because we believe that the Church is the entire body of humanity -- those who believe in Christ or not.

      Mainstream Evangelical Christians believe preterism is heresy and damnable, as do Catholics and most of the Protestant movement. The biggest problem with preterism for the dispensational Christian is that what it espouses conflicts with the idea of building up the "church" they attend, plus preterists don't believe in the mainstream Christian profession for human laws, spreading the gospel, and the rest.

      Hit me up with an e-mail and I can give you some of my links, including my own sites on the matter.

    55. Re:As a Christian myself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that I disagree with you but the scripture is Matthew 7 verse 1 and 2: "1Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." So the admonition isn't for people not to judge but not to judge others by a standard they themselves can't or won't live up to. As someone who has read their bible I would have figured you to know that.

    56. Re:As a Christian myself... by grolschie · · Score: 1

      Actually, the common term is preterism, and there is a huge following of Christians who espouse at least a partial-preterist perspective. MOST preterists don't go to a "church" though because we believe that the Church is the entire body of humanity -- those who believe in Christ or not.
      Please help me understand this. If the preterist "church" is considered to be the entire body of humanity (including unrepentant rapists, murderers, adulterers, satanists, atheists, etc), if that be the case, then God has a very messed up family. And the violence, perversion and hate is getting worse every day! His body would be getting more corrupt every day it would seem. So are these people all automatically welcomed with open arms into heaven upon their departure from the earth, regardless of the decisions that they have made? Even those who reject/hate God?

      Regarding the 70AD completiong of God's programme, in Matthew 28, Jesus states that when the gospel is preached to all nations, then will the end come. This was not the case by AD70 ( although some claim that representatives of each nation were present in Jerusalem at penticost). In reality, there are still many unreached people groups and cultures where the gospel has never been heard. What use is there in preaching the "good news" if all people are already saved and nothing they can do affects their eternity?

      Many of the biblical prophecies have their fulfillment in 2 different time periods, especially those in the Old Testament that supposedly combine Christ's death and Kingly reign. Isn't Jesus meant to setup his Kingly throne for a time in Jerusalem? Seen Jerusalem lately?

      Jesus' own disciples didn't really believe that He would die, even though He told them plainly. They probably expected Him to take His throne in the physical sense. The OT prophecies would seem to imply this. Perhaps many of the prophecies that were fulfilled in 70AD actually and have their fulfillment in multiple time periods as well.
    57. Re:As a Christian myself... by arakon · · Score: 1

      You're right, but I always thought that one was much more elegant than :Exodus 22:25-27:, which basically says the same thing but a little more verbose. :)

      But the Romans 13:8 was a good lookup too. Thanks for the reminder.

      --
      "If I were bound by all laws everywhere I'm sure I would have committed a capital crime somewhere."
    58. Re:As a Christian myself... by dada21 · · Score: 1

      Please help me understand this. If the preterist "church" is considered to be the entire body of humanity (including unrepentant rapists, murderers, adulterers, satanists, atheists, etc), if that be the case, then God has a very messed up family. And the violence, perversion and hate is getting worse every day! His body would be getting more corrupt every day it would seem. So are these people all automatically welcomed with open arms into heaven upon their departure from the earth, regardless of the decisions that they have made? Even those who reject/hate God?

      Yes. Why? God is a loving God. Jesus Christ did not come to earth to die for men, He did it for the Father -- to reconcile the Father's loved children and creation to be stewards of His earth, not to be judged or penalized for their shortcomings.

      Regarding the 70AD completiong of God's programme, in Matthew 28, Jesus states that when the gospel is preached to all nations, then will the end come. This was not the case by AD70 ( although some claim that representatives of each nation were present in Jerusalem at penticost). In reality, there are still many unreached people groups and cultures where the gospel has never been heard. What use is there in preaching the "good news" if all people are already saved and nothing they can do affects their eternity?

      Your Bible, unfortunately, is wrong. Scofield and Moody in the late 19th century really did a number on the Church in order to try to push the Evangelical ideology into the mainstream. The New Testament supposedly says that Christ would not return until the Gospel was preached to all the nations, but "nations" did not mean the entire Earth. The Hebrew and Greek text supports the definition there of "all of Rome" or "all of the Roman Empire" where the Gospel SURELY was preached in entirety.

      There is no need to preach the Good News, in fact I believe that the great commission is over.


      Many of the biblical prophecies have their fulfillment in 2 different time periods, especially those in the Old Testament that supposedly combine Christ's death and Kingly reign. Isn't Jesus meant to setup his Kingly throne for a time in Jerusalem? Seen Jerusalem lately?


      No. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christ will reign (especially not for 1000 years). All it says is that the faithful and righteous BEFORE the second coming will reign WITH Christ. How they will reign, and specifically where, is unknown.

      Jesus' own disciples didn't really believe that He would die, even though He told them plainly. They probably expected Him to take His throne in the physical sense. The OT prophecies would seem to imply this. Perhaps many of the prophecies that were fulfilled in 70AD actually and have their fulfillment in multiple time periods as well.

      I fully believe that. I laugh a little in my heart when Christians tell me that Christ surely couldn't have returned already because look at the world. But I remind them that Jews today refuse to believe that the Messiah came 2000 years ago because THEIR interpretation of prophecy was not fulfilled -- just like the mainstream Christian refuses to believe that we live without sin today.

    59. Re:As a Christian myself... by grolschie · · Score: 1
      From your link:

      Don't confuse your desires and your wants with sin -- they may be evil, they may be good, but the only way to know is to utilize your conscience (the Holy Spirit, which resides in ALL men including unbelievers!) to discern what is right and what is wrong. No one else can tell you what is right for you or wrong for you -- only you can discover that on your own.
      Surely if the entire world have the indwelling Holy Spirit, then the fruit of the Spirit in everyone's life would be love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Think of how this would radically change the world. Reality check: evil abounds on planet Earth. Look around you, this definitely ain't a New Heaven and a New Earth. Has God wiped away all our tears yet? Is there pain and suffering still? There is still alot of pain and tears in this world.

      In your opinion, what is the Great White Throne judgement? Judgement Seat of Christ? The Second Death? When are/were these?

      "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? " - Hebrews 10:26-29.

      So what about people who were once cleansed by Christ's blood, and then later reject it? You are saying everyone is now clean, but many "clean" people reject Christ's sacrafice! There is no longer a sacrafice for their sin it would seem. Therefore God's judgement is on them. How does your view handle this scripture?
    60. Re:As a Christian myself... by dada21 · · Score: 1

      Surely if the entire world have the indwelling Holy Spirit, then the fruit of the Spirit in everyone's life would be love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Think of how this would radically change the world.

      I agree with part of what you're saying, but I don't agree that it is "all or nothing" in terms of fruit of the Spirit. I do believe that all men have the Holy Spirit within, but not all men care to listen (not even Christians, necessarily). When you listen to the guidance, surely you bear good fruit. I think you're sort of saying that "Every man planted tomato seeds, why don't we all have tomatoes?" That's because not everyone allows them to grow, and some ignore the seeds once they're planted and they wither and die.

      Reality check: evil abounds on planet Earth. Look around you, this definitely ain't a New Heaven and a New Earth. Has God wiped away all our tears yet? Is there pain and suffering still? There is still alot of pain and tears in this world.

      That's another great point. Evil does abound, but evil != sin. Sin merely means falling short of God's demands, and if Christ fulfilled all of God's demands for us, there are no demands to fall short of, hence there is no sin. We will have mortal desires because we don't have completely knowledge as God does. As to pain/suffering/tears, that reference in the New Testament refers to Psalm 116, which actually associated death with pain/suffering/tears. I believe there is no death (spiritual, that is), so we don't have to associate the pain/suffering/tears any more. I think from an English translation perspective it is a stretch, and to delve into the Hebrew/Greek deeper would occupy much more space than I have, but I will write an article about it in the near future -- it is definitely something I am comfortable continuing the debate on, but we have to dive a little deeper into WHY certain words were chosen. For me, much of the NT is eschatological in nature, which shows fulfillment of prophecy in the way that the previous prophecies were fulfilled -- same words, same terms, same imagery.

      In your opinion, what is the Great White Throne judgement? Judgement Seat of Christ? The Second Death? When are/were these?

      All happened in the past with the destruction of the Great Temple, the death of Nero and the great war. 63AD to 70AD (7 years).

      You are saying everyone is now clean, but many "clean" people reject Christ's sacrafice! There is no longer a sacrafice for their sin it would seem. Therefore God's judgement is on them. How does your view handle this scripture?

      I don't believe Christ died for our sins for MAN, He did it for the Father to reconcile man to God. God's judgment only occurs when we fall short of His expectations, but His expectations were fulfilled completely in the Life of Jesus, the Father's desire for blood for falling short was fulfilled by the Death of Jesus, the opening of the Holy Spirit for all men occurred after the Resurrection/Ascension, and I believe that the vanquishing of Sin occurred at the second coming.

  8. Somehow by Normal+Dan · · Score: 5, Funny

    This makes me more inclined to buy a Wii. I usually do not like console games, but if I can look up porn while getting exercises while angering a Christan group, I do believe it is worth it.

    --
    A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
    1. Re:Somehow by greed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, I think you're not going to be alone. I guess if I want a Wii I'd better just order one and wait in the queue, store stock just won't happen now.

      Not for porn, though, I've got dozens of ways of showing porn all around the house. Well, 4 or 5 anyway.

    2. Re:Somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but if I can look up porn while getting exercises while angering a Christan group

      Unfortunately, the only thing you'd be exercising is your wrist.

    3. Re:Somehow by kitzkar · · Score: 1

      if I can look up porn while getting exercises while angering a Christan group, I do believe it is worth it. I thought I was already doing that with my pr0n.

  9. They've overlooked the obvious!! by navygeek · · Score: 1

    In their righteous fervor they seem to have missed the GOVERNMENT (local gov'ts anyway) supporting free access to porn. Why in most cities across the country little Timmy can go to his local library and check out old issues of National Geographic - which, as we all know, has plenty of pictures of Nubian goddesses in all their naked glory!

    Let them go nuts on the Wii and PSP! As long as they don't take my National Geographic!



    Obligatory Chasing Amy [imdb.com] quote - "What's a Nubian?"

    1. Re:They've overlooked the obvious!! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0

      The Economist had a cover some years ago that featured two camels having sex in the desert. The female camel on the bottom wasn't too happy with her rider on top. What does that had to do with economics? Beats me.

  10. Wii is for porn. by trdrstv · · Score: 1
    Yup. Glad they found that out. I actually used the Wii for Porn at Launch when I realized the photo channel will play motion JPEG, and again when the Opera browser launched...

    Good times, Good times.

    1. Re:Wii is for porn. by anti-human+1 · · Score: 0

      I actually used the Wii for Porn at Launch...

      There isn't an "a" in Lunch.

      No? Wait... What do you do during your lunch break?

      I always thought thats why fast food was built to be eaten with one hand...
  11. Well, of course by Pluvius · · Score: 1

    You can do this on the PS3 as well, and the Dreamcast allowed it before. That's not really new. What I was hoping for when I saw the headline was confirmation that there would be games using the "interactive" powers of the Wiimote. Now that I could (ahem) get behind.

    Rob

    1. Re:Well, of course by the_tsi · · Score: 1

      ...So you're saying you want to play Reacharound 2K7 on your Wii? If there's anything you should be motion controlling while playing a "porn game," I'd say that the actual Nintendo controller ought to be pretty low on the list.

    2. Re:Well, of course by Pluvius · · Score: 1

      The Wiimote would act as my own penis, actually. In fact, I could see Fleshlight making a video game where you attach one of their own products to the bottom of the controller, thus being the first product that uses the same hand for input and masturbation. You could also make a separate video game for women that does the same thing with a standard dildo.

      Hey, where are you going? I haven't even gotten to my BDSM idea yet!

      Rob

    3. Re:Well, of course by skorch · · Score: 1

      I think I have what you're looking for: http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=227

  12. As if Wiis weren't already hard enough to get... by allanc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Man, if you thought it was difficult to find a Wii in the store before...

    1. This Christian group is planning to provide free advertisement for the Wii. "There's No Such Thing As Bad Publicity"
    2. This Christian group is planning to provide free advertisements that inform people that they can use the Wii to look at porn on their bigscreen TV.

  13. Inflamitory nature aside... by RingDev · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't think this is all that bad. Sure, people will say "The parents should read the label", but how many of those 'caution' labels do you actually read? The damn things are like Vista UAC warnings, you don't Actually read them, you just acknowledge them.

    Anyways, if this group's inflammatory campaign motivates parents to better monitory their children's online behavior, then all the better. If Sony/MS/Nitendo lose a handful of sales to far right wing conservatives, I doubt it will make or break the bottom line.

    -Rick

    PS: Link for those "Label lovers" out there: http://engrish.com/

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  14. Uhhh ... parental security features? by KillaBeave · · Score: 5, Informative

    Did these people not know that, in order to use the Opera browser on the Wii, you first have to download it from the Wii Shopping Channel ... In order to get to the Will Shopping Channel, you must input a PIN number. To use Opera once it's downloaded ... you must input your PIN.

    That was put there so PARENTS COULD HAVE CONTROL OVER WHAT THEIR KIDS DO WITH THE MACHINE! (Sorry for the yelling...) "Wii == Porn Portal" makes a much better headline than "Parents too busy to take responsibility for thier kids."

    I mean seriouly, it takes all of 2 minutes to setup a PIN number on the Wii. It takes even less time to not tell your kids what the PIN # is. If you can't trouble parents with that level of responsibility, what are they there for?

    1. Re:Uhhh ... parental security features? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the way you input the pin number makes it very easy to find out what it is when entered, same with any password login for a webpage.

    2. Re:Uhhh ... parental security features? by the_wesman · · Score: 2, Informative

      you know, the "N" in "PIN" stands for "number" ... so a "PIN Number" is a "personal identification number number" ... similar for the "M" in "ATM" (which stands for "machine") so, going to an "ATM Machine" doesn't make sense either ... I also hate when people talk about "DNS Servers" .... I just thought I should tell you

      --
      calling all destroyers
    3. Re:Uhhh ... parental security features? by Mr.+Ksoft · · Score: 1

      When I downloaded the Opera browser I never had to input a PIN number. Sadly, that theory is dead.

    4. Re:Uhhh ... parental security features? by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just FYI, 'DNS' is the 'Domain Name System', so 'DNS servers' isn't redundant. Rant on, I agree with the rest of what you said :-).

    5. Re:Uhhh ... parental security features? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      The last one could make sense: if you had a bunch of them running in virtual machines on one big server. Ignore for a moment the question of why you would bother doing that.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    6. Re:Uhhh ... parental security features? by trdrstv · · Score: 1
      When I downloaded the Opera browser I never had to input a PIN number. Sadly, that theory is dead.

      No, it just means you didn't enable the (voluntary) parental controls. I don't have them on either. If you don't know how to turn them on, check the manual or just wait until Manhunt 2 gets a release date as Nintendo will go out of their way to inform all users how to set them.

    7. Re:Uhhh ... parental security features? by jeffeb3 · · Score: 1

      It also tells me about the parental controls every time I connect to the internet, for updates, for the web, for the shop, for everything.

      When I was a kid (sooo long ago, I'm 23) I would set things up myself to avoid parental controls. But with this thing displaying about parental controls all the time, I would find it hard for a responsible parent to not see the message within a month or two.

      I also don't think there's anything wrong with parental controlling the internet browser to completely shut it off. You aren't really sensoring them, because they have the normal PC with internet anyway (who would have high speed internet just for their wii?)

      I'm surprised I haven't seen more lude jokes about one handed controlling, the vibration built into the controller, playing with your wiiwii, nothing?

    8. Re:Uhhh ... parental security features? by ad0gg · · Score: 1

      The best preventive feature is the download time. It took me over 2 hours to grab the'Trial version' of opera. No kid has that patience. I kid i kid. Though i'm not sure why marketplace downloads are so slow. Or why they call opera, a trial version when there is no expire date. Or why wariorware is so damn addicting.

      --

      Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

    9. Re:Uhhh ... parental security features? by aj50 · · Score: 1

      Why is any nintendo internet related feature so slow. Serious question here. Using Opera is quite quick, connecting to Wii Shop or the News channel takes forever. Mariokart is pretty slow to connect too.

      --
      I wish to remain anomalous
    10. Re:Uhhh ... parental security features? by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Trial = beta.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  15. It all comes down to the parents' responsibility by kaizokunami · · Score: 1

    "Kids know this but parents don't!" Then isn't it the parents' job to become educated on the capabilities of the items they buy for their children? Preferably before buying it.

  16. Yes, this is reactionary....however... by StressGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Having a couple of small children who play the GameCube, and knowing the Wii provides internet access and is backwards-compatable with the GameCube games...I have been considering getting one so as to have an internet access port at the TV for sites like "Playhouse Disney", "Nicklodeon", "PBS", etc.

    Not to be a prude, but there is some pretty harsh stuff out there (not just porn BTW) that is not exactly "kid-friendly".

    While screaming, "but you can get to porn!...THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" is a tad reactionary, it would be a cool feature to store a "white-list" of acceptable websites on the console. So, that this particular "internet access port" is limited to specific locations - very much like enabling "parental control" on my Satellite TV box.

    That would seem reasonable.

    --
    A goal is a dream with a deadline
    1. Re:Yes, this is reactionary....however... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Use your router/firewall/linksys to build your white list based on IP address of the Wii.

  17. Friend Codes by Infe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So we go through all the nonsense of using friend codes to keep the console kiddie-friendly, and still the wii is targetted by prudes and whatnot. What gives? Just drop the stupid friend codes, you're not winning friends on either side of this issue, Nintendo.

    --
    Posted by yintercept - "...science...[is] the study of the 'divine creation.' "
  18. does anyone... by White+Shade · · Score: 3, Interesting

    does anyone take these Christian groups seriously enough for this to actually be a problem?

    Christian groups seem to decry basically everything and everyone, and they seem to love dropping the "porn" bombshell left and right, but outside their little communities and fellow zealots, is there really any threat whatsoever from these people? And, as such, is this really newsworthy? I'd really only begin to worry if people in Congress start talking about it.

    and, as a slight aside, am I the only one who have noticed that kids who grow up in these perfectly wholesome and innocent Christian-value-centric homes seem to end up being significantly maladjusted and immature in a sense that even though they end up as good adults, they're really completely unprepared to actually live in the world?

    *sigh* ... i think everyone needs a bit of porn in their lives. how else are you supposed to know what goes where? :D

    --
    ìì!
    1. Re:does anyone... by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      does anyone take these Christian groups seriously enough for this to actually be a problem?

      Speaking as someone who lives in the bible belt, I can tell you that a lot of people here certainly do take the things those sort of groups say seriously.

      Not everyone here is like that, but there are people here who judge you based on what church you do or don't belong to, how god-fearing they think you are, etc.

      Reasons I wear my pa-kua under my shirt.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    2. Re:does anyone... by markbt73 · · Score: 1

      ...is there really any threat whatsoever from these people?

      Well, they helped put Bush in office, so I'd say yeah...

      --
      "Oh boy! Are we going to try something dangerous?"
    3. Re:does anyone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, if you mean using porn as a sex education tool, i can see the problem:

      "But honey, you are supposed to like ass-to-mouth!"

      "You sure I shouldn't put this saran wrap and your chest and take a dump?"

      "Alright! Let me call my friends and find a big bottle of lube! Do you want to blow jason or don first?"

      "What? Every girl likes cum on her face, in her hair, and up the nose!"

    4. Re:does anyone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *sigh* ... i think everyone needs a bit of porn in their lives. how else are you supposed to know what goes where? :D

      Dude, I've never seen any porn, and I hit that ear-hole every time!
    5. Re:does anyone... by not-enough-info · · Score: 1

      *sigh* ... i think everyone needs a bit of porn in their lives. how else are you supposed to know what goes where? :D Trial and error worked for me! :D
      --
      ---k--
      </stupid>
    6. Re:does anyone... by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah. The Christian Right(tm) is a massive power in US politics, and since no one interferes in the politics of others like the USA at the moment, it is a concern. Didn't Bush admit that he had a dream that the US had invaded Iraq, and that was part of his reasoning behind the 2nd Gulf War? I got the impression that the President decided to invade Iraq, and then his flunkies/managers determined to find a reason for doing so - and WMD seemed like a good bet.

      I worry considerably about the Christian Right. I don't think it has anyone but its own interests at heart, I think it has an agenda to bring Christianity *back* into the school system and to erode the separation of Church and State. I think overall its potentiall quite dangerous. Now, I am not blaming all Christians, or even all politically conservative Christians, its just that I feel some concern when I see a *religious* segment of the population being organized to exert *political* power. When you see Judges putting up the 10 commandments in a courthouse and refusing to remove them (and thus raising the spectre of a non-christian receiving unfair treatment in that court due to religious bias on the part of the presiding judges), when you see the constant bombardment of established scientific theory by hairbrained "Intelligent Design" advocates - and they aren't immediately laughed out of existence, and when you see constant attempts to reintroduce Christian Prayer back into the secular school system, I think its all a concern.

      Yeah, I fear the Christian Right and its power to shape the opinions of well-meaning but often essentially uninformed people concerning political issues, in the country with the most military power in the world and with a government that is willing to use that might regularly.A government that is increasingly restricting its citizens rights to privacy and liberty, and denying its supposedly cherished rights and freedoms to anyone it thinks might be an enemy combatant.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    7. Re:does anyone... by White+Shade · · Score: 1

      *sigh*... so much for getting any sleep tonight :(

      --
      ìì!
    8. Re:does anyone... by popejeremy · · Score: 1

      Christian groups seem to decry basically everything and everyone, and they seem to love dropping the "porn" bombshell left and right, but outside their little communities and fellow zealots, is there really any threat whatsoever from these people?

      Apparently you've missed the last 10 years of governance in the US. This small minority holds a *lot* of sway in what goes on. They've passed laws restricting gambling, pornography, sex, and rights for homosexuals. Basically everything I like, they have a head start in stopping altogether.

  19. A little sensationalist by Skadet · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This non-story is a little sensationalist on *both* sides.

    First of all, the press release isn't bashing the Wii, or calling it "Satan's PORNtal" or anything like that. They even go as far as to point out that the Wii includes parental controls:

    "Even though the Nintendo Wii has parental controls, parents don't see a need for them because they are unaware of the porn capabilities."
    It looks like they're just using the Wii's popularity to push their agenda, that agenda being discussing the issue of porn with your kids -- a perfectly respectable goal. FTA:

    So the solution lies in parents getting the facts and then talking to their children about expectations for online activity. Foster believes that, "Whether it is the home computer or these new gaming consoles, porn is easily accessible. The Wii is an amazing console and tons of fun but parents need good info on how to keep kids safe."
    Encouraging parents to talk to kids about online behavior? That's a good thing. The Wii tie-in is nothing but marketing to attract parents.
    1. Re:A little sensationalist by HrothgarReborn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is sad that everyone at slashdot is so busy

      1. Being offended that Christians exist
      2. Mocking that Christians are concerned about pornography
      3. Defending that pronography never has harmful effects
      4. Being armchair parents and pontificating about what they would do if they were ever able to procreate
      5. Blasting religion in general and categorizing those who follow any form of it as less intelligent/sophisticated as themselves even if the religous people do get more chances at procreation

      That no one has offered any helpful advice on this technical problem. Does no one realize that the appropriate solution would be to roll your own proxy server. No one mentioned Squid or its various plugins that can help parents have a solid control on the situation complete with auditing and alerting. The fact is there are people who want children to experiance the world with just a bit of a safety net. Let's move off their religous beliefs and start offering ways technology can help them achieve their goals.

      I am saddened by the recent decline of slashdot.

    2. Re:A little sensationalist by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      Recent decline? You must be new here!

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    3. Re:A little sensationalist by Mr2001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      2. Mocking that Christians are concerned about pornography
      3. Defending that pronography never has harmful effects Well, it is hard to take seriously the claim that blocking pornography "keeps kids safe". Looking at a picture never harmed anyone, and it's hard to imagine any means by which it could.

      (Yes, porn addiction exists, but so do shopping addiction and exercise addiction. No one claims that kids need to be kept away from stores, or that gym class is inherently harmful, even though those otherwise-harmless activities become a problem for a tiny minority.)
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    4. Re:A little sensationalist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're mistaken if you think that you're exempt from criticism just because you're a Christian. Anyone so obsessed with sex that they demand an information quarantine in their house is going to get some criticism, so you'd better get used to it. Wisecracks about how Christians get more sex than geeks just makes you sound like an idiot.

  20. Wii Parental Controls by Elder+Entropist · · Score: 1

    The Wii's parental controls include the ability to restrict access to the Internet Channel unless you know the parental password.

  21. fundies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fundies- new things old accusations
    1927-"horseless carriages are corrupting our youth"

    2007-"the wii is corutping our youth"

  22. Re:Parents Should Be More Concerned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Porn >>>> Dying of Wii boredom

    Rather than using your Wii to surf for adult materials (which is of questionable utility anyway, seeing as how you have a hires computer screen in front of you), why not point it toward one of the many online gaming sites that cater to the Wii?

    The most popular is probably WiiCade, as they have the largest selection. There's also WiiArcade and WiiFii.net.

    You're welcome.
  23. re: pr0n on wii by deathshead · · Score: 1

    At least it's not another party game!

  24. haha by Thirdlight · · Score: 1

    All i want to know is, wheres the interactive hentai?

  25. This may be relevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at how the wii porn issue is warping the minds of kids learning computer science... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIS6_tyz7_k

  26. Their hearts are in the right place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm all for teaching kids and parents about the fact that porn can be found with the Wii's internet capabilites but a smear campaign could have the opposite effect of making them look lik sensationalists.

  27. No HD by edmicman · · Score: 1

    Too bad it's not HiDef, right?

  28. Porn Portal? by Aurostion · · Score: 1

    Well, the first thing I did when the browser dropped was to see if meatspin.com worked. It does.

  29. A lot of parents aren't likely to know this. by Citoahc · · Score: 1

    While it may seem like a no brainer for any of us, there are a quite a few parents out there who wouldn't even realize it is possible. I would bet that a lot of parents don't even know it can connect to the internet much less that it has a web browser.

  30. Guns are 'murder portals' ... by bestinshow · · Score: 1

    Yet anyone, especially the rabid Christian gun-toting southerners would immediately say that it is the user that kills, not the gun (the tool). And the gun is specifically designed to hurt and kill!

    A web browser is a tool. It is not there to browse porn, it can be used by someone to browse porn. Unlike a gun it actually has many many uses that are beneficial.

    Tools are not portals. The desires of the user of the tool are, and children have been looking at porn illicitly one way or another for decades.

    Is porn so bad anyway? Especially non-violent consentual porn. I think the amount of violence in society is a far greater concern than a couple of people having harmless fun, and allowing other people to satisfy their human needs as a result of it.

  31. What did Forrest Gump say? by jo42 · · Score: 1

    Stupid is as stupid does.

  32. haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the first things I did out of the box was bring up some very painful looking bondage pictures on the Wii browser for my girlfriend (who got the system for me for my birthday) to walk in on.

    I'm suprised it took ted haggard and the gang this long to jump on this. Now if only I could get meth from the Wii too, I could delete Mike Jones from my cell phone contacts.

  33. You didn't go straight to a porn site on your wii? by User+956 · · Score: 1

    I don't know about you, but I didn't even think of using it for that until now!

    Welcome to Slashdot. You must be new here.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  34. Just a matter of interest.... by Moggie68 · · Score: 1

    ...did the (US) group mention (US-made) X-Box 360 in any way? Or does X-Box 360 lack this functionality?

    1. Re:Just a matter of interest.... by trdrstv · · Score: 1
      ...did the (US) group mention (US-made) X-Box 360 in any way? Or does X-Box 360 lack this functionality?

      The 360 doesn't have an Internet browser. You can watch movies, and TV, but it's all 'closed network' and MS approved.

  35. what about mobile phones and the fridge? by someone1234 · · Score: 1

    More and more tools could connect to the internet, those are also porn portals???

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    1. Re:what about mobile phones and the fridge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they are. Moreso when vibrate mode and cucumbers are involved.

    2. Re:what about mobile phones and the fridge? by countSudoku() · · Score: 1

      Bingo! There's more than one way to download pr0n, and you're average kid knows this. When we got my stepson a new mobile phone, the first thing he did, other than download javaStripPoker was to download pr0n. I knew about it, as any tech savvy parent should (mom had no clue, which is typical of those xtian pinheads), but I did not bust him on it. I would have done the same thing myself, so why ruin his fun? Anyway, I digress.

      If you're going to buy your kids some technology, you might want to learn something about it and participate, rather than bitch about it and ruin it for everyone else. Or, just don't buy it in the first place.

      Enough of these lazy, asshole pseudo-parents who can't manage the technologies they gleefully purchase for their brats without any knowledge of the capabilities. Go to hell you xtian, botnet mules! Not that any of them know about our /. sanctuary of techy goodness. If you do, then; mission accomplished. And let me reiterate; go straight to HELL, do not pass Go. Asshats.

      --
      This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
  36. Re:Parents Should Be More Concerned... by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hey Nintendo! Where are the damn games! I can't think of a SINGLE non-Nintendo game in all of 2007 that is worth buying.

    Why are you blaming Nintendo for the quality of non-Nintendo games?

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  37. Re:As if Wiis weren't already hard enough to get.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... And This Christian group went wii wii wii wii all the way home

  38. Guess that wraps up this gen war. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft and Sony can just pack up and leave.

  39. Wii this, Wii that... by psiogen · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't see why the Wii gets so much innuendo compared to the other consoles.

    "Playstation 3" sounds like a deep space brothel.

    "X-Box 360" sounds like getting gang-raped by guys who ejaculate Mountain Dew.

    Come on, people.

    1. Re:Wii this, Wii that... by BobPaul · · Score: 1

      Dude... that's quite a stretch... quite a stretch indeed.

    2. Re:Wii this, Wii that... by Scaba · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Playstation 3" sounds like a deep space brothel.

      Only to you.

      "X-Box 360" sounds like getting gang-raped by guys who ejaculate Mountain Dew.

      Especially only to you.

    3. Re:Wii this, Wii that... by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's not as bad as stretching your Wii... wait, never mind.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    4. Re:Wii this, Wii that... by timbck2 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Mod parent +1 Hilarious!!!!

      --
      Absurdity: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. -- Ambrose Bierce
    5. Re:Wii this, Wii that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Come on people.

      Sounds like bukkake?
    6. Re:Wii this, Wii that... by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Dude... that's quite a stretch... quite a stretch indeed.

      The very words of Mr. Goatse's friend after taking an infamous photo.

  40. Pot, meet kettle. by Skadet · · Score: 5, Insightful
    *checks his karma checkbook register and sighs*

    Christians who judge others haven't read their Bibles.
    Sounds like you're doing a little judgment of your own, doesn't it?

    ...I look at Jesus' words and actions as significant and the previous story before Him and insignificant in terms of how we live. In my opinion, when Jesus said "Judge not others" He meant it.
    Look. Way too many people make this misunderstanding. The passage says "Judge not, lest you also be judged" (or something to that effect, depending on your translation). It DOESN'T say, "never judge anything at all, ever." It says, watch yourself, because the same rod you use to measure others might come back and bite you in the ass one day (I'm reminded of some very famous televangelests).

    In fact, just moments after Jesus instructs us to "judge not", he says:

    Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces (Matt. 7:6).
    Well, clearly, he didn't mean LITERAL dogs and swine. How would we know if they were dogs or swine if we didn't JUDGE the behavior of others? Clearly, we're supposed to make assessments of others based on their actions, and had you read your Bible, you'd know that's what Jesus meant.

    I realize this seems off-topic, and I'll likely be modded down to oblivion, but as it IS a Christian group that's the subject of discussion here, I think this rebuttal is only fair. Flame on :)
    1. Re:Pot, meet kettle. by Icepole4 · · Score: 1

      I think you may be reading a litte too much into what was said. You both are saying the same thing just in a different way.

      I would agree with the author in that christian groups who force their opinions on others are missing the point. As christians our role is to serve as examples to the secular world and to those whose spiritual gift it is to spread the word; they are to do so by showing non-believers the word and the word only.

      You're right, to judge in and of itself is not beyond our rights as Christian per se, to condemn is...that only god can do. So for a group to say John is gay, John and Sally have premarital sex, and the wii/PSP can download porn so they are not of god (not saying this article said that) and will burn in hell, is not within the rights given to christians by god. I think that is what the writer was trying to get across.

    2. Re:Pot, meet kettle. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm sorry but you are not a Christian.

      A true Christian would know that every word of the bible is literal, the way God wrote it through his people. He didn't want misunderstandings and so he ensured that every word said exactly what it meant.

      Those who choose to consider certain portions figuratively are simply trying to obfuscate the true meaning of God's word. True Christians are always on the lookout for this type of adulteration of the word... it is a terrible sin--without repentance you will certainly never know God.

    3. Re:Pot, meet kettle. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a psycho christian. You can't take the bible literally. There are to many contradictions. Why are there 3 creation stories? They can't all be right? Do you shave your beard? Big sin there. Do you eat pork? Do you have slaves? According to the bible its ok. Let me guess.. you only read certain books and not the whole bible.

      Unless you can read greek, hebrew and latin you are not reading God's word anyway. See God didn't write in english.

    4. Re:Pot, meet kettle. by 0bject · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but every word cannot not mean "exactly what it meant" because words mean different things in different places and are only a general tool for communication. Therefore it is completely impossible to know exactly what God means because no language exists that could ever convey with any degree of certainty the exact will of God.

    5. Re:Pot, meet kettle. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now tell me, besides being told over and over at an early age, why it is you came to "believe" in a god? Do you have irrefutable evidence, something that has probability 0 of happening in a discrete space, but happened anyway? If not, then why?

    6. Re:Pot, meet kettle. by A440Hz · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that you really like monkeys who eat strawberries for dinner? Your comment is oh-so PoMo and oh-so indefensible. By your own lights, my above analysis of your comment is just as accurate as any other.

    7. Re:Pot, meet kettle. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a single word in the Bible is in Latin. It's all Greek, Hebrew, and a tiny bit of Aramaic here and there.

    8. Re:Pot, meet kettle. by ashpool7 · · Score: 1

      Christians *should* only be judging each other. That's how we're supposed to keep ourselves in line. There's that whole speck in the eye thing to counterbalance.

      Judging non-christians is up to god.

    9. Re:Pot, meet kettle. by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      Christians who judge others haven't read their Bibles. Sounds like you're doing a little judgment of your own, doesn't it?

      I Corinthians 5 clears it up really well: Christians are prohibited to judge those outside of the church, but expected to judge those within it (with the maximum penalty being that if a Christian rejects an appeal from his church to come back to righteous behavior, he is then put out of the church and treated as a person outside of the church: no longer accountable to it).

  41. Out of the box porn machine? by flaknugget · · Score: 0

    I thought the Wii/Opera browser requires an additional purchase. Am I wrong here? That isn't to say any kid who is able to buy a Wii points card couldn't browse some pr0n, but an off-the shelf Wii isn't even a web browsing machine. Anywho, knowing how kid-centric and family oriented Nintendo is, I suspect there will be optional parental controls to come if there is enough public outcry, which there probably won't be.

  42. Re:GET SOME PRIORITIES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which side attempted it?

  43. OH PLEEEEAAASSSEEE give me a break... by haplo21112 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...ah, Parents be responsible for your kids. Its not the technology thats the problem. Know what the hell your kids are doing, know what the people they hang out with are doing, know what the families of the people they hang out with are doing.

    And #1 teach them a sense of values. What video game system they have doesn't matter its what you tell them to do with it, and what you teach them is OK.

    When I was young could I get a copy of a playboy sure, but I knew I shouldn't have...

    --
    Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
    1. Re:OH PLEEEEAAASSSEEE give me a break... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...ah, Parents be responsible for your kids. Its not the technology thats the problem.
      Only solution that I think could work 100% is:
      "Sorry, you're not a allowed a computer nor a... Wii."

      Know what the hell your kids are doing,
      I some how doubt that's easy when parents can't even be with their kids all day, it's also damaging if they are. There is only one way to really /KNOW/ what's going on.

      know what the people they hang out with are doing
      It can be difficult with today's youth.. Everything seems to be a secret from their parents because they know their parents wouldn't approve.

      know what the families of the people they hang out with are doing.
      Often I've found families are very responsible, but the kids certainly don't reflect the rest of the family.

      FYI: I am not a parent.
      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  44. Re:Parents Should Be More Concerned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, you really have no clue about console game development.

  45. Re:It all comes down to the parents' responsibilit by brouski · · Score: 1

    Isn't that what this Christian group is doing? Educating parents?

    --
    Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
  46. examples, please? by rascher · · Score: 2, Funny

    I have yet to come across a pornographic website that emulates the wii interface, and the claim seems to be rather unsubstantiated. Could somebody point me to a few example websites?

  47. Pass the buck by Lord+Sigma · · Score: 1

    One thing these organizations never seem to talk about is how parents should take some responsibility of their own and monitor what their children do. They always seem to want someone else to raise their children for them. What if they actually sat down and talked to their kids about what they can and can't do while on the internet. It is the same as telling them not to take candy from strangers. If they would actually take an active role in raising their children they will find that there are many options for filtering what can be accessed on the internet. Also, if they don't want their kids to play violent games, then don't buy the games for them.

    1. Re:Pass the buck by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      One thing these organizations never seem to talk about is how parents should take some responsibility of their own and monitor what their children do.
      It's been tried, but the parents respond with "I don't know anything about computers, why are you doing this!? I just want to take care of my kids!!!!"

      What if they actually sat down and talked to their kids about what they can and can't do while on the internet.
      You can explain the danger of someone kidnapping you, how do you explain not to look for porn to someone who doesn't know about the birds and the bees. What danger can be perceived to the child who even knows about the birds and the bees for looking at porn?

      If they would actually take an active role in raising their children they will find that there are many options for filtering what can be accessed on the internet.
      "I don't know anything about computers."

      Many parents seem to be really technophobic from what I've seen.

      Also, if they don't want their kids to play violent games, then don't buy the games for them.
      Kids can pirate, kids can be lent the game from other kids, kids can buy violent games from shops (they may do it online if they can't do it offline).

      The problem is, there is no solution.

      FYI: I am not parent.
      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    2. Re:Pass the buck by Enzo+the+Baker · · Score: 1
      From the organization's press release:

      So the solution lies in parents getting the facts and then talking to their children about expectations for online activity. Foster believes that, "Whether it is the home computer or these new gaming consoles, porn is easily accessible. The Wii is an amazing console and tons of fun but parents need good info on how to keep kids safe.

      Relax, they are just trying to give parents some information to help them do what you think they should be doing. If they start pushing for legislation or something, I'll freak out right along with you.

      --
      I may twist orthodoxy to partly justify a tyrant. But I can easily make up a German philosophy to justify him entirely.
    3. Re:Pass the buck by Lord+Sigma · · Score: 1

      I agree with you about most people not knowing enough about technology to be able to successfully block or filter content on their own. But that is why there are computer stores. I have worked on computers for many years and if someone came into the store where I worked and asked about ways to protect their kids on the internet I would direct them to software which would do this for them and how to use it. If they needed more help with it then I could for a fee look at their computer myself, install the software and set it up properly. That is what I get payed for, and I know there have to be many thousands of other computer technicians out there that are more than willing to provide that service. I do not have my kids myself but it seems sometimes that some people don't try at all, in my opinion trying something and failing is better than not trying at all.

  48. Ohh...didn't think of that... by StressGuy · · Score: 1

    Thanks :)

    Now, if I can figure out how to make user-specific whitelist on my Kubuntu box, I'd be golden.

    --
    A goal is a dream with a deadline
    1. Re:Ohh...didn't think of that... by gnud · · Score: 1

      Perhaps a squid proxy with different users?

    2. Re:Ohh...didn't think of that... by yuna49 · · Score: 1

      You don't say where the Kubuntu box is located in your network. If you have a Linux box running as a firewall, I'd suggest looking at Dan's Guardian, a content filter than runs on top of Squid. You can configure iptables to push all outbound web traffic through Squid/DG so you can't avoid the proxy by changing the browser's settings. For more fine-grained control, you could write rules push traffic from some internal IPs through the proxy but let pass unfiltered traffic from other IPs like you own.

  49. Re:Parents Should Be More Concerned... by basscomm · · Score: 1

    Wow, you really have no clue about console game development.


    I do.

    Nintendo sets some standards on what games it will or will not approve for production, as does Microsoft and Sony. Those standards only go as far as making sure the game is more or less technically sound, i.e. it will run for so many hours without crashing, it won't spontaneously erase your memory card, all legal screens are displayed for x amount of seconds, etc. A game being fun or worthwhile doesn't even enter into it.
    --
    http://crummysocks.com
  50. Good Christians Rejoice! by liak12345 · · Score: 1

    For I have the solution to your fears.

    I need someone to make a simple mod for me.

    Any jerking motion on the wii-mote closes the browser.

    Go forth and celebrate. (Go forth and celibate?)

  51. Here is a Wii story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last night I was at a restaurant with two friends. Besides us there were about five other people in the place. One of my friends made a statement about water being good for you and that you can never have enough. I started to relate the tragic story of the lady who died in the "Hold you Wii" competition.

    I started by telling them that a lady had died from only drinking a lot of water and nothing else. I said it was in a "Hold your Wii" competition. My friend who was quite tipsy did not understand I was speaking of the Nintendo Wii. He started saying "wee wee, pee pee, wee wee" over and over again. I was trying to get him to shut up so I could explain to him what the story was about. All of a sudden behind us, this big black guy stands up and turns around and starts going off on us about talking about genitalia in a restaurant. I got him to calm down and when everyone shut up, I stated very loudly and plainly, "There was a contest for a NINTENDO Wii..."

    Freaked me out. Here I was talking about a "kid-friendly" video game system and there was almost an altercation at a restaurant about it. So the name of the Wii almost turned me into a little piggy and made me go wii wii wii wii all the way home. (bad last line, but oh well).

  52. So What? by Quantam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's really funny is that, at least based on the look they give in the article, the article (and, even worse, the summary) is far more overreactive and emotionally charged than the campaign itself.

    "Like many new gaming technologies, the Wii's wireless internet capabilities make it a portal to porno. 'Parents think the computer is the only way for their kids to get porn on the internet. Unfortunately, they are dead wrong,' says Mike Foster, founder of ThePornTalk.com. 'Gaming devices like the Wii and the PSP aren't just for fun games anymore. You're able to surf the net, chat with friends, email, and view porn because of its internet access. Kids know this but parents don't!'"
    ...
    So the solution lies in parents getting the facts and then talking to their children about expectations for online activity. Foster believes that, "Whether it is the home computer or these new gaming consoles, porn is easily accessible. The Wii is an amazing console and tons of fun but parents need good info on how to keep kids safe."


    My Gord! That's so... so... rational, unemotional, and largely objectively (or "empirically", if you prefer) true. Compare to

    targeting the console with a smear campaign

    Saying the truth in a calm, collected manner is called smearing, now? When did that start? Or

    I find it funny that a site that seems to go to so much effort to hide its ties to religion and ministry work is using the phrase dirty little secret.

    Wait, was that an implication that religion is a dirty little secret? Damn submarine Jews.

    the story's caustic tone

    Is that more or less caustic than calling religions dirty little secrets?

    Seriously. I may think the anti-porn campaign is a bit unnecessary (in a "don't you have something better to do?" way), but the campaign is surprisingly (at least after reading the beginning of the article) docile and rational. Who cares what they think, really? And who cares if they tell parents that kids can surf porn on the Wii? I mean, you can surf porn on the Wii, right? The most emotional (as opposed to rational) appeal in the whole thing is the title of the campaign ("The Wii's Dirty Little Secret"), and even that's less emotional/sarcastic/caustic (or "witty", as we prefer to say) than the average Slashdot catch-phrase. Hell, this paragraph has more sarcasm than that whole campaign.

    Overall rating of the article: Troll.

    --
    You have tried to support your argument with faulty reasoning! Go directly to jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $200!
    1. Re:So What? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "..(in a "don't you have something better to do?" way),.."
      Not really your job to determine what is better for someone to do.

      "Who cares what they think, really?"

      I do, beause these whackos tend to think they have some sort of invisible friend that gives them power over our lives, and routinely try to get laws passed based on their 'beliefs'.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:So What? by Satertek · · Score: 1

      EXACTLY.

      I would expect Kotaku to use a catchy, misleading headline to get readers, but I'm disappointed in Slashdot for doing the same.

      There is no attack, there is no "smear campaign", this is essentially just a group of people trying to get the word out to parents that it is possible to visit websites on the Wii, nothing more.

    3. Re:So What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't think you even begin to understand what the words "rational", "objective", or "empirically" mean. Let's step through the actual quoted bits for fun:
      • Parents think the computer is the only way for their kids to get porn on the internet - sweeping generalisation.
      • Unfortunately, they are dead wrong - rhetoric, emotionalistic.
      • Gaming devices like the Wii and the PSP aren't just for fun games anymore - more empty rhetoric.
      • Whether it is the home computer or these new gaming consoles, porn is easily accessible. - ZOMG, the only statement here that resembles objective fact - albeit one that is patently obvious to most people alive today
      • The Wii is an amazing console and tons of fun - opinion (and arguably meant as a counterbalance to the earlier 'sky is falling' rhetoric).
      • ...but parents need good info on how to keep kids safe - generalisation and opinion - and a premise which conveniently enough is the setup for you getting that 'good info' from Foster's dubious organisation, which from all of the quotes in their release can be taken to be just another outfit on the very profitable bandwagon of manufacturing and selling fears.
      So uh. Yeah. To be sure, this is very much a non-story, and giving these morons press (bad or not) is just what they want. But this man is 'stating the truth' in a calm / collected / objective / rational / unemotional manner? How's the weather out there on Mars?

      My overall rating of your retort: Bullshit.
  53. Big difference here.... by StressGuy · · Score: 1

    Timmy can go to his local library and check out old issues of National Geographic - which, as we all know, has plenty of pictures of Nubian goddesses in all their naked glory!

    Nudity != PORN , I'm really not concerned if my children see a naked human. To take such a position would be an insult to the human body itself...not to mention it's creator (should you subscribe to that belief).

    However, same "Nubian Goddess" strapping on a rubber penis and moving toward some hapless individual tied, bent-over, to a table....now we have a problem here...don't we? NOW, we confuse notions of violence and sexual behaviour....NOW, we begin to present people as objects....NOW, we create an even bigger insult to the human body.

    Various groups try to make this issue more complex than it really is, but it's quite simple

    Body == GOOD

    abuse of body == BAD

    Objectification of fellow humans == BAD

    Confusing violence and affection == BAD

    etc.

    --
    A goal is a dream with a deadline
    1. Re:Big difference here.... by Malakusen · · Score: 1

      However, same "Nubian Goddess" strapping on a rubber penis and moving toward some hapless individual tied, bent-over, to a table....now we have a problem here...don't we?

      I'll say we do.
      That description was so hot that I'm rock hard now! And I have to stand up to leave soon. That's a HUGE problem for me!
      --
      Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
    2. Re:Big difference here.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pointed out your post to my girlfriend, and she liked your idea a lot. I guess she'll be strapping one on tonight. Thanks! We have a fun night ahead of us.

    3. Re:Big difference here.... by Altus · · Score: 1


      So consensual BDSM is bad, no matter what? or is that only if you take pictures of it? Or is that only if you distribute those pictures?

      Seems a touch judgmental to me. Thats not to say that people should be handing out such pictures to children, but you are a little black and white with this one.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    4. Re:Big difference here.... by navygeek · · Score: 1

      Wow... Someone needs to calm down. My comments were meant in jest - to show the potential for just about anything to be used as a scapegoat for holier than thou types that deem things to be 'evil' just because they can be used for something "dirty".

      National Geographic is a perfectly acceptable and useful magazine, nothing inherently wrong with it. So to is a Wii, a PSP, and internet access acceptable and useful. When the USER begins to perform activities that are, to some, questionable, then the USE should be condemned, not the medium through which it was performed.

      Throwing out your obvious distain for anything remotely related to BDSM (hey, it works for some, who is anyone else to judge them), your assertion that "Body == GOOD" and "Nudity != porn" wouldn't hold up to the people that are condemning the Wii and PSP. These are the same people that want David and other centuries old works of art censored for showing 'too much of the human body'. Besides, to prove "Body == GOOD" wrong, just look at my flabby hairy ass - ain't nothing good or decent about that action.

    5. Re:Big difference here.... by darth_fishy · · Score: 1

      However, same "Nubian Goddess" strapping on a rubber penis and moving toward some hapless individual tied, bent-over, to a table....now we have a problem here...don't we?
      I am interested in your product and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
    6. Re:Big difference here.... by StressGuy · · Score: 1

      Actually, I don't believe I used the expression "BDSM" anywhere in my post...I believe I was more specific. Or, are you defending violence as a form of affection?

      You might be surprised how much I do know of the BDSM community. In some manifestations, the "top" is merely the guide who assist the "bottom" in exploring directions they could never have gone alone. In a perfect arrangement, it is the "bottom" that should have ultimate control. However, like all relationships, perfection is rare.

      BDSM covers a wide swath of the "kink" community, while much of it is benign, there are aspects that get dangerous ("edge play", for example). There is also a tendancy for both sides (top and bottom) to want to go a little further each time as the "novelty" wears off.

      However, there's no point in me going into the psychology here.....what I know comes from friends who are themselves members of this community....and they talk to me about it because I am not judgemental.

      --
      A goal is a dream with a deadline
    7. Re:Big difference here.... by Altus · · Score: 1


      I guess what set me off there was your description "strapping on a rubber penis and moving toward some hapless individual tied, bent-over, to a table" coupled with your later declaration of "Confusing violence and affection == BAD"

      I found the first description to be very much BDSM based which is what put me on that road. I will agree that true violence is never affection and that confusing the two can be very bad, but in the context you had set above it sounded like any kind of violent act is bad if the recipient believes it is a form of affection. Swinging a flogger at someone is a violent act but in BDSM it could be considered a very affectionate act. I agree with you that there are more and less dangerous aspects to BDSM and some people do play with some dangerous things, but optimally even cutting or blood play (which freaks the hell out of me) would be done with care and not with malice.

      I apologize if I misinterpreted your post.

      Still, my question stands. You say consensual BDSM is OK (which I agree with) but is it ok to take pictures of it? to show those pictures to others? what about posting them on the internet?

      Ill agree that there is a line there somewhere. You shouldn't be taking such pictures to a school and hanging them up for the children to look at perhaps... but it not as clear where the line should be... or at least, where you think it should be.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  54. Liar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, I did something similar to this about 18 months ago -- I did sell almost everything I possessed and distributed all of the extra to a variety of charities in my area, and invested in a charity of my own. E-mail me for details.
    Yet, according to an earlier post from you:

    I love my 5.8 liter SUV, because it tows my two box trucks, drives through any hill grade and also gives me decent gas mileage when I need it, but the power is there when I need it.
    So is a 5.8 liter SUV a possession or not?

    A Christian tooting his own horn and then it turns out they're lying? Sounds pretty standard now that I think about it.
    1. Re:Liar by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      It's possible that the V8 and box trucks are somehow related to his charity.

      He also never claimed that he didn't acquire any new possessions in the 18 months since his big giveaway.

      I'm just giving him the benefit of the doubt.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Liar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did sell almost everything I possessed and distributed all of the extra to a variety of charities in my area

      So is a 5.8 liter SUV a possession or not?

      A Christian tooting his own horn and then it turns out they're lying? Sounds pretty standard now that I think about it.


      Uh huh. "I sold alot of my stuff."
      Followed by. "YOU SAID YOU SOLD EVERYTHING! YOU HAVE A CAR! LIAR!"

      Twisting of words of a Christian to fit your own agenda? I see. If he or she said it was raining outside, would you go dig up a rock so you could shove the dry underside in his or her face and call him a liar, too? Shouldn't you be taking individual verses from the New Testament out of context to show the world how much the bible contradicts itself?

      Grow up. Didn't yo mamma teach you good manners? Shame, shame.
  55. You thought they were hard to get before... by Gerocrack · · Score: 1

    ... wait until everyone finds out the Wii delivers an infinite supply of BOOBIES!

  56. Re:As if Wiis weren't already hard enough to get.. by whatever1856 · · Score: 5, Informative

    actually the christian group said that it is a fun console to play, but parents should be aware that it has internet access, and then explain how to turn on and use the parental controls. if you read the actual article by the christian group, which was linked to in previous post by someone else, you'd see they didn't actually have anything bad to say about the wii.

  57. Content Filters on "Smart" Devices by Ohio+Calvinist · · Score: 1

    I for one, am against censorship and as a principal would never filter the Internet coming into my house but would use the Internet WITH my young child and certainly read the logs on my hardware firewall for the older ones, but the real problem here is that the Wii doesn't have the features (or ability as of yet) to have the same features that a desktop PC has when it comes to download blocking, content filtering, etc. The average parents have been sold on AOL, Microsoft and Apple's "built-in" parental controls as the end-all-be-all "computer police" that will keep their darlings away from the pr0n, ultra-violence, gambling, etc.

    The only valid point is that parents don't necessarily "get" the potential for the Wii to be a vector for the boobies just like most of our parents never blinked twice over National Geographic. I am *hoping* all this group hopes to do is educate like-minded parents that maybe they shouldn't the Wii, or have the Wii connected to the inter-tubes in 12 year old Johnnie's bedroom with the locked door. It is sad that they've made it an explicitly "Christian" vendetta when I think it is in the interest for all parents to at minimum be aware of the relative risks/rewards of any new technology, fad or social construct in our kids lives. Most parents don't want hardcore interspecies erotics flashed before their 12 year olds eyes. (Again, I'm a realist, and know that I'm hoping against hope.)

    I am a practicing Christian and always am disqusted to see those whom I'm inevitably lumped with make all of us look like complete and udder assholes that are going to write their congressman or picket GameStop (et.al.) because they believe their goal is to get our 14 year old girls on the coke and knocked up. I wish we'd simply vote our (informed) conscience as any member of a democratic society should and then run our house as we see fit and leave everyone else to their own, but... what can I do?

    --
    Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
  58. Re:Parents Should Be More Concerned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, looks like we got the input from a guy from the testing department!

    If you think that is the extent of what a console manufacturer does, or should do, to ensure and facilitate the quality of its console's third party library of games...

    As been said so many times before in the halls of game development studios...get back to the testing room!

  59. Re:As if Wiis weren't already hard enough to get.. by allanc · · Score: 1

    Pfft. Facts get in the way of my joke. Anyway, reading articles is for n00bs.

  60. This is especially funny... by Malakusen · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...in light of today's VGCats: http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=227

    --
    Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
  61. But ... by kramulous · · Score: 1

    'Parents think the computer is the only way for their kids to get porn on the internet. Unfortunately, they are dead wrong,' I can also get porn on my phone. I love tech.

    --
    .
  62. No, THIS is the "porn portal". Big controversy. by Animats · · Score: 1

    In San Francisco, we have Kink.com. They've been around for years, quietly, and very profitably, running a number of kinky websites. Recently, they decided to expand. So they bought the San Francisco Armory, an huge, old National Guard armory that's been vacant for thirty years. It covers half a city block. Paid $14 million in cash for it.

    Big flap. National press coverage. Minor local protests. But Kink.com has all the planning permissions it needs; it's a done deal.

    The CEO of Kink.com, Peter Acworth, isn't embarrassed about the business. He's met with local politicians, neighborhood groups, and the planning department. He has these meetings videotaped, and puts stills and video on Kink.com. (This is not a work-safe page; scroll down past the kinky stuff to the pictures of City Hall.)

    The mayor of San Francisco has been a bit upset about the "Kink.com" thing. But the mayor has worse problems than Peter does - he's in rehab right now after an affair.

    So now there's going to be an "informational hearing" at City Hall on March 8th. Both sides are working to get a turnout from their crowd.

    Now that's a real "porn portal".

  63. They could do it the old fashioned way ... by rrhal · · Score: 1

    'Parents think the computer is the only way for their kids to get porn on the internet. Unfortunately, they are dead wrong,' In my day we had to get ahold of magazines. Infact Oui was an excellent source of porn. Coinsidence? I think not.

    --
    All generalizations are false, including this one. Mark Twain
  64. Nintendo has a gold mine here by fishpick · · Score: 1

    a wii - Porn Portal with an motion sensing 2-handed - feedback - controller... Now why didn't I think of that.

  65. obtags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    obtag: woohoo
    obtag: playingwithmywii

  66. OMG I have discovered my Wii by arodland · · Score: 1
  67. Stay on target... by josteos · · Score: 1

    Jr. finds the Wiimote & ends up watching porn on the TV.
    Jr. finds the cable/satellite remote and orders up some PPV porn on the TV.
    Jr. finds your stash of 80's Hairy Armpit fetish VCR tapes and watches porn on the TV.
    Jr. finds your stash of 90's midget orgy DVDs and watches porn on the TV.
    Jr. turns on PBS and watches An Inconvenient Truth on the TV.

    Wouldn't fundies & right-wing-whackjobs would be much better off getting rid of our TV?

    --
    Save the Music; Save the World at http://www.TuneTriever.com (Our latest Android game)
  68. There's a simple solution, you know... by Talgrath · · Score: 1

    Just don't plug the kid's Wii into the internet. Wow...that was difficult, wasn't it? And hey, if you aren't paying good enough attention to your kids to check in on what they are doing every now and again; you shouldn't be a parent.

  69. Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, ... by Qbertino · · Score: 5, Funny

    Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, , Mushroom, MUSHROOM, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, , Mushroom, MUSHROOM, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Aaaaah A Snake, It's a Snake, Ooouuh, A Snake, a Snake, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, etc. ...
    [WTF?]

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  70. Mom.. by goldaryn · · Score: 1

    No, wait Mom, I was playing the "Shake the Bottle" game! Mom!!!

  71. In related news by geekoid · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wii sales higher then ever!

    MS claims to have inventd porn and is releasing XBox: Whackjob.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  72. Why attack the WII? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Sure, it can surf porn, but so can the kids computers, PSP's, PDAs, even their cell phones..

    So why just attack the WII?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  73. I wonder if... by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    Nintendo are funding them

  74. Judgement by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Is part of all religions.. how do you think they keep people in line?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  75. The tone is perhaps a bit too strong by ravyne · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The tone is a bit too strong and the sensationalist title is too much, but their underlying premise is certainly not without reason. There are a few facts to go on:
    1. A lot of children have relatively unmonitored access to the Wii, perhaps in their own bedroom or play room.
    2. A lot of parents *don't* know about the Wii's internet capabilities. Many of those that *are* aware, assume that the content is somehow filtered.
    3. A lot of parents *don't* know about the Wii's child protection features, account controls, etc. - I'm not sure what's required to download the browser, but if no credit card is required and no admin-like privileges are required or set up, then its possible for them to download the browser themselves.
    While the tone of the press release is too strong as I said above, I think we can all see that, yes, the Wii can be used to access porn, chat rooms, etc that may be innapropriate for young people. I think we can all agree that, yes, all parents should be aware of this reality and take steps they deem appropriate, but many are simply not aware at this point.

    This isn't another "Video games are the devil!" argument, no one's calling for a boycott of the Wii, or for Nintendo to be held responsible for the content some children might access... beyond the slightly sensational tone all I see is information that is usefull and pertinent for parents.

    No one here would turn their kid loose on the web without proper protection/monitoring in place, or at the very least recognize the risk in doing so. We forum-goers are always calling for parental and personal responsibility, for good reason, and I don't see this press release as doing much else.
    1. Re:The tone is perhaps a bit too strong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot "4. No evidence of psychological harm to children caused by exposure to words or images has ever been demonstrated in a peer-reviewed, scientific study."

      But that's OK. It's a common omission in threads like these.

    2. Re:The tone is perhaps a bit too strong by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Many of those that *are* aware, assume that the content is somehow filtered.

      WTF?

      Seriously, explain to me how parents make this kind of assumption? Is it just because it's Nintendo and Family-Friendly?

      Or do these people take the same brain-dead approach to normal web browsing? "Aaugh! A breast! Must...sue...ISP! And Microsoft! And write angry letters to congressmen!"

      Well... they did kind of do that with the Janet Jackson incident. I realize that's not the same thing, but it does show just how much some people's knees will jerk...

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  76. Pshaw... by JojoCoco · · Score: 1

    I was looking at porn on my Dreamcast 7 years ago.

  77. I think they misread their bible... by nick_davison · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...When they decided to turn Wii in to whine.

  78. Constructive criticism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Using the Wii as a portal requires an internet connection -- the same connection you would use for a computer. There are hundreds of "Christian ISPs" out there (Google is your friend) who will gleefully filter out all that "bad" internet content for you, so little Johnny's morals don't get corrupted. Not really my cup of tea, but I'm glad families with children have this option. These people would be a lot more credible if they would focus on educating people about solutions, instead of sensationalizing potential problems. Of course, I'm sure they collect a lot more in donations by screaming about how the Devil is going to reach out through the Internet to tempt their precious children into a life of Sin then they would calmly explaining how to fix the problem...

  79. The Bible is a gateway to pr0n! by plopez · · Score: 0, Troll

    Seriously, how about the song of solomon? Or the fact that Noah's (or was it Lot's? I should reread the damn thing) daughters slept with him? Infanticide, genocide, rape.... the thing is filled with filth.

    We need need to ban this so called 'holy book' ASAP! Think of the children!

    While I'm at it...

    Schools are a Gateway to Pr0n! Kid goes to school. Kid's friend has porn magazine in his locker. Kid sees porn, turns gay! We must shutdown schools now!

    Etc.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  80. Re:Perverted Christinas? please introduce by ssrs396 · · Score: 1

    who are these perverted christinas of which you speak? I haven't found any perverted christinas on the internet. Maybe you can introduce us.

    Oh. wait. you mean christiANs. Nevermind

  81. WHOIS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Domain ID:D104041644-LROR
    Domain Name:ETHUR.ORG
    Created On:01-Mar-2004 02:16:21 UTC
    Last Updated On:30-Aug-2005 18:35:26 UTC
    Expiration Date:01-Mar-2009 02:16:21 UTC
    Sponsoring Registrar:Dotster, Inc. (R34-LROR)
    Status:OK
    Registrant ID:DOT-D1W2D3SHUC9Q
    Registrant Name:Peter McGowan
    Registrant Organization:PMGX
    Registrant Street1:7345 Piute Creek Drive
    Registrant Street2:
    Registrant Street3:
    Registrant City:Corona
    Registrant State/Province:CA
    Registrant Postal Code:92881
    Registrant Country:US
    Registrant Phone:+1.9517354587
    Registrant Phone Ext.:
    Registrant FAX:+1.9518489201
    Registrant FAX Ext.:
    Registrant Email:dotster1@pmgx.com
    Admin ID:DOT-0PQC1M69UJ2S
    Admin Name:Peter McGowan
    Admin Organization:PMGX
    Admin Street1:7345 Piute Creek Drive
    Admin City:Corona
    Admin State/Province:CA
    Admin Postal Code:92881
    Admin Country:US
    Admin Phone:+1.9517354587
    Admin FAX:+1.9518489201
    Admin Email:dotster1@pmgx.com
    Tech ID:DOT-HWPSF6TWOCE0
    Tech Name:Peter McGowan
    Tech Organization:PMGX
    Tech Street1:7345 Piute Creek Drive
    Tech City:Corona
    Tech State/Province:CA
    Tech Postal Code:92881
    Tech Country:US
    Tech Phone:+1.9517354587
    Tech Phone Ext.:
    Tech FAX:+1.9518489201
    Tech FAX Ext.:
    Tech Email:dotster1@pmgx.com
    Name Server:NS1.NEXTMILL.NET
    Name Server:NS2.NEXTMILL.NET

    1. Re:WHOIS by anotherone · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thanks a lot, nobody else here knows how to run a whois

      --
      Username taken, please choose another one.
    2. Re:WHOIS by XnavxeMiyyep · · Score: 0

      Who is this great, but anonymous, man who helped us?

      --
      I put the 't' in electrical engineering.
  82. Back in my day by theworldisflat · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    We looked at porn on (gasp) PAPER! BAN THE HERETICAL PAPER DEMONS!!! Religious nut jobs should be exterminated for the good of the species.

  83. Did you know by goldcd · · Score: 1

    that paper is capable of being used as a medium to display pornographic images?
    Paper is pervasive making it practically impossible to prevent your childrens exposure to it!!

    *rushes off to start book-burn*

    1. Re:Did you know by Ezzaral · · Score: 1

      Edit on a related note: People are capable of being used as a medium to display pornographic images? People are pervasive, making it practically impossible to prevent your childrens exposure to it!! ... you should probably burn them as well.

  84. Sensationalism coming from ... the gaming press? by jchenx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    After reading the actual Wii article on their website, it seems to me that the sensationalism is actually coming from the gaming press. "Smear campaign"? "Attack on the Wii"? I don't see at all in the article. Yes, they do mention that the Wii is a "portal to porn" in the press release, but that phrase isn't on the website, nor do they use anything similar blatant. Rather, it's the headlines in the gaming press where you see the sensationalism.

    Yeah, so the website appears to be funded my some Christian group. Even though I'm not Christian, I don't really see a problem here, considering the actual messaging is quite reasonable and responsible. I don't see them blasting Nintendo or the console, in fact just providing parents the messaging they need to "do the right thing" (use the proper parental controls, etc.).

    Sometimes I think the gaming press really does itself more harm than good ...

    --
    -- jchenx
  85. Ezekiel 23:19 by StoatBringer · · Score: 1

    Let's hope these concerned Christians keep the Bible away from their kids as well.

    19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt.
    20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
    21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.

    --
    Cress, cress, lovely lovely cress
  86. Re:Parents Should Be More Concerned... by basscomm · · Score: 1

    Close, Mr. Anonymous. I worked as an A.P. (one step above Game Tester). A game is not technically required to be 'good'. As long as a game does what it's supposed to do (all features that are in work), and it meets the technical requirements, that's it. I've read the TRCs. There are no requirements that say 'game must be fun'. If there were, no awful games would get released, but they get released by the shovelfull every year.

    Of course console manufacturers want to create and maintain relationships with developers to ensure and facilitate the production of quality titles. The amount of quality titles will directly reflect on the console itself. I never said that they don't or shouldn't. They just need to make sure they build the relationships with the publishers that put out more good titles than bad.

    --
    http://crummysocks.com
  87. TLA for the KJC by fm6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sigh. "Nannie state fascist" is not a bad term, but the fact that you apply it so carelessly indicates a certain knee-jerkiness on your part. Please repeat after me: "Rush Limbaugh thinks with his mouth."

    To me, a "Nannie State fascist" is somebody wants the government to outlaw every little danger. Ralph Nader is a prime case. Of course, the term is sort of subjective. You and I would probably agree that the crusade to require passive restraints in cars (basically, seatbelts that buckle you in involuntarily) is Nannie State Fascism. But we probably disagree as to the speed limit (I think people who think they can drive safely at 90 MPH are fooling themselves, but that's not a popular opinion).

    This, on the other hand is better described as "Righteous Religious Fascism." The motivation is not to protect you from yourself, but to protect you from Satan.

    1. Re:TLA for the KJC by durin · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Rush Limbaugh thinks with his mouth."

      You misspelled asshole.

      --
      Why, yes! I AM new here.
    2. Re:TLA for the KJC by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      You and I would probably agree that the crusade to require passive restraints in cars (basically, seatbelts that buckle you in involuntarily) is Nannie State Fascism.

      The thing you've completely missed is that a "passive restraint" device can also be an airbag.

      Car makers were required to include a "passive restraint" device in cars many years ago. They could either do the idiotic seatbelt thing, or airbags. Many chose the dumb seatbelt thing because it was cheaper. Later on the law was changed and airbags were required. So it's not a "nannie state" anything, the dumb seatbelt thing was because the automakers lobbied congress for a cheaper alternative to airbags, and got it for several years.

      But we probably disagree as to the speed limit (I think people who think they can drive safely at 90 MPH are fooling themselves, but that's not a popular opinion).

      90 MPH is probbably higher than the freeways were designed to be safe at, but the 55 MPH limit is simply stupid. The 55 MPH limit was introduced to save gasoline during the energy crisis, it didn't have anything to do with safety.

      I do think it's pretty interesting that both the examples you picked had little to do with safety, and everything to do with politics.

      --
      AccountKiller
    3. Re:TLA for the KJC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't think that word means what you think it means.

      Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology and mass movement that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and historical terms, above all other loyalties, and to create a mobilized national community.[1] Many different characteristics are attributed to fascism by different scholars, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, totalitarianism, collectivism[2], anti-liberalism, and anti-communism.
      Emphasis mine. I don't think Ralph Nader fits any of those idealogies, especially considering his anti-corporate nature. His first claim to fame was the book Unsafe at any speed which highlighted the danger of the badly engineered Chevy Corvair automobile. Wanting auto manufacturers to put in seat belts is likewise pretty anti-corporate. From the same source:

      Issues he has promoted include consumer rights, feminism, humanitarianism, environmentalism, and democratic government. Nader has also been a critic of American foreign policy in recent decades, which he views as corporatist, imperialist, and contrary to the fundamental values of democracy and human rights. His activism has played a large part in the creation of many governmental and non-governmental organizations, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Public Citizen, Public Interest Resource Groups (PIRGs).
      If anything, his politics are antifacist.

      I agree about Rush, now that guy is most definitely a facist.

      More on topic (or less offtopic I suppose), I don't understand these so-called "Christians'" crusade against porn. There has been pornography ever since mankind learned to draw, yet nowhere in the bible does it say porn is a sin.

      It does say that collecting interest on a debt is a sin (usary). So why aren't these so-called "Christians" crusading against banks, and for universal health care and help for the homeless? Am I the only Christian who has actually READ the Bible?
    4. Re:TLA for the KJC by fm6 · · Score: 1
      Jeez, references to cars brings out the idiots even more so than references to guns.
      • When I said "passive restraint" I meant "passive seatbelts". Technically, I guess airbags are passive restraints too, but that's not what I meant, and I think it was clear what I meant. Don't make my choice of terminology into a conspiracy theory.
      • Airbags are not now nor have they ever been considered a substitute for seatbelts. Indeed, cars with airbags are more dangerous if you don't buckle up.
      • You're really reaching for it with your weird discussion of speed limits and your clueless assumption that I was referring to the old 55 MPH experiment. I was referring to the fact that when I drive 65 (OK, sometimes 70), I'm routinely passed by folks going 20 MPH faster. A big reason I avoid the left lane these days.
      • I do have to point out that higher speed limits have had a certain elevating effect, not just on accident rates, but on the price of gas.
      • My choice of examples is "interesting"? Does that mean I have some evil hidden agenda? If so, I guess I must be smarter than you: you managed to attack me 5 different ways without really understanding anything I was saying — much less attempting to deal with my point about NSFs vs. RRFs, which was the whole point of my post, and which you completely ignored.
  88. Great, another month before the Wii isn't sold out by jbx · · Score: 1

    Man, I was looking forward to being able to actually walk into a store and not have them be sold out of Wii, or maybe even have a Wii at a discount... and now this. Great. Thanks a lot, pro-family church nazis.

    --
    (sig) The last bug isn't fixed until the last user is dead. (/sig)
  89. Great! by CokeBear · · Score: 1

    I say do it! Then the crazy fundies will stop buying Wiis, and there will be more for the rest of us! (I *still* haven't been able to find one anywhere in Toronto. Mostly because the shipments arrive during the day when I'm at work, and always sell out within 20-30 minutes)

    --
    Reality has a liberal bias
  90. The article actually does mention PIN numbers by jchenx · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apparently a lot of people haven't read the actual article in question. In fact, they do mention PIN numbers and parental controls. However, parents need to know that they have to turn these features ON, since it's default to off.

    Also, the "Wii == Porn Portal" is actually something the gaming press came up with. The actual site itself doesn't appear to be "blaming the Wii" for any problems.

    Unfortunately, this appears to be a case where the gaming media is blowing something out of proportion, and stands a good chance at doing more harm than good. If I were a regular parent who came across the article on this site, I would have thought, "Oh, the Wii has a web browser? And I have a way to turn on parental controls? Excellent!". However, if I had come across the Slashdot or Kotaku article instead, I might be thinking "THE WII IS A PORTAL TO PORN!? OMG!" . Gee, thanks gaming press.

    --
    -- jchenx
    1. Re:The article actually does mention PIN numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but the wonderful thing about slashdot as opposed other sites of similar ilk is the comments, not the stories, and they point out the flaws in the stories as often as there are flaws.

      I go to google news, bbc, etc for my news. I go to /. and fark for the comments on the news :-P

  91. The Chrisitian Group by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FTA:
    "A tipster sends word that The Porn Talk, a site backed by a secretive faith-based ministry in California, is prepping to attack Nintendo's Wii and other gaming devices, calling them "portals to porno" in a press release."

    The link below is hyper linked in the first paragraph: http://www.ethur.org/

  92. Oh thank the gods... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully this smear campain will stop fundemental christians buying the Wii... Thats about five million more chances for me to get one.....

  93. cinco de mayo by Nf1nk · · Score: 1

    cinco de mayo is pretty much a California holiday. It is not widely celebrated in Mexico see:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinco_de_mayo
    mostly it is an excuse for Americans to drink bad Mexican beer (there is good Mexican beer).
    It has turned into another St. Patricks day

    --
    I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
  94. Whoopie doo.... by Shads · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... honestly, Christian groups have condemned Barney and Teletubbies, Harry Potter, the interweb, etc... it's a big yawn conspiracy. Whee, yet another condemation. For gods sake they wouldn't want kids to have any fun.

    Whatever happened to parents taking an active part in their childrens life instead of blaming everything in the world for corrupting their children? Oh that's right they're too busy out crusading against everything to bother with, you know, raising their kids. God knows they need to make the world safer for the kids. [/sarcasm]

    --
    Shadus
    1. Re:Whoopie doo.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some actually say that we shouldn't because it is not 'suffering' for all the other poor souls. Meh!

  95. Hah! A little late. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pfft, I was surreptitiously accessing pornography on my Dreamcast back in the day. On dial-up.

    Will the porn arms race ever end? I hope not.

  96. It's only a matter of time... by bean123456789 · · Score: 1

    Before clothing is considered a portal to porn, I mean all you have to do is take it off.

  97. This is ridiculous. by FiloEleven · · Score: 2, Informative

    This article should really be tagged "slownewsday." Look, some random Christian group that no one has heard of decided to make a press release that hardly anybody outside of their sphere would have seen. This press release is not geared towards the general public, but towards a subset of Christians who share the group's beliefs about porn. Somebody decided to stir up contention by "leaking" the press release to Kotaku, and somebody else decided it deserved a place on Slashdot. It doesn't.

    This is not a Jack Thompsonesque nationwide crusade against Wii or anything like it, which is apparent from reading the actual press release. It's merely a piece written by Christians and for Christians, with the now-typical sensationalist attention-grabbing headline. Most of us recognize sensationalism as such when the topic is more mundane, and I expect that the skewed view of Christianity that is prevalent here on /. is responsible for taking this one more (and too) seriously.

    Sometimes Christian groups do things that are worth talking about because they're stepping on the rights of others. This is not one of those times. Nothing to see here, move along.

  98. kids 'n pr0n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    i had this experience when teaching kids to code HTML in the early 90s...

    one 14-yr-old kept after me for "real porn sites;" he was tired of salivating over soft-core pornvertising (bra ads, swimsuits, television, Hustler, etc) and wanted the "hard-core" stuff. I told him, "You really don't want to see some of that..."

    Eventually he found his way to some nazi-pr0n; donkeys, scat, etc. When I heard from him next time, he said, "Dude! Why didn't you tell me that was GROSS!" I said, "I did." He quit thinking such material was "interesting." I also broke him of the death-pr0n fix he had in common with so many adolescents by sending him to the Cobain autopsy photos...

    I was reminded of this by the scene in "South Park - The Movie" - "Dude! WTF is wrong with German people anyway?!??!?!"

    The people who watch pr0n the most, in my professional experience, are all the office middle-management types that surf pr0n sites behind their closed office doors while whacking off, and then wonder why their drive is littered with malware, all the while denying what can be easily read in a scan of their cookies/site histories/tracking files.

    Hypocrisy rools, d00dz!

  99. Direct by Bizzeh · · Score: 1

    i have a comment direct to the christian hippies who are planning this campaign.

    who the hell asked you? my kids are not your kids, my friends kids, are not your kids, my brothers kids are not your kids... who are you to tell us about what they should and shouldnt be doing? how about, while your planning and acting on these campaigns, kids think its a good idea to use your tactics to get what they want... how does that make you feal? your what is wrong with the world, you are slowing down the progress of all man kind.

    please get a life, and leave everyone else to their own.

  100. The Solution by cfoushee · · Score: 1

    The way to solve this is to have parental controls at the gateway. The company I work for, www.clearaccess.com, sells wireless gateways that provide parental controls to the home user. I know some other products like linksys and others have the ability but you have to manually say what sites to block etc... Our solution hooks up with an existing content filtering service that allows you to set different levels per device. So the WII could get the kidz only level while your latpop could get the Parent level. Anti-Phishing is included.
    The solution is control the choke point which is generally is wireless gateway in most homes.

  101. Marketing campaign! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... 'Gaming devices like the Wii and the PSP aren't just for fun games anymore. You're able to surf the net, chat with friends, email, and view porn because of its internet access.' ...

    Seems a bit more like a marketing campaign than a smear campaign. =)

  102. Re:As if Wiis weren't already hard enough to get.. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    While the text of the article was pretty reasonable, the headline was sensationalist and misleading: "Wii Have A Problem".

    I understand that they were just trying to be cute, but the headline implies that there is some problem with the Wii. In fact, it simply offers internet access - just like other game systems, computers, cell phones, and even some refrigerators. It's actually better than most of these other options, in that it offers parental controls.

    If their headline said, "Wii Offers Protection Against Porn" no one would be even talking about this news release. They were after attention, and they deserve what they get.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  103. Be gone with you SATAN!! by shadowen1977 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If I spash holy water on the Wii.... does it void my warrenty?

    Seriously, most game consoles, your cell phone, your home computer, hell even appliances in the home (fridge, microwave, etc) have browsers, so they are all "Portals to Porn". Why are people listening to these quacks who need to "save us all from ourselves"? What is the alternative? Sell everything and crawl back into a cave?

    1. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Sj0 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Unfortunately, folks like this don't realize that you need to face evil to become hardened to it. If you never have to look upon the things that can corrupt you, you'll be completely defenceless when you get a good look at them. Just think about all those ministers and televangelists into the gay sex. Most of us, we've got some measure of sexual stuff in our life somehow, so when this gay sex thing comes along, it's like "Yeah, I'm not all about doing that". When the guy who hasn't looked at a naked girl since 1972 sees the gay sex though, it's like "Wow! This is the best thing ever! I've got to do this all the time!"

      Sewer rats were found to have more powerful immune systems than regular lab rats, and were on the whole much healthier despite their living conditions. So to it is with humans and morality.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    2. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by JimDaGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The sad thing is this type of crap gets lumped in with "Christians".

      There are wacky bible-bashing Christians out there just like there are crazy cut-your-head-off Muslims.

      I am a Christian, but I am often very saddened by the state of Christianity because I read reports like this one. Most Christians in the USA are good, easy-goin people like me.

      I personally don't care if you want to run around naked in your own house, pee on a dog and have sex with chickens. That is your problem, not mine. Though as a Christian I will pray for you and hope that you give up your chicken-sex. However, I won't be bashing you on the head telling you that you will go to h-e-double-hockey-sticks because you had chicken-sex. Heck, chicken-sex seems to be the best that most /.ers can get :-)

      Seriously, most of this crazy "Christian" crap comes from the Catholics. Look at the history of the Catholic church. Murder. Rape. Molestation. Lies. No wonder a lot of non-Christians think all "Christians" are crazy.

      --
      General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
    3. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Rostin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All I can say is, "huh?"

      For every example you can name for which this might be true, I'm confident there's one for which it isn't. The one you did choose is completely ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that people just snap one day and start having gay affairs because they're too morally sheltered? Isn't it possible that.. I don't know... they're actually just gay?

      When it comes to porn, which is really what this is about, for a lot of people (perhaps most people), a little bit doesn't inoculate, it's the beginning of an addiction. See, for example, this. (NSFW, by the way.) It's obviously not very scientific, but I think it definitely makes the point.

    4. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by kamapuaa · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Being gay is not a matter of having lapsed moral strength, possibly deriving from time spent away from Internet porn. It's a matter of being gay.

      Honestly I can't imagine a more lunatic bigoted view, but on Slashdot even the idiots get modified insightful, as long as it tangentially goes along with the group-think.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    5. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by redbaritone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmmm. So, the best way to prevent alcoholism is to drink. "Honest, ociffer. I was just trying to umberstand the emeny!"

      I understand your point, and on the surface, it seems agreeable. It fails the reality test, though. What about those who are predisposed to addictions? Alcoholism, for example, can run in families, often skipping generations, due to the fallout of one generations' excesses. Many Native Americans and their descendants are known to be predisposed to alcoholism. For _some_ people, ONE drink is all it takes to make them an addict. The same goes for many drugs, even pot.

      Your point seems to be "everything in moderation". Let's think about that. Sex, even in moderation can prove life-changing. It only takes one time to get an STD or create a life - even if you're practicing "safe" sex. Murder in moderation is still murder. Lying in moderation is still lying. etc. etc. So, no, exposure to immoral acts doesn't prevent further or more severe immoral acts. If anything, it encourages it. What changes, instead, is one's view of the act itself. Once you've done it, it's suddenly easier to rationalize.

      Also, I think there's another explanation to all the televangelists/priests, etc. Yes, certainly abstinence makes the temptation of the unknown greater. But consider that some priests/televangelists/whatever became "religious" in part to isolate themselves from their temptations - like an alcoholic moving to a dry county.

      Furthermore, it's only the extraordinary which make the news. For every pedophile preacher, there are thousands of decent ones.

    6. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by billcopc · · Score: 1

      Don't quote me on this as I'm surely getting some pointless facts wrong, but I heard Telus is getting sued for selling cell phone porn. Now I have to wonder why someone would want porn on their cell phone, especially at telco prices, but I fail to see why this gives a religious activism group any reason or valid basis for a lawsuit.

      So they're half-brained bible-thumping attention whores, and they don't like porn... ok! Just don't buy the porn! Porn isn't destroying the world (of organized criminal religion), porn freaks are (ministers)!

      Hell I don't like Honda Civics because everyone driving them in my neighborhood is either a goddamned wigger or a short-haired office-power psycho bitch with so many paint smears on the bumpers she'd make Van Gogh blush. Should I sue Honda ? Noooo! I should sue the bitch that scratched my car. Simple logic.

      Maybe there's something I'm missing about extremist catholic groups... oh right, they're still pissed off because the jews control everything. ah well!

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    7. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by pflickner · · Score: 1

      Uhhh, the "reverend" Ted Haggart isn't a catholic, last I checked. I've found that most people are good people, church or not church; it's the lunatic fringe that screws up everything. They're the reason that people think that: -- Christians are crazy -- Muslims hate the US (no, they don't; it's the lunatic fringe) -- computer geeks are into kids (thanks a lot, Dateline!) And most /.ers aren't into chicken sex. It's ducks. Didn't you ever see David Lynch's site? I mean, really. Chickens?

    8. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Sewer rats were found to have more powerful immune systems than regular lab rats, and were on the whole much healthier despite their living conditions.

      The urban rat has a life expectancy of about a year. The lab rat or pet two to four years. Is the urban rat healthier at all ages or are you simply looking at survivors of infant mortality in the weeks or months of their adult prime?

      folks like this don't realize that you need to face evil to become hardened to it

      I would have thought that become hardened to evil makes it easier to accept and not the other way around.

    9. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by alshithead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Unfortunately, folks like this don't realize that you need to face evil to become hardened to it."

      WTF? Those of us who actually care don't want to become "hardened" to evil. Evil is evil and it sucks. Evil is bigotry, prejudice, violence, and those who don't choose to live by the "golden rule". They are the enemy of everyone. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you become hardened to evil then you are choosing to ignore it. I don't want anyone to ignore evil. Make a difference. I'll risk my life to intervene if I see a mugging or convenience store robbery. I choose to not associate with people who espouse prejudices, violence, or really harmful "criminal" activities...who really cares about a friendly poker game or smoking a little pot?

      As far as homosexuals go, they don't harm me or as far as I can see, they don't harm society. Hell, we've got too many kids out there who need parents and being raised by a homosexual does not mean you become a homosexual. Homosexuality seems to be in most mammalian and many bird species but they are, and must by Darwin's law, remain a minority.

      --
      I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
    10. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by JimDaGeek · · Score: 1

      Well, I am a Christian and honestly, I have never heard of Ted Haggart. I just had to do a Google search on that name.

      I agree with you that most people are good people. Religion or no religion. As a progrmmer, my last programming group had a Jew, two Christians, a Muslim, an Indian of unknown religion (too many gods to list), a die-hard atheist, and a moderate (I don't know and I don't care).

      Oh, and sorry about the chicken-sex thing. I wasn't aware that /.ers change from chickens to ducks. :-)

      --
      General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
    11. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by ksheff · · Score: 1

      No, parents just need to be clued into what their kids are doing. Some may just think that it's just a game machine and may not even know that it has the ability to surf the web. Calling it a "porn portal" is over the top, but sometimes that's the only way you can reach some people.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    12. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Stewie241 · · Score: 1

      Nobody's trying to save you from yourself. Read the article and do some thinking:
      1. Where was the article found? porntalk.com: ThePornTalk.com is an innovative web resource that helps parents talk to their kids about porn and internet dangers. This is an article found on a web site that is aimed at helping parents deal with the issue of pornography with their children.

      2. The article's intent is only to inform parents that the Wii can be used to access pornography. It isn't to 'smear' the Wii. There is a lot out there on the Internet (as I'm sure you know), and a lot of stuff that kids aren't necessarily prepared to process on their own, and don't really need to at this point. This is about educating parents, not about calling a video game machine evil:
      So the solution lies in parents getting the facts and then talking to their children about expectations for online activity. Foster believes that, "Whether it is the home computer or these new gaming consoles, porn is easily accessible. The Wii is an amazing console and tons of fun but parents need good info on how to keep kids safe."

      This is a prime example of people needing to look past the summary and intelligently look at what is being said.

    13. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People just "snap" and become gay? That is hysterical, do Christians really believe this?

    14. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by DavidShor · · Score: 1

      You may be Christian, but you clearly do not watch the news often.

    15. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Being just gay is the same as just snapped one day because they were sheltered. I'm probably feeding a troll here, but here some speculation where this stoopid idea might be coming from.

      Some guy has never had any sex, doesn't go out. And suddenly in his late thirties, he starts going to gay bars and fucks guys. How do you interpret that?

      The naive christian conservative's interpretation: Because he led a sheltered life, he just "snapped" when he saw porn the first time. And the first porn he happened to see was gay porn.

      The real explanation: Yes, he was gay all along, and knew it since puberty dawned on him when he was 13 years young. But being somewhat on the shy side, he never dared to announce this publically. He never went out, because it seemed pointless to him: in the "normal" hangouts, he'd meet girls (in which he was not interested), and if he went to the gay hangouts, he feared he would get "caught" and ridiculed or ostracised for it. Result: he deliberately led a sheltered life. And after 24 years of abstinence, he finally grew a spine, and fully assumed his sexuality.

      So, in our example, the candidate did not become gay because he led a sheltered life, but it was the other way round: he led a sheltered life because he was gay, but didn't dare to live it.

    16. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      I'm not so certain your thoughts are completely valid. While certain groups of individuals may have every genetic twist to make them more likely to perform certain actions, or help push along various forms of addiction, in making your point you sound a bit like an apologist simply because you neglect 'Free Will' - nobody puts a gun to their heads. (Not normally anyway) The first step is a choice, generally the next several steps can also be met with rational thought to the potential outcome.

    17. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Weedlekin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Seriously, most of this crazy "Christian" crap comes from the Catholics."

      What rubbish. I currently live in a predominantly Catholic country, and despite not being a Christian myself, am married to a woman who goes to mass twice a week, has a grandfather who was beatified by the last pope, and an uncle who is likely to be beatified by this one. Yet strangely, neither she nor her priest have mentioned the Wii (which is constantly sold out over here), or the Internet (massively popular), or for that matter porn (also incredibly popular). They also have far less in the way of silly prudishness than most protestant countries: nearly all women go topless on the beach, TV adverts have full-frontal topless shots, explicit sex scenes don't have watershed hours, and movie ratings are advisory rather than enforced by law, for example (one also sees a lot more blood and gore on news reports, which aren't censored for fear of possibly scaring a child. The attitude here seems to be that it's a parent's job to control what their children watch, not everyone else's).

      Thus, a far more accurate statement would be: most of this crazy "Christian" crap comes from US-based right wing fundamentalist religious nuts.

      "Look at the history of the Catholic church. Murder. Rape. Molestation. Lies."

      All of which are true of Protestants when they've had the power to do so. Here are a few examples (there are many, many more):

      - John Calvin's followers burned 58 "heretics".

      - Lutherans in Germany instituted the death penalty for heresy, i.e. the crime of not interpreting Biblical scriptures in the same way as them.

      - Elizabeth 1 of England outlawed Catholicism and executed at least 200 Catholics; Quakers and other non-Anglicans were also persecuted.

      - John Knox et. al. made it illegal to say Mass in Scotland. Punishment for the first offence was flogging and confiscation of all good, second offence banishment, third offence death.

      - Matthew Hopkins, the notorious "Witch Finder General", was a Protestant.

      - Puritan settlers of Massachusetts instituted what can best be described as a religious police state where even minor doctrinal differences were punished by flogging, pillorying, hanging, cutting off ears and / or noses, and boring holes in tongues with hot irons. Quakerism was a capital offence, and four Quakers were hanged for it, while the famous Salem witch trials resulted in 20 executions and around 150 people being imprisoned.

      Protestants who happily lambast Catholics for their church's past atrocities are thus akin to Nigerians condemning Uganda for being full of black people.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    18. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      I bet this group is a cat's paw from a competitor. Sure, parents may not know that you can browse the net with the wii, but when this group of cavemen know, it's because someone has told them.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    19. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Sj0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you choose to deal with evil by being evil, then that's your choice. If you choose to deal with alcohol by becoming a drunk, that's your choice. If you choose to deal with vices by destroying yourself, that's your choice. If you're really dedicated to your principles, however, then by looking at evil and being forced to deal with it in yourself and in the world you'll become stronger, more capable of dealing with evil in yourself and in the world.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    20. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by hublan · · Score: 2, Insightful
      --
      My spoon is too big.
    21. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      I live in a catholic European country. the Catholic Church can be pretty annoying sometimes, but I have seen nothing here like the crazy fundamentalist Protestant guys you have there.

      Protestantism is, in its genesis, a lot more tolerant than Catholicism. Also, while the Catholic Church has a very rigid and centralised structure, in Protestantism there are many different churches. This allows for the upcoming of all sorts of freaks with fanatic, completely reality-detached speach. Though in Europe they are disregarded as freaks and made targets for laughter, in the US they have lots of power and money, and can get their twisted message through.

      We have catholic priests and bishops saying fanatic shit all the time. But it usually plays against them in public opinion. And some public statements, if serious enough, can make the Catholic Church punish them.

      I'm not defending Catholicism, I don't have any religious faith whatsoever, never had and never will. If I happened to have any, I would probably choose one of the most tolerant branches of Protestantism.

    22. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately this is not true, as people who belong to certain cultural, religious or ideological groups are far more likely to be bad (or good) than people belonging to other groups. Whether a person is good or bad is not random.

    23. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      There are wacky bible-bashing Christians out there just like there are crazy cut-your-head-off Muslims.

      This comparison assumes that Christianity and Islam are equal and identical, which is incorrect. What passes off as extremism in one religion or moral system is not necessarily extremism in another.
    24. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Das+Modell · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's really sad that comments like this get modded flamebait, but it's of course perfectly consistent with the leftist dogma of burying and silencing dissenting opinions that go againts the accepted groupthink.

      No, I don't agree with the parent post either, but I also have no reason to think that it's a flamebait. I don't know what kind of totalitarian delusions leftists harbor, but progress does not happen because everyone is blindly following the accepted groupthink and silencing, imprisoning or murdering anyone who disagrees.

    25. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by sg_oneill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've got muslim friends that are as 'moderate' as you or I, heck one even comes to the pub with me for a beer every now and then ("Oh dont worry, Allahs got bigger things to worry about mate"), and I've got whackjob christian aquaintances who think gays should be executed and muslims converted by force.

      Moderation is moderation, and its the usual state of humans who have better things to worry about , like getting to work on time and making sure the kids are doing the homework.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    26. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by jez9999 · · Score: 1, Troll

      a grandfather who was beatified by the last pope, and an uncle who is likely to be beatified by this one.

      I thought he only did that to young boys.

    27. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Das+Modell · · Score: 1
      I'm sure you do, but a few friends (who, of course, have been selected in a biased manner since you wouldn't befriend people you don't like) are not a representative sample of the global Muslim population.

      Moderation is moderation, and its the usual state of humans who have better things to worry about , like getting to work on time and making sure the kids are doing the homework.

      You're approaching the subject from the common perspective that all human beings are fundamentally the same, ie. adhere to contemporary Western values, whatever those values are at the current moment. What passes off as abnormal here might be perfectly normal elsewhere, and vice versa.
    28. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by doomicon · · Score: 1

      As a Christian, it really bothers me when I see groups with "Christian" in their title go on some "__________" crusade. Biblically, I see many cases where Jesus tells Christian's to spread the word, meaning spread the word of Salvation. I don't find any instances where Jesus lobbied Rome to change any laws, or did sit in's, or called people Baby Killers.

      Key to Weedlekin's post is "religious nuts", Religion is man's way of getting closer to God. It's man's way of coming up with do's and don'ts and various crusades to be closer to God... It's not God's way. Going to Church, trying to ban violent video games, abortion, etc. doesn't make you a Christian, any more than going to McDonald's makes you a hamburger.

      This isn't to start some biblical debate, but just to point out that just because some individual or group claims to be Christian, doesn't actually mean they are Christian.

      --

      Awesome!
    29. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Bobby+Orr · · Score: 1

      hmmm... I fail to see how "crazy cut-your-head-off Muslims" applies to those who write a caustic article that aims to tell parents that the Wii accesses the Internet.

    30. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      You left out Oliver Cromwell, especially what he did to the Catholic Irish.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    31. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but . . . speaking as a Christian of sorts (I'd call myself an aspiring Christian, not necessarily a practicing one) . . . this kind of bigotry and intolerance is neither unique to Christians, nor non-Christians, nor any particular sect of Christendom. The problem is fundamentally with (fallen) human nature itself. Some people, for whatever reason, like to control others. People of this sort are attracted to positions of power: sometimes religious, sometimes financial, sometimes governmental. They often abuse this power to the detriment of everyone else.

      In a world where power were decentralized, limited, and exercised mostly by individuals or small groups rather than large ones, this would be less of a problem: people with this tendency would still exist, probably in about the same numbers, but their ability to harm others would be far less.

    32. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      Wait until they see the first Wii sex toys come out. You'll be hearing a lot of "Wii Wii!" when the WiiDildo comes out.

      It won't be available in Alabama of course.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    33. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "Key to Weedlekin's post is "religious nuts"

      Although I did use this term, I'd like to point out that religion doesn't have a monopoly on fanatical nuts who want to tell everyone else how to live. The Western world for example is increasingly falling prey to "nanny states" where politicians have been spurred by fanatical nut lobbies into banning people from doing things that are fun but bad for them, and then whine that everyone's living longer (albeit less enjoyably!), and therefore bankrupting their state pension schemes.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    34. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      And the Catholic English, and the Anglican English, and a whole bunch of others, because Ollie believed in equal opportunities massacring where everybody had the inalienable right to be killed irrespective of nationality, gender, or creed.

      NB: I did say I was providing a few examples, and also that there were many more.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    35. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by sumdumass · · Score: 0, Troll

      Ok, first and foremost, the only religious of Christian interpretations here are the ones others have lead into not me. I'm not part of any group on this. I do lean to the right but not because of some ideology, it is that the right makes the most sense, most of the time. And although I do believe in a god, I haven't read the bible more then enough to play devil's advocate. And it doesn't even come into play here. Science and human behavior does and thats what I'm basing this on.

      By definition, homosexual, heterosexual, mono sexual and any other sexuality a human can hope to aspire to, is a decision. There is nothing stopping a gay person from mating with the opposite sex just like there is nothing stopping a straight person from having sex with the same sex. There is however an underlying preference that pushes people to one way or another. Just like favoring the color red over the color blue, this preference has been learned throughout the person's life. Sometime during their life, they had to acknowledge this preference and determine to become a homosexual.

      It is the same for heterosexuals but society is prewired to push the heterosexual lifestyle so the decision isn't that obvious. But no matter what anyone thinks, they did make a decision to be one way or the other. Most often this decision is so gradual (it is made in steps or stages) that it seems the natural thing to do. Some times the deviancy of having gay sex excites the person to the point of making the choice because it was more rewarding. This is like those who think public sex is more rewarding or those who use pain, whips, role playing or whatever.

      And because society has made the decisions that sex in the act of reproduction was the right way to have it, most sex that cannot produce offspring is considered not good. The extent of which is closely related to the ability to have children and how far society is willing to depart from what they were told was the norm. Some people get a rush from doing things they know they shouldn't. Having an affair with a married woman generally results better sex because you know it is wrong. On the same note, A person who is told he can't have gay sex might find it more exciting or satisfying because he knows he shouldn't be doing it. This can also explain some of the "gay and in your face" attitude some gays adopt. It is because as society starts to accept them, the rush runs out. So they need to do things to keep it going.

      The only thing that is a mystery is how the preferences are shaped. And the mystery there isn't that it happened but when it happened. It is generally spread out over severals instances and done on a subconscious level. This is a reason people don't remember what made then like the color red over blue, they just remember when they decided red was better then blue. Just as with Being Gay.

    36. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I love how you were immediately attacked as being some religious fundamentalists and then they go one to attack or make fun of the religion.

      The simple thing I was trying to get at is that All human sexuality is learned behavior. Society has predisposition'ed Us to go one direction because it has always benefited society. Now that we don't need to pump workers and defenders out, we have started accepting other positions on it. In the interest of keeping this short, I will keep it short. I elaborated in a post above this a little deeper but my entire point revolves around sexuality is a choice based on preference that a person has learned to prefers over time. They do so for various reasons and these reasons are generally effecting us at a subconscious level so we miss the majority of them. There are little difference in chosing to become gay or staying straight and choosing to like a color or type of car over another. Some times the details and influences are more clouded but the choicees are the same.

    37. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you do, but a few friends (who, of course, have been selected in a biased manner since you wouldn't befriend people you don't like) are not a representative sample of the global Muslim population.
      Been lookin' over your posting history, esp. in this discussion. Since when do you care about representative samples?
    38. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is nothing stopping a gay person from mating with the opposite sex

      True, and many do (presumably by thinking about a man while they fuck their wife...). But many don't get happy that way, and eventually snap and come out. And many are unable to think about a different kind of sex while having real sex.

      just like there is nothing stopping a straight person from having sex with the same sex.

      That should be theoretically possible as well in the same way, but what would be the point? Why fake something for which many members of society still look down on you?

      There is however an underlying preference that pushes people to one way or another. Just like favoring the color red over the color blue, this preference has been learned throughout the person's life.

      Any evidence to support that claim?

      Sometime during their life, they had to acknowledge this preference and determine to become a homosexual.

      If it is truly a decision, how come so many gay people struggle with their homosexuality, and live in the closet?

      True, many don't have a problem with it, and live their feelings openly as soon as they show up, but others are scared of these feelings, and try to hide them.

      It is the same for heterosexuals but society is prewired to push the heterosexual lifestyle so the decision isn't that obvious. But no matter what anyone thinks, they did make a decision to be one way or the other. Most often this decision is so gradual (it is made in steps or stages) that it seems the natural thing to do. Some times the deviancy of having gay sex excites the person to the point of making the choice because it was more rewarding.

      So, in a way, they want to make themselves look "interesting"? How then do you explain the existence of shy and introverted gay people? Shy people would do everything to stay out of the spotlight, and certainly not "chose" a sexuality because its "deviancy is more exciting".

      This is like those who think public sex is more rewarding

      Not really.

      or those who use pain, whips, role playing or whatever.

      This may be closer to it. But again, these are things that happen to turn them on, and are not necessarily a choice...

      And because society has made the decisions that sex in the act of reproduction was the right way to have it, most sex that cannot produce offspring is considered not good. The extent of which is closely related to the ability to have children and how far society is willing to depart from what they were told was the norm.

      True, at least as far as the 3 big monotheistic religions are concerned. Other societies have less qualms about homosexuality. And guess what, even in those societies, most people are still straight, and a minority is gay or lesbian. If it were truely a choice, you'd expect having an equal share of all sexualities in societies where no stigma is attached to homosexuality.

      Some people get a rush from doing things they know they shouldn't.

      Not really. Again: consider shy and introverted gay people.

      Having an affair with a married woman generally results better sex because you know it is wrong.

      That really depends on other aspects of the participants' temperament. For some people, the thrill of the forbidden adds to the excitement, but for others the need to be permanently on the lookout somehow kills the atmosphere.

      On the same note, A person who is told he can't have gay sex might find it more exciting or satisfying because he knows he shouldn't be doing it. This can also explain some of the "gay and in your face" attitude some gays adopt.

      More like "I've hid my feelings for too long. Now it's time for 'revenge', and I show openly what I've repressed for so long". Why is it considered ok if a heterosexual "flaunts his sexuality" (by continuously talking about his wife and his kids), but not

    39. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Since when did I not?

    40. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Das+Modell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Society has predisposition'ed Us to go one direction because it has always benefited society.

      It's not social, it's purely biological, and humans were around long before "society" emerged. A lot of human behavior is biological. Since reproduction is the key to keeping the species alive, it stands to reason that heterosexuality is a biological trait (because it takes a man and a woman to reproduce), and homosexuality is an abnormality of some sort (note to hysterical PC leftists: "abnormal" does not equal "kill them all in gas chambers").

      Even animals exhibit homosexuality, and they certainly have no conscious ideas about how society should work.
    41. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      There are sociopaths, freaks, and evil men everywhere, religious or no. Impugning the character of those people is definitely not a bad thing. Their misdeeds need to be widely known so that things like those that you mention don't happen again. It would, however, also be remiss of you not to acknowledge the insanity of Cathoilics as well, as they had many hundereds of years to fuck up completely before the protestants were even on the scene. Holding back science, repressing freedom, torturing and killing innocnets, strangling governments, the list is virtually endless.

      In addition, these goofballs that are calling the Wii a porn portal are due as much criticism as we can throw at them. Christianity has ideas concerning raising your children with certin principles that should preclude unsupervised hours in front of a video game, but I guess that is beside the point when you are trying to run everyone else's lives.

      However, as a Christian what the Catholics do that does anger me is to deny the words of Christ. Christ said His work was sufficient for salvation. And yet the Catholics saw fit to introduce the extra-biblical idea of purgatory. The essence of purgatory is that what Christ did wasn't good enough to accomplish what He said it would. They call Christ a liar and a weakling. Not in those exact words, but by developing a doctrine that contradicts His words it is exactly what they are saying. If purgatory is real then Christ lied when he said that His work was sufficient for salvation and He was too weak to accomplish his goal. This is sickening blasphemy to someone like myself who studies the Bible and places his faith in the words of Christ therein.

      For you non-Christians this probably seems silly. However, my contention has always been that if you decide to believe in a religion it is your responsibility to study it, understand it, and try to form your epistemological basis around it. Otherwise you are wagering your eternal salvation on something you don't even know or understand. To allow your church leader/leaders to insert something in to the cannon of the Bible or the doctrinal practice of your religion that is contradictory to the established and clearly stated tenents of the faith is the highest form of irresponsibility. At that point you become a group of people whith a set of beliefs that you choose arbitrarily and then give weight by claiming they are the words of God. You might as well go L. Ron Hubbard at that point. At least he had the dignity to start fresh rather than ursurp the station of the Bible to preach his wacky religion.

      Catholicism contains doctrines that are by their very nature inimical to the stated words of the Bible and Christ Himself. And yet they hold up other parts of the Bible as inerrant and continue to place thir faith in a God (Christ) that they call a liar and a failure. Above all things that you can point fingers at, this I find the most abhorrent and vile.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    42. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Animals exhibiting homosexuality are usually showing dominance through this. It isn't as if a dog all the sudden decided he wanted to only pork male dogs. Sometimes it is because they get the scents wrong and are basically confused. They also have no conscience idea of how sex or reproduction works. Some animals won't allow mating with offspring under a certain age either. This isn't because they have some underlying thought process either. It is basic instinct and the father would sometimes kill the kids to force the mating again. The father see's a conection between the kids and not getting any and evolution kicks in killing the kids to spread his own genes.

      But there are rules of the pact and there are rules of nature that animals quickly learn. So it isn't directly related to a society but they do have a concept of it in a raw sense.

      Now, with animals were there isn't anything stopping them from having homosexual sex, It is as you say, society wasn't there to stop them. But laws of nature kick in and they corect the behavi0r because of instinct.

    43. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by caol.kailash · · Score: 1

      Right on! And this is why I always say, "There's a reason Europe wanted to be rid of the Puritans"

      But a larger, universal truth: "When you point the finger, there are three pointing back at you." So before you start saying "Oh, the Catholics are bad, look at what they've done through history!" or "Bad Protestants! They killed people too!" or "Muslims, they're all terrorists." Look at the actions of your group and what is said about you first, and remember the feeling it creates when you say that.

      *cue 'The More you Know' music and shooting star with a disclaimer, "Brought to you by your non-denominational spiritual-but-not-religious /.er"*

    44. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      True, and many do (presumably by thinking about a man while they fuck their wife...). But many don't get happy that way, and eventually snap and come out. And many are unable to think about a different kind of sex while having real sex.

      There is nothing indicating they think about sex with a man in the process. There is nothing indicating they would need to. A man as well as a woman can get off regardless of who their with. Unless one of the partners doesn't last long enough.

      That should be theoretically possible as well in the same way, but what would be the point? Why fake something for which many members of society still look down on you?

      Point? The point would be to do it. To see why others in society look down on it.

      Any evidence to support that claim?

      Yea, It is called looking around. The very definition of homosexual is were a person consents and does something in a certain way. If there would be involuntary sexual acts, you would see rapist and child molesters getting away with it. The fact is, any one having sex, even with them selves has to make a decision to do so. Chances are most gay people have had their preferences set before they even realize their sexula side. This could be a reason people think they are born that way.

      If it is truly a decision, how come so many gay people struggle with their homosexuality, and live in the closet? True, many don't have a problem with it, and live their feelings openly as soon as they show up, but others are scared of these feelings, and try to hide them.

      lol.. It is really sad, it is like persecuting someone because they like the color red. OR because they believe in a certain religion. It is because people around them attempt to make then feel bad for being different or acting in a way they think makes them look stupid. And when they come out of the closet, it is that person standing up and saying I'm not going to take it anymore. But as i said, it is a combination of little decisions developing preferences that structure homosexuality. And all the razing and proding they got because they were infered as being gay probably took them over the top.

      I'm not in any way saying there is one reason for someone to be gay. The shear complexity of why someone went gay is really deep and personal to the experiences of that individual. This is why no one has ever found a cause or a cure. And most defiantly, the cure is impossible to fond because there isn't something wrong with a person who is gay. Being gay is a decision often made on a subconscious level. One way to bring this to a conscious level is to ask, if a cure was ever found, and you were gay, would you want to take the cure to be normal. I'm willing to bet that if everyone was honest, the people who already decided to be gay would choose to remain gay were those who chose to be straight would choose the cure.

      So, in a way, they want to make themselves look "interesting"? How then do you explain the existence of shy and introverted gay people? Shy people would do everything to stay out of the spotlight, and certainly not "chose" a sexuality because its "deviancy is more exciting".

      Not more interesting but more exciting. This is a personal feeling distinct to those experiencing it. So it isn't as if all gay's are this way by any means. It is just that some are or can be that way. Have you ever tried something during sex that someone else has raved about being great only to find it less then satisfactory? Or not really good but ordinary? This is the same thing. Different things float different boats and in the end it is all whatever floats your boat. I happen to prefer women, redheads, small to medium build with a nice relatively per portioned breasts. And my favorite thing to do with them is get into an argument in the middle of sex so it turns into angry sex. It is the same thing.

    45. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm gay for the Wii
      I'm also gay for powerpoint.
      Is that wrong?

    46. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Sensae · · Score: 1

      There have been studies of male penguins partnering, not to mentions there have been studies showing 6-8% of quite a few species of animal consistently seeking out males and showing disinterest to females. I wouldn't call that dominance, and I don't think it's consistent confusion.

    47. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Chemical · · Score: 1

      Don't forget though, it was the Catholics who assembled the various texts into what is now known as the Bible, over a thousand years before Protestants were on the scene. They can do whatever they want since they created it.

    48. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      * -- point

        o
      \|/
        | -- you
      / \

      Focusing on my example rather than my message is asinine. Since there's no universal ethic, I was just using a relevant example of a certain group of people with strong beliefs that a certain set of actions constitutes 'evil'. In this case, the ethic holds that sex out of marriage is evil(Actually, sex at all, seeing as they're celibate), that gay sex is evil, that sex with prostitutes is evil, and my point is, by ignoring the evil within themselves, they set themselves up for this eventual fall when something happens. Just like my example of the sewer rats, that person might live a squeaky clean existence, they'll live in a world without evil, but when something comes along that tests their adherence to their principles, they've got no experience dealing with the evil in the world and in themselves.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    49. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      I'm happy that at least one person in this thread actually responded to the main thrust of my post, instead of going all knee-jerk about my particular example.

      Part of the thing to remember is, without some evils in your life, you never have a chance to deal with it in yourself and in the world. You obviously don't have to run out and do things that are dangerous or hurt people, but without a bit of immunization, things get troublesome quickly.

      My favourite example is alcohol. My father let me and my brothers drink from a fairly young age while he was around. His reasoning was that letting the drinking happen in a controlled environment would help us deal with it in a safe environment before we headed out into the world. All my brothers have grown up to drink responsibly, and without most of the dangerous sorts of binge drinking that happen where kids see booze at a party for the first time and go completely haywire. If you simply ignore the problem, then you're setting yourself up for failure.

      Another great example is food. You can't stop eating forever. You can't just move to some country where food is banned. You've got to deal with your temptation to eat stuff that'll cause you to be unhealthy on a daily basis if you want to have a healthy weight. If you shop every week, then you have to deal with the temptation then to buy bad food, and after that, you've got to deal with the temptation to just eat so much that you'll have to run out and buy more food before the week ends.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    50. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      My belief is that there is no universal, objective ethic, that ethics eventually boil down to morality because it's impossible to get any objective first principles upon which to base an ethic, so in the end the things that are important to a person are arbitrary and subjective, so the example holds because they themselves think it's immoral, yet because they have little experience with trying to deal with the issue of sexuality within themselves, they're more likely to have a massive failure to stand by their ethic.

      Now I've been accused of being both for and against the slashdot groupthink for the same post. I can rest well tonight, knowing that no matter what happens, I've thought for myself.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    51. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Think of a naive country boy coming to the city for the first time. This person has all sorts of ideas about what's good and evil, but faced with all sorts of new vices he has no experience with dealing with, bad things happen. After being in the city for a while, and hardening himself to the evils there, his virtue is stronger than before he came, because he's had to deal with the evil in the world and in himself. When he next comes to the city, he'll be able to deal with the evils there.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    52. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Sheep don't think homosexuality is evil. The minister does.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    53. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      There have been studies of male penguins partnering, not to mentions there have been studies showing 6-8% of quite a few species of animal consistently seeking out males and showing disinterest to females. I wouldn't call that dominance, and I don't think it's consistent confusion.
      Yep, And i have read these studies. They all have certain thing in common. People take them to mean homosexualality more then what they actualy mean. Oneof the most common is the penguins in the zoo. They didn't tell you that they sprayd the other male penguin with pharamones to study what trips the mating cycle in the penguins and the gays penuins they have left over are results of that. That Or they did tell you but you ignored it to make a point. And it would be silly to make this point with me, I am neither arguing for or against being gay, I'm just saying It is in fact a choice.

      There are various sexual aspects of animal sexuality. It gets used for more things they we humans use it for. An animal cleaning himself isn't masterbating even if ejacualation occures because of it. An animal mounting another doesn't mean they are in love or that there is anything other then what they use it for. And each other animal comunity who does it does so for their own specific meaning.

      What you are seeing is Anthropomorphism. It is were you apply human charectoristics to animals or non human items. Usualy this is done out of a lack in ability to relate in another way so we attach little human attributes to something. It is most obvious here probably when we discover something that causes our coputers to crash and say "he doesn't like that" when the computer has no concept of liking something. It is the same with animals. In most if not all the studies showing gay animals, there is an underlying social or mechanical reason for the behavior wich is stated in the study but then later removed by someone interpreting it as proof of gay animals or whatever the objective is. And it has been this way in all the papers I have read about it.
    54. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      A short studty of cannonicity and the sources for all the texts of the Bible will reveal your statement to be erroneous. I am assuming you meant the council fo Treant (less than 1K yrs ago, but the closest thing I could think of that you were referring to) where the cannon of scripture was assembled. Fortunately assembling something does not erradicate the pieces of it or the antecedents of those pieces. Therefore, textural criticism and in depth study of the original works is still possible. Putting a bunch of books together into one does not equal creation and/or control.

      In addition, there have been numerous discoveries of texts more antiquated than those the Catholics had available to them 1000 years ago. These are also available for study. Do the Catholics control these as well? Did they create these too, even though they predate the existance of this 1000 year old assemblage you refer to?

      It is silly to say that they created something and can do whaterver they want with sit when it existed independently before and after the incident in question.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    55. Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! by Chemical · · Score: 1

      You obviously know your biblical history better than I. All I meant was that the Catholics decided which books went in the Bible and which didn't.

  104. Pr0n?? Wii madame! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yuo get pr0n /w wii? Hell, i wants one!!!111

    I hope some apples penetrate some christians...

  105. Re:As if Wiis weren't already hard enough to get.. by MadJo · · Score: 1

    But the Wii itself can't get to websites by itself. You need to get a software package (the Wii Opera browser) first.

    btw, many cellphones can access the web, and many kids have cellphones, where is this Christian group with the warnings for those devices?

  106. Sooo by Derosian · · Score: 1

    Instead of making a campaign to bring awareness of the face that your kid can surf for porn on the Wii, they are attacking the Wii and saying its a porn machine. You know, a content filter is probably built in. All I am saying is someone should campaign against this religious group for first of all attacking the console, second of all not making the campaign about it being YOUR fault, it is YOUR fault you don't pay enough attention to your kid to notice the fact he can surf the web on his console, it is YOUR fault that you didn't use the content filter. It is your fault if you have a problem with pornography and you go out and buy something which allows you to view it.

  107. Choice words by neirboj · · Score: 1

    Lessee... they raise the possibility that kids will view porn on the Wii and then call it a "smear campaign?" Looks like somebody's got a sense of humor.

  108. Yet another "Video games are for kids!" story by amuro98 · · Score: 1

    The only reason there's so much shock and outrage over this is because many people STILL think of video games as being something only for kids.

    There was an equal amount of outrage and shock from these groups when it was discovered that you could put porn on a memory stick and view it on your PSP which is also - gasp - a video game platform that was seen as something only for children. Even the DS got its turn when some idiot figured out that it could be entirely possible to have a child molester using the DS' pictochat feature to...CHAT WITH YOUR CHILD! Assuming your child was using pictochat as well, and was within range of said pervert - but that wasn't mentioned in the story. "Child molester", however, was mentioned several times even though...

    There is, of course, the sensationalism angle here as well. I only wish more journalists would ignore it, or would be chastised by their bosses for dealing in such dreck...

    At the same time, you never hear about outraged parents demanding a certain 2000+ year old book be banned for its multiple descriptions of sex, brutal violence, cruelty, and other acts of evil... After all, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

    1. Re:Yet another "Video games are for kids!" story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  109. "gotten ahold" by M0b1u5 · · Score: 1

    I stopped reading the intro as soon as I read "gotten ahold".

    That's a sure sign I've forgotten more English than the poster ever knew.

    --
    How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
  110. OMFG by TheLoneWolf071 · · Score: 1

    Why?!? Why!?! Come on people...

  111. Smear campaign, or parental education? by The-Trav-Man · · Score: 1

    Reading some of the responses and the hyped articles here and on kotaku is a bit of a laugh.

    No where does it say that this group is lobbying for repression of the Wii, or any extra measures.
    So far as I can read they're mainly focusing on making parents aware that this capability exists.
    Jeesub people this is a GOOD THING!

    They're damn right that the capability exists, and they're damn right that parents aren't going to know about it from either reading the manual or from the packaging and Nintendo marketing. This campaign should let them know, ok, naughty stuff is on there so I'll either keep an eye on it or keep my kids away from it if I don't have time to watch them, and also there's a switch on the box to turn off the naughty stuff, GREAT! problem solved.

  112. Funny..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

    So, when will they declare the T.V. as a 'Porn Portal'?

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    1. Re:Funny..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the kids imaginations? Anything can happen in there!

    2. Re:Funny..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      Nah..... They already have that taken care of.

      Nothing says "Believe In Jesus!" like being dunked underwater when you are a baby.

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  113. C'mon! by asCii88 · · Score: 0

    This is not new, I can do this since year 2000 with my Dreamcast! ...not that I've ever had

  114. a good reminder for parents by happy_place · · Score: 1

    I agree the Wii is a great console. Further Nintendo is the most family friendly console around--it's one of the reasons I haven't given up on gaming altogether. Honestly, i don't want to be embarrassed by something indecent on my gamescreen and I like playing games with my kids. I have to admit that when I think of Nintendo, and games like Mario and Poke'mon that I don't associate it the general internet, but with highly scrutinized content. The internet is NOT Nintendo approved, and I would think it would be in Nintendo's best interest to do what this group is doing. Some of us are loyal customers because they strive to cut the crap when it comes to content.

    --Ray

    --
    http://www.beanleafpress.com
  115. The internet is for porn by mleopold · · Score: 1

    Singing: "The internet is for porn.. The internet is for porn.. The internet is for porn"..

    Everybody now...
    http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/internet4por n

  116. Re:The Bible is a gateway to pr0n! =Troll?? Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ur mum is.

  117. This is Armaggedon! by Soiden · · Score: 1

    This is the end! The Wii is a gateway to porn!!! ...But also is a PC, a TV, a VCR or a DVD... And they are a little more than Wiis ;)

    --
    Minti: What's that huge shuriken in your back?! Kin: It's the instrument of my victory.
  118. Flaming prudery by gridsleep · · Score: 1

    Why don't we just solve a world of problems and outlaw Christianity? Did wonders for the Roman Empire. Who knows? The downfall of the American Empire may lead to a 10,000 year dark age, or possibly even the extinction of the human species, giving the rats, roaches and raccoons the chance to start their own civilizations. They can't do much worse than we have.

  119. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The campaign is about informing parents so they can better take an active part in their children's life, not about blaming the Wii.

    Whatever happened to reading the article?

    1. Re:lol by Shads · · Score: 1

      Whatever happened to having an active part in your kids life and knowing what they're doing rather than assuming anything on tv is okay and anything in video games are okay because they're a "kids toy".

      --
      Shadus
  120. I've Tried It, It Doesn't Work. by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

    Okay, I'll admit it. One of the first things I tried after getting the trial version of Opera was viewing some streaming videos along with downloadable content. Sadly, my Wii refused to play WMV, AVI and MPEG content.

    I did read the article, but I didn't see any mention of exactly how the Wii is a portal to porn. I suppose you can look at pictures, but the Wii can't currently be used to view videos.

    If someone does know of a way of playing video content on a Wii, then please let me know!

    1. Re:I've Tried It, It Doesn't Work. by pontifier · · Score: 1

      It has a flash player. Youtube works, as do many other media sites using flash to display content.

      --
      -John Fenley
  121. orb.com for streaming to Wii by gatzke · · Score: 1


    I have tried a few solutions for streaming media to my Wii from a PC. WiiCR would not install and Red Kawa did not work and was not polished.

    orb.com has a nice application that serves up your media (pron?) to your Wii browser, or any browser. Photos and mp3s work ok, some video works, and they have easy links to online video that works as well. The interface almost looks like a Mythbox frontend.

    Maybe WiiCR will get an installer and kick but, but until the Wii browser gets rid of the big tool bar always on it will not be a great solution, just a good solution.

  122. Diversion tactic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meh. Send 'em to the newest wart on the tubes ass, stickam.com. That'll give these losers something to do like practice their secret pedophila and webcam whoring fetishes. God damned freaks, they're more scary that the "sinners" they profess to be trying to rid us all of ;-)

  123. Porn portal huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of a sudden the Nintendo Wii has become much more appealing to me

  124. Focusing on the Wrong Wii's by ryry0666 · · Score: 1

    They should be instead of focusing on the "Wii's" of their priests, as they find their way into places other than children's hands ;)

  125. This is the actual problem.. by LingNoi · · Score: 1
    http://theporntalk.com/critical/impact.asp

    "You see pornography is not reality. It is fantasy. But kids have a difficult time distinguishing between the two."

    I stopped reading there because that is basically their actual point and I think you will find that it is the other way around in regards to the reality distortion...

    You show someone hard global warming evidence.. they switch off into their fantasy world.

    You show someone fossil records dating back millions of years.. they switch off into their fantasy world.

    I find that my niece knows exactly the difference between fantasy (as in not real) and reality (as in real) and she is only 4 years old. If my 4 year old niece knows the difference then I am sure a 14, 15, 16 whatever knows the difference. Why does everyone assume that their children are stupid? If I was these parents kids I would be insulted.

    I remember when I was a kid and weird stuff was happening to me. I didn't want to talk to my parents about it.. its embarrassing and today parents do not want to listen anyway (I'm reminded of Stan's mum from South Park). I think its important for kids to be able to find somewhere to make sense about it all. That doesn't mean in porn but if this group had it their way then anything even slightly sexually related would be filtered even if it was about sexual health.

    These people's ways of dealing with the important subject of sexual health it is through ignorance and its the wrong method. It leads to people thinking they won't get pregnant if they don't wear a condom or catch a disease.

    If I had a child (which I hope to have some day) then I would want them to be educated about such things. Not to encourage that behavior but to avoid the worst possibility's if something were to happen.

  126. ...Kids know this but parents don't!'" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? I'm a parent, and I know this so what's the problem? The problem is that most parents couldn't care less what their children are doing. Otherwise they wouldn't let the kids lock themselves in their rooms all day and play with a device the parents know nothing about. Seriously, you connect this thing to the internet and run a web browser on it and then what? Do these people just assume that the great Wii fairy will fly in from Wiiworld and turn the internet into a completely safe and happy place?

    Here's a tip: If you don't understand the technology you are planning on placing into your child's room and are unwilling to spend 10 minutes to research it, then DON'T FUCKING BUY IT! Why is that such a hard concept?

  127. Re:As if Wiis weren't already hard enough to get.. by randyest · · Score: 1
    btw, many cellphones can access the web, and many kids have cellphones, where is this Christian group with the warnings for those devices?

    Same group, addressing your "concern" about mobile porn, right here

    Cell phones are a new and emerging means for distributing porn. Though this technology is somewhat new, it still poses a serious risk to children. Most kids have a cell phone these days and it is certainly one of the most used tech components that a kid would use during the day. According to a study done by VisionGain, adult content transmitted to mobile phones could reach $4 billion by the end of 2006. Pornographic movies, pictures, and daily downloads are all accessible via the cell phone.
    They're not picking on the wii. They're pornophobes, sure, but that's their right. And they're just providing a reasonably-worded warning to those who are worried about porn (and free pro-Nintendo / pro-Wii advertising for many others.) It's win-win :)
    --
    everything in moderation
  128. Well that settles that... by Tinman_au · · Score: 1

    Pr0n AND and you can game on it!!

    I guess that settles the "Next Gen" war...

  129. Do people actually listen to them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From their website:

    "Each of these services allow you to specialize plans and payment methods for you and your family. Many cell phones now have the ability to go online via satellite connection and allow you to surf the internet, download pictures and access your e-mail. There are even websites that will send pictures to your phone with extra billing or age verification. With this brilliant blend of technology and communication there is ample opportunity for accessible explicit material."

    So, kids can access the tubes via satellite and buy porn with age verification? How unsafe! Better ban regular phones while you're at it, because kids can dial phone sex lines.

  130. Seriously by kahrytan · · Score: 1


    Wouldn't it just be easy enough to enable proxy based browsing and parents use site blocking on their wireless routers?

    --
    \
    1. Re:Seriously by Shadyman · · Score: 1

      Not really.
      #1) That'd be a big list of sites to block
      #2) How many parents would know how? Honestly?

    2. Re:Seriously by kahrytan · · Score: 1


      1) True, the list would be long. But there is pay services that do the web filtering for you. http://www.cnonline.net/ is one such service.
      2) Any parent who reads the manual for a router would know how to block sites. It's rather simple to do.

      --
      \
  131. FYI The blog from the origin by tolkienfan · · Score: 1
    1. Re:FYI The blog from the origin by eam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How the world has changed. When I was a kid, I had to go to my father's machine shop (the family business) and look at the calendars in the shop or the magazines in the bathroom. Now all my children have to do is get past the fact that their parents are watching TV behind them while they sit at the computer.

    2. Re:FYI The blog from the origin by MECC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can tell they're unbalanced - just look at how much flash is on their home page. Next they'll declare eyes the portal to porn, and have talks with their kids about removing their eyes...

      "how did you feel when you saw it?"
      "bad..."
      "and if you were blind and looking at it, how do you think you'd feel then?"
      "Not so bad, i guess..."

      --
      "We are all geniuses when we dream"
      - E.M. Cioran
    3. Re:FYI The blog from the origin by d3ac0n · · Score: 3, Informative
      OK, and here's an injection of Sanity into the rampant Christian/right wing bashing that's certain to occur. Here's a post by the Admin of the site clarifying a few things:

      Wow. Thanks for everyone's lively comments. We appreciate it and think the discussion is great.

      It might be important to point out that we are Wii fans. We have the console and love it. The release certainly got the conversation going but our aim was to be more educational than confrontational. Obviously, the latter seemed to come across :) Also we are technology fans. Not haters. That's why we use the web.

      We also want to point out that this site is to help parents be informed about the issue of porn and the internet. Our goal is to help parents talk to their kids about these issues. Sadly to say we come across a lot of parents who simply dont understand technology and are not engaging with their kids period. This site is to help them. Turn the light on for them.

      Finally, we would like to direct you to the page on the site that talks about parental controls that seems to have gone unnoticed on our site. We should of been more clear on the homepage Wii banner. Again, our point is to help parents, not attack Nintendo. For goodness sake, we love the thing.

      Heres the link:

      http://www.theporntalk.com/critical/wii.asp

      So thanks for the great discussion, feedback, and comments.

      PS: In regards to this being some Christian Right Wing Republican site, I'm afraid that is way off. Unfortunately, Kotaku.com has really misrepresented that point. But all is forgiven and no worries. I can just assure you were not Republican and were not Christian right wing. Those who know us have actually got a good chuckle today out of that one :)

      Posted by Porn Talk Admin
      2/27/2007 @ 6:24 PM


      We all cool now? Breathe deeply, allow the hatred of all things religious to wash out of you.

      They are simply trying to inform parents about the need to use the Parental controls and to engage their kids in an active discussion on the topic of pornography. In other words, they are trying to foster GOOD PARENTING. They just erred in selecting an ad-campaign by picking one that was a tad too combative in presentation.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
  132. The real news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    California has Christians?

  133. Obligatory Dilbert quote by Sodki · · Score: 1

    Pointy-Haired Boss: "Alice, I notice that you always click something when I approach. Obviously you've been using company time to look at indescribably filthy images." Alice: "And why does that seem so obvious to you?" Pointy-Haired Boss: "Let's leave me out of this."

  134. What homophobes modded this up!? by Powercntrl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most of us, we've got some measure of sexual stuff in our life somehow, so when this gay sex thing comes along, it's like "Yeah, I'm not all about doing that". When the guy who hasn't looked at a naked girl since 1972 sees the gay sex though, it's like "Wow! This is the best thing ever! I've got to do this all the time!"


    June 28, 1969 called. It wants its misinformed homophobia back.
    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    1. Re:What homophobes modded this up!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      June 28, 1969 called. It wants its misinformed homophobia back.

      You gotta explain this comment dude, what is homophobic about the comment? What's June 28 1969?

      Okay Google tells me about the date: http://www.time.com/time/80days/690628.html

      Soooo.. where's the homophobia?

    2. Re:What homophobes modded this up!? by eboot · · Score: 1

      It has to do with perceiving homosexuality as some sort of choice, or in an extreme case of ignorance, one might assume that the sex-starved will somehow 'turn' gay upon contact with in your face homosexual images. It's like saying you would never let your teenage kids watch brokeback mountain in case it turns them gay

      --
      Two tears in a bucket. Motherfuck it.
    3. Re:What homophobes modded this up!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has to do with perceiving homosexuality as some sort of choice, or in an extreme case of ignorance, one might assume that the sex-starved will somehow 'turn' gay upon contact with in your face homosexual images. It's like saying you would never let your teenage kids watch brokeback mountain in case it turns them gay

      The comment in question is really more a celibacy-phobic remark with homophobic implications as well.

      It's like saying that virginity is a perverse unnatural state that turns people gay out of desperation.

      Which is of course BS. Having sex - or not having sex - does not change one's sexual urges or orientation. And there's nothing wrong with being a virgin. In fact, it's kinda cool.

    4. Re:What homophobes modded this up!? by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      It's not my ethic or morality which says 'homosexuality is wrong', it's theirs.
      I used the example I did because I felt like trolling the hypocritical televangelists of the world. I could just as easily have used Rush Limbaugh's drug addiction as an example.

      I'm sort of shocked at the number of people who think that you're doomed to be evil unless you close your eyes and ears and heart.

      When I was younger, I was all about the strict morality. I was all about shutting out the world. With age, I've come to realize that by seeing evil, and coming to terms with its existence, and by striving to understand yourself in the context of that evil, you can arrive at a much more just way of living than simply not looking at evil.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    5. Re:What homophobes modded this up!? by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      A phobia is an irrational fear. Believing that homosexuality is a choice is not an irrational fear. At worst it's just mere ignorance.

    6. Re:What homophobes modded this up!? by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      For anyone who thinks that homosexuality isn't predestined from an early age, I have three words for you: Haley Joel Osment.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    7. Re:What homophobes modded this up!? by kalirion · · Score: 1

      I think homosexuality is at least partly a choice. It's not like a 100% "you're gay or you're not" thing. Some people are more predetermined to like that sort of thing than others, and depending where you fall on that scale, being "sex-starved" can make a lot of difference. Just look at prisons - do you really think that everyone who either willingly participates in gay sex or rapes another prisonmate was gay before being incarcerated?

    8. Re:What homophobes modded this up!? by eboot · · Score: 0, Troll

      Cut. Print. Gay.

      --
      Two tears in a bucket. Motherfuck it.
    9. Re:What homophobes modded this up!? by eboot · · Score: 1

      I really have to disagree with your sig. The drive to destroy oneself is an integral part humanity.

      --
      Two tears in a bucket. Motherfuck it.
    10. Re:What homophobes modded this up!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If homosexuality were an action, this would make sense. Men who are sex-starved like that are just desperate enough. Homosexuality is finding men sexually attractive rather than just a source of release.

    11. Re:What homophobes modded this up!? by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Nihilism isn't self-destruction. Nihilism is an extreme form of skepticism which says there's no meaning, value, or sense in the world. The nature of nihilism means that there's no implicit ethic attached to it, only that simple belief.

      My sig is meant almost as a pun, because under nihilism, there's no such thing as objective worth.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    12. Re:What homophobes modded this up!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, going to a tech-related message board and putting homosexuals in a comparison against sewer rats, and using insane anti-gay logic as fact, and just generally talking like a fool, doesn't much strike me as an effective way to troll televangelists.

    13. Re:What homophobes modded this up!? by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Nice troll. I like how you make no distinction between my point and my examples. It just becomes a blur of information without context.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    14. Re:What homophobes modded this up!? by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      I don't have to be afraid of homosexuality to consider it undesirable, nor do I need to fear celibacy to find it undesirable(Indeed, I've been celibate all my life). Regardless, I was using someone elses morality. There is no universal ethic, so the things you value are your own. If you go against the things you value, then you're allowing the things you consider evil to 'win'.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    15. Re:What homophobes modded this up!? by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Honestly, it was just an example. I've never seen such an epic example of people missing the point. If my main point had anything to do with homosexuality, I could see it. Thing is, it's just a means to demonstrate my main point, and within my own philosophy it doesn't matter if it's gay sex or freeing slaves or running planes into buildings. Evil is in the eye of the beholder, and if you're trying to stop what you consider evil within yourself, then it doesn't matter what the third party thinks.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    16. Re:What homophobes modded this up!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definitely. You make one little post about how homosexuality is the result of lapsed morals and they should have spent more time browsing Internet porn, and suddenly everybody thinks you're a homophobic moron! Spend less time on Slashdot and more time in therapy, dude.

    17. Re:What homophobes modded this up!? by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      o ---point .O
      \|/ .^ -you /.\

      --
      It's been a long time.
    18. Re:What homophobes modded this up!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh.

      For the original poster: you can't explain away that comment with moral relativism, the statement people reacted so violently to was one of alleged "fact"(heterosexual people can turn homosexual by being sheltered from sex for prolonged periods), not a moral judgement.

  135. Parental controls by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

    Sure, because there is no way the Wii would come with Extensive Parental Controls.


    Not to mention, it includes the best parental control possible: not connecting the Wii to the Internet.

    Of course, those of us who have become familiar with these religious fundies know that they're not going to stop at just attacking the Wii. It's also violence in videogames in general, profanity on Xbox Live, Paganism in Harry Potter, gays wanting to marry, etc. They pick a hot topic to get some attention and then milk it for all it's worth to push their full agenda. (Peta does the same thing, too. "Oh, while you're here looking at the brutality of seal clubbing, perhaps you should reconsider that delicious, juicy hamburger you're thinking about having for lunch.")

    Religious Fundies Say:
    "Yeah, porn on the Wii is bad, but wait until you see the full attack your children are under by the media companies, the gays and the video game manufacturers... Oh noes, your family has no chance to survive, make your time!"

    Seriously, parents just need to stand up and tell these control freaks "I'll raise my kids myself, FOAD, KTHXBAI!"
    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  136. If y'alls wants t' keep out da porno... by 6-tew · · Score: 1

    This is why I'm agnostic.

    "Porn portal?" It's called the eyelid, that's how the porn gets in.

    If y'alls wants t' keep out da porno... close yer damned eyes!

    I feel really mad about this for some reason...

    1. Re:If y'alls wants t' keep out da porno... by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      ... and ears. U forgot that also. There was a news recently about a man playing such a movie too loud that a neighbour barged in with knife and assumed a crime was in progress....

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  137. 13 years too late... by Karri2 · · Score: 1

    For Christ's sake. There has been game consoles that can access the internet since 1994. What the heck is the problem now?

  138. Meals, medicine, supplies... or porn-bashing by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

    These guys have chosen.

    --
    The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
  139. What drugs are you on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is requiring corporations to produce products meeting safety standards nanny state facism? If the government didn't force auto makers to provide seat belts, and meet other safety requirements, I would not be able to purchase a vehicle knowing wether or not it is safe. The only place nanny state anything happens is when they require people to USE those seat belts. Requiring auto makers to put them there is a good thing.

    1. Re:What drugs are you on? by AnotherUsername · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Seatbelt laws are not just about limiting your choice. When you fly through your windshield because you didn't wear your seatbelt, you go to a government hospital. Hospitals recieve taxpayer money. By you not using your seatbelt, you are wasting my tax money on a needless emergency room visit that could have been prevented had you simply put the seatbelt on.

      This is not Nanny State Fascism. This is economics. People need to quit being so annoying with the seatbelt argument. /rant

      --
      I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
    2. Re:What drugs are you on? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Dude, learn to read. I never said that seatbelts shouldn't be mandatory.

    3. Re:What drugs are you on? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Hospitals recieve taxpayer money.

      There's your problem. It has nothing to do with seat belts, just run-of-the-mill welfare statism.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  140. Neo Non-Nintendo Nutjobs..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

    Man, these Neo-Christian groups (I'm not talking about sane Christians - I mean the ultra looney Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell/Billy Graham bible banging nutjobs) have just about condemned everything. They even tell us thet we cannot even think in certain ways, about certain things.

    They just keep giong farther and farther. But they never got into *my* mind. My adolescent fantasies were of nude lesbian supermodels carrying automatic weapons.

    Boy am I glad they never got through to me.

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  141. In other news... by Anonymous+Know-It-Al · · Score: 1

    eBay sells Porn Portals!

  142. This kind of stuff really angers me. by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    Come on people, take RESPONSIBILITY for your own shit. I can't be kind about this stuff, because it's this lack of personal responsibility and common sense that is destroying our country, and probably the species.

    Any device that can access the internet can be used to access pornography. You know what? Your car can be used to drive off a GODDAMN CLIFF . Does that mean you go after Ford because you're a moron? (Unfortunately, this being America, the answer is probably 'Yes.')

    Take responsibility for the shit that happens in your own home. If you don't like what the internet brings in, you have two options; either you put a filter on your connection, or you simply don't have internet access. Frankly, I would prefer it if you selected the latter, it keeps my blood pressure down.

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  143. RTFM, parents! by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    Either:

    Immunize your kids! Explain to them that porn is wrong, and that they should avoid it, and have the kind of relationship with them where they'll listen to you and respect you. Or explain to them why you think they aren't ready for it, but that you realize they'll have to see it eventually. Or just teach them to be a decent person, and not to trust strangers, especially pedophiles.

    Oh, and by the time they hit 13 or so it's really too late to do anything except that last one. By the time they hit 13, they will have porn if they want it, and they will want it.

    Or:

    Read The Fucking Manual! Get involved. Don't let your kids buy a device until you have a deep understanding of how it can be used, and do the research. If you bought your kid a DS or cell phone without knowing it can chat, it is not Nintendo's fault, it is your fault.

    Penny arcade makes a good point here:

    Does your house have windows? Are these windows made of glass? Look how easy it is for me to peer inside.

    It's just so scary to think that people can see through transparent objects. We knew that we could see out, but we didn't realize how easy it was to look in.

    These are the people for which we have invented the cluebat. It's like buying your kid a BB gun to go play Cowboys & Indians with, and then blaming the toy company when the kid blows his eye out. It's not their fault, and it actually can be a safe toy, but you should've known the risks, and so should your kid. And if you don't like the risk, buy him a squirt gun instead.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  144. Re:As if Wiis weren't already hard enough to get.. by aszaidi · · Score: 1

    Have you considered freezing yourself in ice for 2 weeks? The Christian groups may be extinct by the time you thaw and you should be able to find a Wii much more easily in the future. Hopefully, pr0n will still be around in the its current, true, natural form.

  145. Hype, hype hype by the_womble · · Score: 1

    1. A group of people no one has ever heard of releases a press release, that has a sort-of point (patents need to know about games consoles' capabilities)
    2. Some web site picks it up and hypes it a bit more, smears the group responsible a bit.
    3. Slashdot picks up the story, and produces a nice flamebait summary.
    4. Profit!

    Note, no missing step: hype + flamebait = page impressions = profit

  146. Slashdot is still fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of posts mention the decline of Slashdot, because of an obviously misleading blurb. However, I think that the fact that the highly moderated and visible posts are dominated by people calling the editor out on this show that Slashdot is still okay. Slashdot has always been more about the community than the stories, which usually only act as subjects to talk about. Rumors of Slashdot's death are greatly overstated. I've read slashdot for several years now, and although I'm not a sage of Slashdot history, I've noticed that people have always had this same complaint for one reason or another. As long as the community is there to disseminate its wisdom, people reading discussions with an open mind will walk away with a comfortably reasonable opinion.

    To you folks who are particularly incensed about this story, I'd like to remind you that because of a large amount of polarization in America, there is a great deal of ignorance on both sides. I'd argue that your posts provide a valuable service to those of us who sometimes forget this.

    The community is still strong. Continue to make your contributions.

  147. Religious group shames itself by tonicxt · · Score: 0

    There are many other dangers in society; it is unfortunate that a religious group would choose to pick pornography (as they usually) do, rather than more serious problems. What about all of the violent video games? So let us seriously address this issue: What exactly is porn? It is but graphical depictions of people having sex where there is no emotional relationship involved. Realize that the internet has not brought about porn nor invented it; porn has been around since the beginning of civilization (eg the Roman empire, do a wikipedia search on it). Porn can be dangerous yes, and addictive (in the sense of being a "slave to sin" which is quite serious);however, protecting one from viewing porn is NOT how you protect your children. Any teenager who is raised and instilled/taught proper morals, ethics, and values (whether they be religious or not) will be completely unaffected by porn; when they come across it (which they eventually will) they might have sympathy for the harlots involved. Teaching the ability to see something for what it is, and responsibly deciding "this is bad" will empower one to successful navigate EVERY obstacle in life. It's called wisdom. Being taught how to think wisely is a difficult thing, and it's hard to describe. We can approach the topic however by stating that wisdom cannot be taught by any means through censorship nor ignorance. --- The XBox 360, PS2, cellphones, and many more devices also have internet connectivity. I don't see that religious group getting all retarded about those technologies. Truth is, the Internet is ubiquitous.

  148. Oh - but they are right !?!?! by unity100 · · Score: 1

    - Whenever i connect to internet, i am directly taken to porn. Actually, there isnt anything else on internet than porn. And thus, isnt it just logical to assume that when wii gets on the net, its user will be directly taken to porn too ? am i missing something here ?!?!?!

  149. You can put the browser behind a password by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the problem here? You can put the browser behind a password. So no kid can use it.

  150. Does this mean we are not going to heaven anymore? by KaylaVincent · · Score: 1

    Well, if we go on line, use 'Gaming devices' or God knows what other gadgets, we shall all burn in hell! Mmmkay...I am only surprised they have not found other traces of evil temptation yet! Y'know, such as the satanic symbols they thought they had discovered hidden in the P&G brand.

    I am convinced that because of this group, no kid shall ever watch porn online or use their console to get to it. That's what CD's, videotapes and magazines are for! Someone should tell them they'd better expand their target!

  151. I think this is good by eMbry00s · · Score: 1

    As long as this remains an informational campaign (although it is obviously very angled) I think this will help parents make informed decisions.

    As long as it helps the parents aquire more knowledge about their children's playthings, good. If they try to take away the Wii's internet access instead of promoting good parenting, bad.

  152. They just need a good lay by Tomis · · Score: 1

    These kind of people are just desperately repressed and screaming to get laid. Someone send them a few hookers so they can loosen up already!

  153. This will be ineffective by Veretax · · Score: 1

    This like the SBC boycott of Disney will ultimately fail. Why? Its quite simple, its pretty hard to come down on a single game console when you've got systems like PS3, XBox that also have games like GTA. Add to that that you don't hear a huge public outcry against other "explicit" media such as television or movies and I think this is nothing but a fringe group that has its priorities confused. Yes you can find porn with a browser I have no doubt of this, but you could find that on the internet since shortly after it was created. So why not a push against the internet? If they really want to force nintendo to make the wii more family friendly, then what they ought to do is push for perhaps a "separate" network where such minded people can connect their Wii Consoles to without that fear of stumbling upon something. I'm sorry but this sounds like nothing more then opportunism to target a corporation just because they can.

  154. nothing wrong by iocc · · Score: 1

    Its nothing wrong, if the "kids" wanna view porn, then let them do it.
    Other people shouldnt decide what someone else shouldnt view. They can decide that for themselfs.
    Censorship sucks.

  155. corrected: by gormanly · · Score: 2, Funny

    Asshole Limbaugh thinks with his mouth.

    1. Re:corrected: by Obsi · · Score: 0

      Asshole asshole thinks with his asshole.

  156. The image I presented is not entirely random... by StressGuy · · Score: 1

    When setting up the "family computer" about a year ago, I was looking at a screensaver that grabbed images at random from the internet and assembled them into a collage. What I described is pretty much one of the images that came up (and don't think that was the worst - I'd probably get Slashdot in legal trouble if I described the worst of what came up). Further testing of this screensaver would show that, on almost every run, it would grab what I would call an "non child-friendly image".

    Now mind you, I have no problem with nudity.....but too many of these "random images" were a problem. Here's the thing....if I'm finding these images on a random search, then my kids are likely to find them as well. Hence, my desire to control their level of access, at least for now.

    And yes.....that particular screensaver hack is disabled.

    --
    A goal is a dream with a deadline
  157. Subject by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    "Kids know this but parents don't!"

    I do now. Thanks for the tip, Mike Foster!

    Off to buy a Wii.

  158. Utterly ridiculous by GreyPoopon · · Score: 1

    Parent groups prepare to label real life as "violent and filled with adult-related content." ....seriously, folks. Access isn't the issue in the modern era; teaching kids good judgment is.

    Slashdot has sunk to a new low on this one. I've been here long enough to get used to (and laugh at) the ridiculous headlines and kneejerk reactions that make Slashdot so endearing. However, this one is just completely nuts. As a Christian parent, I'm not only concerned for my children, but also for the fringe nutcase groups out there that make most Christians look like complete idiots. It's not a question of whether a particular Christian group is fundamentalist, conservative or moderate. It's a question of whether the group knows WHERE to apply its force and HOW MUCH to apply. So after reading the article (blog), I took a trip over to "theporntalk.com" fully expecting to see a total slam of the Wii that makes Christians look like complete and utter fools. What I saw instead was a short article letting parents know that the Wii's wifi capabilities provide a method for their children to access pornography, and that Nintendo has thoughtfully included security controls that allows parents to require a PIN to access the internet and news feeds. Not only that, but parents can choose to block access to the online "points" store, which effectively prevents installing the web browser in the first place. The article squarely places the responsibility on the shoulders of the parents. It does not in any way slam the Wii. This is exactly what all of us on Slashdot want. Parents need to be responsible for monitoring and educating their children. Not Nintendo. Not the ISP. Not the porn industry. In fact, when I bought a Wii for our family, one of the first things I did was set up the PIN system.


    So, I have to say that this particular news item completely has it wrong. And so does kotaku.com. The only thing to see here is a Christian advocacy group giving parents the information they need and leaving them with the responsibility of using it. Whether you agree with their religious beliefs or not, you can't really ask for more.

    --

    GreyPoopon
    --
    Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

  159. A religionist using 'groupthink'? How droll! by FatSean · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Your sad little dreams of the 'sky daddy' are the most robust example of 'groupthink' I can recall!

    Also hilarious, is that you bash 'leftists' for their 'groupthink'. Leftists are progressives...and since you obviously see the world in black and white, you must be a rightist...or conservative. Conservatives don't like change...they want things to stay the same way they've always been and the same way everybody already does them...which is GROUPTHINK!

    If this was a troll, good job.

    --
    Blar.
  160. Well are they wrong? by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

    "'Gaming devices like the Wii and the PSP aren't just for fun games anymore. You're able to surf the net, chat with friends, email, and view porn because of its internet access. Kids know this but parents don't!" Im not saying that parents should ban the Wii or assume their kids are pr0n freaks because they use one but parents should be away that the game console their kids have allow them to browse the internet, chat with lord knows who and yes, view objectionable material (depending on what you consider to be objectionable).

    --
  161. let me get this straight... by arclyte · · Score: 1

    Playing with your wii leads to looking at porno... How is this news? Little boys have known this for centuries.

    Of course, with an installed Rumble Pack, this does open some interesting possibilities. Thanks crazy Xian Group, you've opened my eyes to new possibilities. Of course, now I'll have to keep an eye on my girlfriend...

  162. Re:A religionist using 'groupthink'? How droll! by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

    Your sad little dreams of the 'sky daddy' are the most robust example of 'groupthink' I can recall!

    What sky daddy? I'm barely religious, and certainly not a practising Christian.

    Also hilarious, is that you bash 'leftists' for their 'groupthink'. Leftists are progressives...

    In my experience leftists are wannabe fascists who want to crush all dissent and force everyone to accept their dogmatic groupthink that isn't based on anything that could be called rational. I see it day after day, particularly here at Slashdot where any opinion that doesn't fit into the leftist mindset is modded flamebait or troll. Even my last post was modded troll, because leftists can't stand anyone who disagrees with them (and they're so laughably stupid that they didn't even realize they're proving my point by modding me down). They even "bury" Digg posts that they don't agree with. Their bullshit is exposed for what it is as soon as it's debated openly, so leftists stiffle debate as much as they can. Failing that, they simply insult the opposition.

    and since you obviously see the world in black and white

    Elaborate.

    you must be a rightist...or conservative.

    I wouldn't personally label myself anything, but I guess I'm on the right side of the political spectrum.

    Conservatives don't like change...they want things to stay the same way they've always been and the same way everybody already does them...which is GROUPTHINK!

    I have no opinion of that, except that change is not inherently good.

    By the way, groupthink is defined like this:

    Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group's balance. The term is usually used as a derogatory term after the results of a bad decision.


    I think it especially applies to leftists because they certainly never critically test any of their ideas, and dissent is aggressively supressed, even when it comes from outside the group. Groupthink in the sense that all or most members of the group share the same ideas is not what I'm referring to when I use the word (also, if the ideas can be independently verified through rational thinking, it's not really groupthink), and you also have to consider how harmful the groupthink is. Christians groupthinking that God exists is not harmful, whereas leftists groupthinking about critical issues like immigration or racism is extremely dangerous in the long term for a lot of people.

    But simply put, I largely use the word as a derogatory term for people who hold an irrational dogma that's based on belief, hope and political correctness. This dogma shatters as soon as it's subjected to critical analysis, and therefore such analysis is strictly forbidden. These groupthinkers actually hold many dogmas, one of which dictates that dogmas cannot be questioned. Note, that I'm referring to earthly matters, not religious matters that can't be verified by anyone.

    If this was a troll, good job.

    This is the third or fourth time during the past week that a leftist has suspected me of trolling because I have a differing opinion.
  163. Can't resolve the unresolvable by ColonelPanic · · Score: 1

    Look. If these people want to believe crazy medieval crap, and then follow through on their choice of a medieval mindset, there are communities where they can live that kind of lifestyle, such as the Amish and Mennonites and Taliban. No internets, no zippers, no porn, no modern problems.

    But those medieval minds who want all the benefits of the Enlightenment without any of the disadvantages and without ever having their inconsistencies pointed out are trying to have it both ways, and there's no way that they're ever going to be satisfied.

    Free speech, but no blasphemy, porn, or atheism.

    Free inquiry, but no science with "babies" comprising dozens of cells, and no need to listen to climatology.

    Free markets, but not for farms, churches, homeowners, oil, and armsmakers.

    Look. It's hypocrisy, it's crap, and it's holding the rest of us back.

    I think that they know this, at some level, and that it fuels their desire to undermine modernity by limiting scientific research, promoting crap in the classroom, and flying planes into skyscrapers with promises of heaven in their heads.

    --
    "Skill shows through where genius wears thin." -Wittgenstein || Religion: uniting aviation and architecture.
    1. Re:Can't resolve the unresolvable by Umbrel · · Score: 1

      Sorry I missed the point with climatology. A link please ?

      --
      Ave Maria
  164. The name 'Wii' by paranatural2002 · · Score: 1

    ...has always made me think of watersports anyway. 'Let's go play with the Wii!' 'Mom, it's my turn to use the Wii!' 'Oh, let your sister play with your Wii, you've been playing with it all day!'

  165. That Settles It! by rnmartinez · · Score: 2, Funny

    I am totally getting a Wii now!

  166. Who will Jesus bomb? by Dominique_libre · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's a David Rovics song: Who will Jesus bomb? http://www.soundclick.com/pro/view/01/default.cfm? bandid=111310&songid=1125356&content=song I've seen you in the markets I've seen you in the streets And at your political convention Talking of your crusade Talking of your nation And other things too terrible to mention And you proclaim your Christianity You proclaim your love of God You talk of apple pie and mom Well I've just got one question And I want an answer Tell me, who would Jesus bomb? Maybe Jesus would bomb the Syrians 'Cause they're not Jews like him Maybe Jesus would bomb the Afghans On some kind of vengeful whim Maybe Jesus would drive an M1 tank And he would shoot Saddam Tell me, who would Jesus bomb? I've seen you on the TV And on the battleships I've seen you in the house upon the hill And I've heard you talking About making the world safer And about all the men you have to kill And you speak so glibly About your civilization And how you have the moral higher ground While halfway around the world Your explosives smash the buildings Ah, if you could only hear the sound But maybe Jesus would sell land mines And turn on his electric chair Maybe Jesus would show no compassion For his enemies in the lands way over there Maybe Jesus would have flown the planes That killed the kids in Viet Nam Tell me, who would Jesus bomb Yes I hear you shout with confidence As you praise the lord And you talk about this God you know so well And you talk of Armageddon And your final victory When all the evil forces go to hell Well you'd best hope you've chosen wisely On the right side of the lord And when you die your conscience it is clear You'd best hope that your atom bombs Are better than the sword At the time when your reckoning is here 'Cause I don't think Jesus would send gunships into Bethlehem Or jets to raze the towns of Timorese I don't think Jesus would lend money to dictators Or drive those SUV's And I don't think Jesus would ever have dropped A single ounce of napalm So tell me, who would Jesus bomb? # What is Christianism about? Jesus, a poor against the poors? No, it would have been called Jesuism if it was the case. It is all about superstition, more exactly superchristus as I call it. So, I am not surprise at those extremists are against the game console that take less power but don't say a word about the other game consoles that take more as 10 time more electricity power to do the same job: to play games. And even worst, sex is only the third biggest market in this capitalistic society. They said not a word against the first market in this capitalistic society: weapons traffic. Why are children is some countries doing war? only because they can afford the food without a weapon in their hand. According to the UN, it is enough food for all on this planet and 35 millions of peoples are strawing to death each single year only because they cannot afford to pay for this food. But those peoples don't say a word about what is the biggest genocide in history: starvation by poverty. But maybe at they don't like games at all, because superchristus is not about games but about hypothetical future world domination of a small gang of religious extremists. Finally, i will not trust one word of what they can say because I am not living in a hypothetical future of the unconditional of the perfect one. but just here and now. And it is here and now at I want a better world. Note at the other religions are not better: they all claim without to be able to prove it, at we will have a better life after the death (West variant) or in another life after the death (rest of the world variant). With other worlds, they are telling peoples to don't take their responsibilities here and now but at it can wait until after the death. And they tell at the word of their perfect one is a mystery, but at the same time are trying to explain it. So, come on. If it is a mystery, no one can explain

  167. Wii in Airport? by zukakog · · Score: 1

    Wireless internet (Wi-Fi) technology allows electronic devices like Nintendo's Wii to wirelessly connect to the internet. Airports, Starbucks, schools
    Seriously, when was the last time you saw someone using a Wii in an airport or Starbucks? Maybe the PSP would've been a better example.
  168. Re:A religionist using 'groupthink'? How droll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thing is, it's the same for you - most gay men state that they didn't 'decide' to be gay, or didn't suddenly 'snap' and usually have known since puberty, - this is immediately screamed at to be either a lie, or a delusion - heaven forbid people can't help being gay, so it's always their fault. I've yet to see a conservative consider this as a possibility, because all homosexuals are liars, of course.

  169. Re: Clarifying for a non-Wii owner. by trdrstv · · Score: 1
    2) lot of parents *don't* know about the Wii's internet capabilities. Many of those that *are* aware, assume that the content is somehow filtered.

    3) A lot of parents *don't* know about the Wii's child protection features, account controls, etc.

    Ok, not to rag on you, but your post is written as if you don't own a Wii. So I would like to clarify a few points since I do. During the Setup of the Wii, it not only prompts you for internet connection settings, but it also asks you if you want to enable parental controls. If the parents set this up, it would be obvious.

    The opera browser is free of charge, but there is a seperate Parental control setting that can inhibit access to the internet, or the store as a whole. Also if you have a secured access point you could just not give the kid the code to connect to it.

    As far as "Many of those that *are* aware, assume that the content is somehow filtered.

    Why would they assume that? Seriously? If they missed every screen in the set up reguarding your own parental controls, what would imply this access is filtered? Pre-Launch I could have assumed the Wii levitates, due to the pictures they circulated it. Would that have been reasonable?

  170. Wii ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oui ! Oui !

  171. Dunno about your neighborhood... by alispguru · · Score: 1

    ... but I can see several wireless access points from my living room, most of them completely open.

    Apparently securing an access point is beyond the computer skills of most middle-class internet users. It's likely that securing their Wii is also beyond them, too.

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
  172. Re:A religionist using 'groupthink'? How droll! by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

    Uh, what? I haven't even said anything about gays. Are you replying to the correct post?

  173. If the parents don't know what these things do... by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 1

    ... then where is that wireless connection coming from for the kiddies to connect to? It seems really unlikely that your children will be setting up wireless networks in your home without your knowledge. And, if your children aren't the ones managing the network in your home, where are they getting the necessary WPA/WEP password, network SSID, DNS server IPs and whatever other relevent information is needed to connect wirelessly?

    Just because a device has wireless hardware onboard doesn't guarantee there will be connectivity for it.

    --


    8==8 Bones 8==8
  174. To me it is obvious by Salsaman · · Score: 1

    1) God is referred to as a He in the Bible, therefore, He is male.

    2) God created us in His own image, according to the Bible; therefore God has a penis.

    3) God does not need to urinate, since He doesn't need to drink (at least there is no mention of it in the Bible).

    4) God does not have a wife or a girlfriend (no mention of one in the Bible).

    Think about it for a moment: what does God do with His penis ??? And why did He create a *naked* man (and woman) ?

    I think the answers are obvious if you consider the above points.

  175. What's wrong with pr0n? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    What's wrong with pr0n?

    Seriously, how many of you here (and we all know the stats, there is a vast majority of men here)
    didn't spend your countless hours in your early teenage years looking at (and looking for) pr0n?
    I know plenty of women too (although fewer discuss such things) who grew up secretly looking at
    pr0n.

    Until I was around 16 (and discovered the fabulous wonders of real-life girls) I probably didn't
    let a day go by without perusing my modest collection.

    And a bigger question: how many devout Christian adults spent their teenage years looking at pr0n?
    This is hilarious hypocrisy mixed with overpaternalism and a very, very weird desire to keep one's
    children asexual. (If we're going to talk about sickness and deviance -- the effort to repress
    a child's budding sexuality should be the topic of discussion here). From a behavioral development
    and sexual development perspective we have become so afraid of pedophilia and aberrant/deviant adult
    behaviour, that we're attempting to place limitations on totally normal human development.

    I consider pr0n a totally normal part of growing up in our otherwise sexually repressed society.
    Is it bad? Hell no. I fully expect my kids to one day search for airbrushed photos of perfect
    female bodies. (Or male bodies if any of them turn out to play for the other team, which I must
    also accept as a possibility). I'm a parent. I want my kids to grow up and be adults and be
    aware of the world -- not be overprotected ignorant 'angels'.

    Will kids ability (or desire) to access pr0n ever change? Heh... That's cute.

  176. Christians shouldn't buy a Wii? Great! by analog_line · · Score: 1

    Maybe there will actually be some left for me the next time I try to buy one. =(

  177. I must object to your use of quotes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You just named a bunch of messed of "Christians"
    Right, they're just "Christians," not real Christians. No true Christian hates anybody.
    And no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
  178. Genesis 1:28 read too literally. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do know how to Google, right? Just try searching for stuff like global warming and Christianity, or Christianity and climatology, etc.

    Sometimes they think climatologists worship mother earth and not Jesus. Sometimes they think it's all a socialist trick wherein the government cleans up the environment, but all through communism, which takes away their religious freedom. Sometimes it has do with corporate and political ties to churches. Who the hell knows, really. Christians think they're on one side of the fence and everyone else should be on the other. Pick your issue, and if you disagree you're an enemy and they rail against anything else you may support. I guess scientists sometimes disagree with them. :) So none of them are to be trusted.

  179. Re:that doesn't make sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blah.

    Sorry about that communist/socialist in the same sentence stuff. I've been hanging out on too many conservative websites. It doesn't make sense when they say stuff like that either. Maybe I didn't type it that way and some islamofascist liberal terrorist-hugging illegal immigrant software glitch put it in there. That's what's wrong with America right there!

    I really have to find something better to do with my time.

  180. Porn Portal by Zenmonkeycat · · Score: 1
    Anything, and I mean anything, can be used to look at porn. In fact, I would argue that some of the hottest chicks I ever saw were ASCII nudes on various BBSes.

    Thank god for the VICmodem.

    --

    *****
    Dear Mary,
    I yearn for you tragically,
    A.T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.