Slashdot Mirror
South Park Game Censored On Consoles Outside North America
RogueyWon writes "South Park has long been vocal in its opposition to media censorship from any source, launching scathing attacks on everything from 'think of the children' moral crusades to the censorship of religious imagery. In a curious twist, therefore, Ubisoft, the publisher of the upcoming video game South Park: The Stick of Truth, has decided to censor certain scenes from the game's Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 versions from release in Europe, Australia, the Middle East and Africa. American versions, as well as the European PC release, so far appear to have escaped the censor's pen."
...when you could play Hello Kitty: Island Adventure instead?
I dare say that it's a result of Ubisoft lazily deciding to produce and test only a single version for the quote-unquote international market, and having to meet the lowest-common-denominator levels of creative expression permitted in the Middle-Eastern and Australian regimes.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Are you sure that the US release wasn't also censored in some way?
Here's how it works: US companies submit their games to US ratings boards FIRST, then they remove shit the US censors don't like, and once the US censors approve it, they sent it to ratings boards in other countries, who sometimes remove OTHER stuff.
However, we, the consumers, never see the ORIGINAL version before the US censors make their cuts, because the game companies don't bother trying to put those things in non-US versions.
When the Australian classification board said no to a few things in Saints Row IV, a big fuss was made, but Volition have mentioned in the past that US ratings board said no to a few things, and there was no outcry.
From this, we learn: People are fine with censorship in the USA, but if it's allowed in the USA it should be allowed everywhere.
Anything to incite civil unrest against a group of people(no, the government doesn't count) and lies to discredit people.
That pretty much means NO criticisms against religion - especially Islam.
The things that are done in this World in the name of [insert religion - including Buddhists ] is appalling. The religious fundamentalists, unwilling and unable to adjust to the modern World, are bullying everyone else with violence, lobbying and other political maneuvering and outright lies - like Creation Museums.
There's a point when you just have to stand up to the bully. Those people need to be told - shouted down - that they are backwards, full of shit, and if they are going to live among us, they need to STFU.
Or compromise like the Amish do in the US. I highly respect those folks. They stick to their values, they don't try to force them on others, and they found a way to live peacefully and well with the modern World.
Ubisoft as nothing to do with this censorship btw. Ubisoft and other publishers do the games. It's the countries that makes the censorship so the main problem comes from those places...not the company. Look at Saint Row 4 problems in Australia. They dare censor and block the game but gave multiple different version of their blocking reasons...which changed from a day to day basis which made no sense. Censorship usually happens because of a lack of knowledge over computers, the game itself and the main reason of the censorship too oddly enough.
PC Gaming enthousiast that gives comments, opinions and reviews on Games. I'm just having fun with games while doing let
Censorship is typically used by the powerful to maintain their power. This is no different in a democracy -- the power hungry simply jump through an additional hoop of stirring up many people to join in the censorship. These people happily re-elect said censor.
If this does not highlight the difference between freedom and democracy for those of you who think mass approval is the necessary and sufficient, indeed only, justification for wielding power, I don't know what will.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Those should be disallowed.
And also, Canada, whose citizens I irrationally blame for this entire mess! Especially you, Scott!!!
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
If the local laws told you to suck dick, would you drop to your knees?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
This just encourages groups to be easily upset, does it not? That makes writing "Mohammed" under a stick figure illegal. "Hate speech" is a slippery slope.
Wait, wait, wait...
1. Be anti-censorship and control
2. Have Ubisoft make your game
I take it EA Games was busy that day? What the actual fuck were they thinking?
Hate speech should be protected. Inciting a riot, ill give you that one.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Whats the point point in censoring something that clearly labelled as 18+?
Hopefully the South Park guys will replace those scenes with obvious 'censored' graphics and text that lampoon the government/entity that caused said scenes to be removed from the game. They are good for doing things like that.
If they were really okay with it, they probably wouldn't have demanded to put in "an image background and a description text" to describe what was censored and where.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Considering South Park has been offending for decades, there's just 7 scenes in the game worth censoring? What about critter blood orgies, gay satan sex ir Martha Stewart? I had such high hopes.
Given that the mere innocent mention of certain Prophets can incite a riot, I don't think even that is a good criterion.
Doing otherwise gives the most irrational types a trump card on what constitutes free speech.
Brett
Why would you sensor in the EU, we don't even *beep* on television, anything goes here! cmoooooon!
How do you incite a riot without physically assaulting someone?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The last two weeks we've been too busy to play video games and, look at what we did. There's been drama, action, romance... I mean honestly you guys, do we need video games to play? Maybe we started to rely on Microsoft and Sony so much that we forgot that all we need to play are the simplest things. Like, like this. [grabs a stick from the ground] We could just play with this. Screw video games, dude! Who needs them?!
-Glires
Inciting a riot, ill give you that one.
Wouldn't it be better to make rioting illegal, rather than speaking?
I'd suggest reading the summary and realizing that 1. The censor is Ubisoft and 2.Ubisoft is not a location or government. Although, if you weren't able to understand that from the short summary, I'm probably just talking to myself here.
Everybody's blaming Germany, but the nature of the content that was actually cut might imply that the cause is elsewhere. Not that I want for a moment to excuse Germany's censorship policies, which are ludicrous.
But the cut content is basically - anal probe aside - mostly abortion related. The EU still contains some very, very Catholic countries. In Spain in particular, it's a real no-go topic. Also in the Republic of Ireland and Poland to some degree (though less so there than it would have been a couple of years ago). It's quite possible the EU version was censored due to fears about reaction in one or more of those countries.
No thanks. That just places political power in the hands of the first group willing to turn to violence or foment some sort of insurrection to get their way.
Your taking offense at something is entirely your problem. Not mine.
Have gnu, will travel.
How do you incite a riot without physically assaulting someone?
Draw a cartoon of the Prophet, of course!
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/19/muhammadcartoons.ameliahill
"History Channel."
Maybe the aliens are behind the censorship.
Anything to incite civil unrest against a group of people(no, the government doesn't count) and lies to discredit people.
Those should be disallowed.
Anything else should be free game.
The problem with that standard is that it gives anyone who chooses to act "incited" the power to censor anyone else.
I'm not your friend buddy!
the History Channel
Look, I love shows about ancient aliens visiting the Vikings as much as the next guy. But I still have appreciation for some good satire too.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
FYI, the threatened riots(and death threats) with regard to South Park and said prophet were by a trolling organization dedicated to making American Muslims look bad. I don't doubt that there would have been some very angry people over it, but the cited reason Comedy Central actually pulled the segment was internet trolls. It's like if we took AC posters on slashdot seriously.
Wikipedia says that there are 6 of them.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Do region locks still apply?
How, in a legal way, am I supposed to acquire this art piece in the version the artists wanted me to appreciate?
To make an analogy to a copyright doctrine established in Sony v. Universal and other cases, perhaps some kinds of speech should be considered "contributory rioting" if they're made with the intent of causing others to riot.
Dont like the laws, move
How? It's usually a crime to enter any country but the one in which you were born.
and/or get them changed
How would someone ineligible to run for office go about getting a law changed?
here is a difference between 'remove this content or you'll get an M/T/AO rating' and 'remove this content or we will outlaw your product.'
If a product is not censored down to M or lower, then Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony Computer Entertainment will outlaw it. Console makers don't want AO games on their platforms, and national legislation implementing the WIPO Copyright Treaty outlaws going around the console game vetting process.
Bethesda got in trouble with the ESRB for omitting a graphically wounded hanging corpse when submitting Oblivion for review.
I'd bet a lot of films submitted to MPAA and video games submitted to ESRB fail to declare the same thing, especially given the habit of displaying an image of Jesus of Nazareth nailed to a cross among members of certain Christian denominations.
They censored a game because of content? Ug, "think of the children."
The children now deprived...
sounds like a real dick to me
Perhaps they should use more family friendly content, say from the Woodland Critter Christmas episode.
1. Don't like law
2. move and/or get them changed.
3. Reform!!
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Anything to incite civil unrest against a group of people
What people are offended by is their own problem, and no one else's. If they cause civil unrest, then it's completely their fault.
If you say that such speech should be disallowed, you must despise freedom.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Inciting a riot, ill give you that one.
Wouldn't it be better to make rioting illegal, rather than speaking?
Encouraging people to commit a crime is also, generally, a crime. Speaking with the intent to cause a riot? Criminal. Speech that happens incidentally to cause a riot? Not criminal.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
If people riot, then that is their own fault. How about some personal responsibility?
Thank you Dave Raggett
Uh, WTF are you talking about?
I'm sure you can find the article if you look for it - I can't recall where it was at the moment - but this has all been known for many months and the publishers explained it at length. It's not "censorship", it's localization. Particularly when a private company is doing it on a consumer product.
The article went into each country and why they did it. And the graphic nature of the game was shocking even to me, who watches Game of Thrones and True Blood, LOL. Like, mini-games where you control a South Park child and your goal is to graphically perform an abortion on a woman by plucking out fetuses.
Sure, I've preordered it, haha - but I can certainly see why bits here and there were edited - it's a commercial decision, not a moral one.
What you describe is political correctness. Where does it stop? Each one of us is a member in various groups of people: male/female, some race(s), social level, fitness level, etc.
PC is very bad for society because it stifles freedom of speech by creating polarised taboos. They're polarised in that, for any given topic, some people (usually the perceived underdogs) are allowed to speak negatively while others are not, regardless of the truth. Ironically, although PC tries to appear anti-bigotry, it is in itself bigoted because it establishes polarised taboos.
Taboos are bad because they prevent people from voicing legitimate concerns, thereby preventing people from having complete and honest discussions about those concerns. If people can't discuss legitimate problems, then improving our societies becomes hit and miss, usually miss.
That is why complete freedom of speech is so important, and why PC is do dangerous. And that is why your examples lead to a bad situation.
Many people have fallen for the misconception (or rather: lie) that PC is an attempt at tact. Of course, PC and tact are very different. Tact enables one to honestly state ones point without breaking down communications. In doing so, one is able to continue to convey opinions and the overall mood is improved, leading to a greater desire to understand and cooperate - all without compromising the truth.
Among those who confuse PC and tact there seem to be two camps:
- Those in the pro-PC camp don't seem to understand that enforcing PC actually hurts people. Sometimes PC hurts the very people that it intends to protect.
- Those in the militantly anti-PC camp seem to think that any attempt at tact is pandering to PC and fail to understand the value of respecting others, thereby "legitimising" the effort of the pro-PC group. (Well, at least that's how the pro-PC group sees it.) Not to mention that tactlessness breaks down communications, thereby rendering any speech (free or not) pointless.
Some speech poses a clear and present danger of violence, when you have the attention of an angry crown. "That one over there, he don't look right to me, get him up against the wall!" Specific calls for immediate violence against available targets are really the only place where "prior restraint" makes sense.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Inciting to riot is basically a conspiracy charge, however it's a special one because it's being done in public and so violence could theoretically be prevented by law enforcement in some cases (though in practice I doubt it).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
it is when the gov request censoring or you cant publish your game in that specific country... Ubisoft didn't want trouble so they decided to go pre-emptive on the sensorship business before the gov or organisation goes apeshit on it like it happened in Australia multiple times.
PC Gaming enthousiast that gives comments, opinions and reviews on Games. I'm just having fun with games while doing let
Does good satire have to be as disgusting, revolting, insulting, disrespectful and ugly as they can get away with
Well preferably.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Per TFA the game is being stripped of two abortions and five anal probes, allegedly to gain access to the German market. Have no idea where your rant on religion has its basis.
Well then, blame the angry crowd. They gave their attention. The angry crowd needs to quit acting like a child, and learn to restrain itself. Don't go around blaming a guy just because someone reacted badly to what he said.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
We all know how envious South Park is of Canada.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
exactly, the only good riot is a hockey riot.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
It's not about blame, it's about responsibility. When you can avoid people being killed by choosing a better time, place, or manner in making your point, that's a reasonable expectation. Conspiracy to commit murder is certainly a crime, and it doesn't matter whether it a friend or stranger that you convince to murder someone you don't like, it's still quite reasonable that it's illegal.
We're not talking about publication and censorship here. We're talking about telling people directly to go kill someone now, or indirectly with words that a reasonable person would expect to have the same result.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Well. you should keep in mind this is THEIR world. The various flavors of religious folk do outnumber us all across the planet. Maybe we should be grateful that at least they still let us live here. Well.. most of them do.. for now anyway...
What I want to know is why German gamers and other younger people (who are presumably sick and tired of getting censored versions of games and other media with e.g. robots replacing humans or e.g. suicide bombers who "run away" instead of blowing themselves up) aren't rising up and using some sort of political influence/lobbying/petitioning/etc to get the censorship crap removed...
It worked in Australia and got the government to change the laws on video game censorship and classification with the addition of an R rating (although it still doesn't go far enough IMO with all the stupid stuff that remains banned like things that depict certain kinds of drug use) so whats different about Germany?
When you can avoid people being killed by choosing a better time, place, or manner in making your point, that's a reasonable expectation.
It's "reasonable" only if you're anti-free speech. Blame (or 'hold responsible,' if you prefer) the idiots who riot or commit violence, not the speaker.
Thank you Dave Raggett
There have been a few games I've seen that didn't bother with the ESRB, they just got a PEGI rating and that keeps the retailers happy. Civ 4 was such a title. No ESRB rating, even in the US, just PEGI. Kept Target, BestBuy, etc happy. Retailers don't seem to be that fussy about the rating system used, they just seem to want one. So supposing the ESRB were being dicks, but PEGI was being reasonable, a company could use the PEGI rating instead and that would work just fine in the US.
Of course on the PC side there's Steam, which is changing things because they have no fucks to give about ratings near as I can tell. They have plenty of indy titles that are unrated because the devs don't submit them for ratings. Given that Steam is becoming a major way of buying games it may lead to publishers being more willing to try games with content that would earn it a higher rating.
Are you really saying that "conspiracy to commit murder" should be legal? That if I convince my friend to kill you on my behalf, as long as he does the actually killing then I'm just "exercising free speech"?
Again, this isn't about publication and censorship, it's about something far more direct.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Nah, that's the Penny Arcade game, not the South Park game (the Mime Pope is an important boss fight in that game).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I'm talking about government influence, not random acts of violence.
But if you want to argue random acts of violence I think Breivik takes the cake.
Most censorship in the US you see is self censorship of one variety or another. Like on TV, the only thing the government steps in on is over-the-air channels. The airwaves, belonging to the public, are regulated by the government. On cable? Do what you like.
So why then do cable channels censor/regulate various things? Well they internally decide what they want to show, what they are ok with. Usually this is based around what advertisers want and what kind of audience they target. But they are welcome to change it as they wish. Some do vary rules by time of day or things like that.
Same deal with game ratings. Publishers tend to avoid AO ratings because a number of retailers, like Walmart, refuse to carry AO games. So they shoot for M, or below. However the government isn't involved. You are free to make AO games, and you are free to sell games that are unrated at all. This is different from some places where a game gets refused classification by a government body and then cannot be legally sold.
Though the government has rumbled about more mandatory ratings/censorship in the US so far it has been nothing but rumblings. The government is fairly hands off.
Are you really saying that "conspiracy to commit murder" should be legal? That if I convince my friend to kill you on my behalf, as long as he does the actually killing then I'm just "exercising free speech"?
Yes. The murderer is at fault.
Thank you Dave Raggett
It could be more tasteful; but I'm not such a wimp that I can't handle the low brow stuff they need to appeal to all those people who barely grasp the satirical parts of it... People who probably would think Colbert is real or boring. If you get over some of your touchiness you may even find some of the vulgar elements humorous on a different level; I'm surprised when it happens and glad I decided to be open minded.
Plus people who are willing to take on social mores and norms are usually going to take on some of yours - unless they think just like you do. I find it odd how people will be upset that somebody they admire for being different will fall short of their imaginary perception. It's like real life "heroes" and "role models" who end up disappointing some fans by not living their life according to everybody who likes them (and they don't have pollsters to help them either.)
Furthermore, modern society is loaded with prissy wimps who can't ever deal with something uncomfortable - worse than previous generations because we can choose our own bubble to live within combined with the modern life of low social interaction you can be as delusional as the Unibomber while living downtown and not have to live as a hermit in a shack in the wilderness!
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Wow, really, not both? Well, I've never heard of a legal tradition that worked that way. Sounds iffy to me. I like the idea that the rich aren't just paying people full time to murder everyone who annoys them (hmmm, when I put it that way, I guess that's feudalism, so it has been tried!).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
in what way do you consider Sony v. Universal garbage?
You'll find that I disagree with many laws and do not think laws are necessarily moral.
So on what grounds do you disagree with the reasoning applied in MGM v. Grokster and other cases that establish an "inducement" or "incitement" legal theory?
Perhaps it's about protecting the public from people who [could plead insanity]
That makes no sense to the topic at hand, which is about free speech.
I was referring to riot-related speech restriction. Let me reword it to tie it into the topic: Some people might not construe free speech to cover knowingly speaking in such a manner as to incite undiagnosed insane people within earshot to riot.
Is where you lose your logic. Just because the world has unreasonable people that I know will react violently to the truth, does not mean I have to shut up.
For example: It might be unwise to tell a Russian that the best evidence has Vodka being invented in Poland but it should not be illegal.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Correct. Its about intentionally setting the crowd off down the road with a command to go riot. If people choose to riot on their own after a speech, no matter how heated it may be, well, that is the way it goes.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Well, I've never heard of a legal tradition that worked that way.
You'll find that I have a mind of my own and am not a slave to legal traditions.
I like the idea that the rich aren't just paying people full time to murder everyone who annoys them
Since when is giving money to someone speech? I don't consider it so. Just asking someone to murder someone would be speech, though.
Thank you Dave Raggett
If you had any reading comprehension at all, i did say 'move' was an option. That would imply you move to where you dont disagree with the law. ( or in your case, your parents rules )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"Fighting words" are one of the specific exceptions to free speech in US law. It doesn't come up much these days, because people are more restrained, but it used to be a big deal. Saying something that "everyone knows" will provoke violence means, legally, you started the fight, even though the other guy threw the first punch.
You also don't have the right to speak though a bullhorn outside your neighbor's window at 2 AM. It's not the content of the speech, it's the time, place, and manner.
Again again, this isn't about publication and censorship, but only about very direct speech -> violence here and now.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
There are Russians who would consider anything critical of Vodka or implying a non Russian origin for Vodka fighting words. I'm surprised one hasn't spoken up.
No court would buy it.
'Fighting words' don't come up so much anymore, not because people are more restrained, but because it's recognized that the 'fighting word' doctrine only protected popular opinion.
Otherwise anything critical of Islam would already make the speaker vulnerable to a legal ass kicking.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
What are you trying to do here? You're not going to convince me of anything, as I believe in absolute free speech.
In any case, let's talk about what's inside the deepest reaches of your bare undies...
Thank you Dave Raggett
...direct speech -> violence...
There is no such thing! There is ALWAYS a man in the middle. The man who acts, and only the man who acts is solely responsible for his actions. "Following orders" is no excuse. You either control yourself or you don't. The law exists only as political expediency to protect authority.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Myanmar. 'Nuff said. Look it up. The Buddhist right wing clergy are being assholes.
That's disingenuous. Those assholes are dressing up as monks for fun and for profit, not "in the name of Buddhism" (even if that's what they say), and despite the great incentives in that country for assholes to dress up as monks, many of those monks are genuine Buddhists.
Despite Buddhisms many wrong notions (like reincarnation), meditation is immensely powerful. It's like martial arts for your brain. It significantly improves concentration, focus and clarity as well as being a tool that can readily create happiness. Buddhism has done so much to improve peoples lives that assholes in Burma and Thailand don't make it bad.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds -- Albert Einstein
Since when is giving money to someone speech?
Giving it is okay. Taking it is the crime. The sinner is Eve, not the serpent :-)
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It's hard to even debate this -- this is a pretty fundamental disagreement in ethics.
If A should be a crime, then intentionally trying to cause A to happen should be a crime.
So you're really in support of all those cases? Can't tell if you're trolling, but man, you should be.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Actually, many times I find the South Park interpretation to be more believable and realistic than the real thing - especially when it comes to religions.
Matt and Trey seem to have pretty good bullshit detectors and have the skill to illustrate their point.
I think a lot of people that get poked at are pissed because they know he is right, but does not want him exposing them for what they are to the general public.
Incidentally, I loved his run at the Mormons, and the way he wrapped up the episode. His Scientology run is a classic spot-on in my book.
If one is so "touchy" on their beliefs, maybe one needs to re-examine whether those beliefs are based on truth or hearsay. Beliefs based on shaky ground in the first place will be threatened by stuff like this. If your belief system is firmly grounded in truth, you can watch anything like this without getting worked up over it.
I think Matt and Trey do a helluva good job. They show more insight into the human condition than most I see on TV these days.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
Despite Buddhisms many wrong notions (like reincarnation)
We do not know that, and neither do you. We live in a mystery in that regard. All we can do if we want to be truthful is admit we don't know what happens after death. We simply don't know. That's the truth. If you can't admit that to yourself, you are clinging to your notions the same way religious fundamentals cling to theirs. Its okay to have spiritual ideas, but none of us can honestly speak in certainties like that. You have no idea if reincarnation is true or false. To say you do is the type of arrogant/fearful clinging that keeps so many people from ever actually growing (I would say growing spiritually, but that is just my opinion based on the way I define spirituality). The idea is to live in wonder, not cling to fixed ideas about those things which are ultimately unknowable.
Hello! everybody, give you recommend a good shopping place. discount jordan shoes http://www.shoesctv.com/ NFL cap wholesale http://www.shoesctv.com/ jordan michael http://www.shoesctv.com/ cheap NBA Jerseys http://www.shoesctv.com/ cheap jordan shoes http://www.shoesctv.com/ jordan store http://www.shoesctv.com/ Air jordan 13 http://www.shoesctv.com/ cheap designer handbags http://www.shoesctv.com/ NBA cap wholesale http://www.shoesctv.com/ best handbags http://www.shoesctv.com/ Air jordan 3 http://www.shoesctv.com/ cheap jordan http://www.shoesctv.com/ Jordan for cheap http://www.shoesctv.com/ Air jordan 11 http://www.shoesctv.com/ cheap NFL Jerseys http://www.shoesctv.com/ handbag store http://www.shoesctv.com/ Air jordan 1 http://www.shoesctv.com/ handbag patterns http://www.shoesctv.com/ cheap NHL Jerseys http://www.shoesctv.com/ imitation handbags http://www.shoesctv.com/ replica rolex http://www.topreplicarolex.org... replica watches http://www.topreplicarolex.org... jordan release dates http://www.shoesctv.com/ NHL cap wholesale http://www.shoesctv.com/ Air jordan 9 http://www.shoesctv.com/ Air jordan 4 http://www.shoesctv.com/ Air Max 90 http://www.shoesctv.com/ air shox http://www.shoesctv.com/ MLB cap wholesale http://www.shoesctv.com/ cheap MLB Jerseys http://www.shoesctv.com/ Air jordan 6 http://www.shoesctv.com/ wholesale from china http://www.shoesctv.com/ jordan shoes wholesale http://www.shoesctv.com/ Top replica watches http://www.topreplicarolex.org... replica rolex watches http://www.topreplicarolex.org... designer handbags wholesale http://www.shoesctv.com/
No, that's really not what "inciting to violence" is. I think people who object to the restriction are imagining cases where the law simply doesn't apply.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
"Giving orders" is still a war crime, though, right? RIght?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
So you're really in support of all those cases?
If it's just speech, I believe government thugs should stay out of it. Period.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Only because the law says so. If nobody follows there would be no war. The followers are always the danger. They must be taught to resist temptation, not prohibit it.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Despite Buddhisms many wrong notions (like reincarnation)
We do not know that, and neither do you. We live in a mystery in that regard. All we can do if we want to be truthful is admit we don't know what happens after death. We simply don't know. That's the truth
There's lots of evidence that thinking and consciousness require a functioning brain, therefore it is reasonable to believe that you cease to exist if your brain decomposes. At this point, if you want to believe in an afterlife, you need to propose a mechanism for transmigration. The wikipedia page on Bardo says "The intermediate being ...existence is demonstrated by the fact that it cannot have any discontinuity in time and space between the place and moment of death and those of rebirth, and therefore it must be that the two existences belonging to the same series are linked in time and space by an intermediate stage." Which doesn't even constitute evidence let alone proof.
you are clinging to your notions the same way religious fundamentals cling to theirs
You're making wild assumptions about my convictions. I was open to the idea of reincarnation for many years, now once again I'm open to the idea that our universe is statistically likely to be a simulation, therefore an afterlife is possible. It's just that there's only worthless evidence for an afterlife and strong evidence against it.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds -- Albert Einstein
I'll have to watch an episode of South Park all the way through though. The couple I've seen bits of are funny enough for that to possibly be worth the effort.
will it be available on Wii? That might encourage me to actually use the thing.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"