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!'"
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.
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.
...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.
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: 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: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.
Sony ha
Christians who judge others haven't read their Bibles.
Sounds like you're doing a little judgment of your own, doesn't 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: 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
Sony ha
...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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
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