You might as well make that same argument in regards to, say, a journalist in a foreign country illegally covering an election scandal. "Oops, shouldn't have opened your mouth, you disobeyed your master now it's time to be put down."
Orwell saw all that happening when he was writing 1984, and IIRC he felt vindicated moreso later on.
Though I don't know if Orwell himself believed that people had the right to say racist things; he was a social democrat and, well, progressives are pretty slippery when it comes to individual rights.
I would argue that the crowded theaters thing (a tired old point) is just part of the responsibility of what your rights may entail. You are free to walk around but not walk into others, you are free to play baseball but not hit the ball into someone's window, ad naseum.
I claim that your ability to silence what I say is harm, are you going to lock yourself up in a jail cell? Or wait, lemme guess... it's you, the wise, enlightened populist liberal, that gets to decide what constitutes "harm," what opinions are "harmful," no?
Because you may be liable for damages for causing panic, you therefore conclude... freedom of speech is unnecessary? What? I have the right to swing a bat around but not in a manner that will result it coming in contact with someone's face. Freedom of speech is the same way, as with any other right.
The fact that you say freedom of speech isn't a right is pretty disgusting. You literally do not believe in freedom of speech, no matter what you're going to claim. I understand this is a very "progressive" take on the manner but I do not feel that "progressive" politics is a very good thing.
Mmmmm... pretty bad example there. You imply that In loco parentis (note spelling) was made up by the U.S. Federal Courts, but actually the concept has a long pedigree, back to English Common Law. The only thing "new" about it is that the concept has been applied to primary and secondary educational settings to set tighter limits than usual on Free Speech "free expression". Frankly, even though I consider myself somewhat of a First Amendment advocate, I don't have a problem with this general doctrine. The purpose of these educational settings is, after all, to educate, not just to be a open forum for "free expression". Until they are educated, children and teens aren't really capable, in constitutional terms, of proper "free expression", and any claims of same are almost certainly just rationalizations for acting out or bad behavior. You know it, I know it, when a teenager is caught in disruptive behavior and says they're "freely expressing" himself/herself, 9 times out of 10 it's just a cover for something else. The Constitutional Law doctrine actually has some common sense here. For tertiary education, the doctrine does not apply, since those settings are supposed to be more about a free exchange of ideas.
Oh, Common Law now! More magic from the priesthood! Its origin is meaningless when it functions like I stated it does. Not to mention the applications of these grand, holy principles are subject to shift and change depending on the mood of the Supreme Court.
As for education, it doesn't matter. You're making an argument of convenience when the law of the land quite clear (not really, but it appears so). It doesn't matter what the purposes or what functions schools are for. Not to mention students are required to attend schools (for better or worse, clearly education is a benefit, but that is not my point). The simple fact is is that convenience is not an argument--you may as well argue against restrictions on police search may not apply in particular cases contrary to the law because "it's convenient" or some other ad-hoc excuses.
Until they are educated, children and teens aren't really capable, in constitutional terms, of proper "free expression", and any claims of same are almost certainly just rationalizations for acting out or bad behavior.
What a load of nonsense! Anyone with an opinion they want to express has, or should have, the freedom of speech to express it.
No, there's a big difference. If a political majority can silence or limit the opinions of a political minority, then they can use that to maintain power indefinitely. You can't really say the same about obscenity. Obscenity doesn't, in the constitutional view, give one power over others. Political expression does, by directly influencing how people vote in elections.
Both ends are achieved through the same way for similar reasons: offending Joe Normal.
Oh, so you want to wave your own nation's flag and claim your lawmakers have integrity and work for the people! What a quaint little delusions! Why not reveal what country you live in so we can disrobe you of this nonsense?
Not all of us want a "progressive politician"--I don't want a politician making my own life decisions and choices for me, whether it's a corrupt one or one that honestly believes that nonsense.
Do keep in mind that the legal definition is really, past all the smoke and mirrors, whatever the judge personally finds distasteful. Deciding what the population doesn't need or want to view for them has no place in a free society.
Then of course, we're not a free society.
The law often makes up legal principles (usually giving them Latin names to try to make them seem magical and justified) to override other legal principles. Obscenity is a great way to override freedom of speech by taking speech, labeling it "obscenity," and then claiming that it's "not really speech." A problem with the constitution colliding with the rights of minors and school? No problem! "En loco parentis," is right up your alley (whether you agree with the concept or not). The "community standards" excuse is, even if it is applied as per the name, is a violation of individual rights which the legal system has been more than happy to sacrifice in the name of a sort of vicious populism. Why community standards in obscenity, and not political opinion? Obscenity, political opinion, all of it is simply how one takes it. Personally, I find Nazis more distasteful than goatse, but we're not at silencing them (yet...).
This also extends into the domain of politics, where wars become "police action."
Don't think freedom means a damn thing if the government gets to play with the meaning of words, or if whatever is popular reigns over individual rights.
Of course, this isn't to say that gameplay can't make up for graphics. I still think DOOM is one of the best-designed FPSes ever made, not just in graphics but atmospherically and in design. I think there's a reason people were so disappointed in DOOM 3 (and that a good engine can override graphics--people still make note of HL2, while DOOM 3 is mostly forgotten.) But it should be noted that DOOM at its time was also one of the best FPSes, graphically.
That doesn't change the fact that graphics can greatly add to a game's enjoyment.
Actually, yes, graphics should be the #1 focus of survival horror primarily because those games are supposed to draw you and and hopefully unnerve you. Nobody plays Silent Hill for super-innovative gameplay. Trying scaring someone on 8-bit arcade graphics.
Video games are an entertainment medium. So are movies. No one is going to argue that good CG effects can make a movie better, yet when it comes to graphics people want to stomp their foot on about gameplay and how graphics are meaningless.
They're not. Of course, it depends on the game--many games don't translate well to 3D, and the retro charm of 8bit is always nice--but let's not kid ourselves that "immersion" (yeah, yeah) is a part of game enjoyment. You can't make an 8bit WoW, now would you want to try, but a 3D pacman isn't going to translate well either.
You can't say "Oh, well I prefer this over that" because graphics depend on the type of game. Comparing pokemon to Crysis isn't fair at all. FPSes, which put you in an actual environment where you have to run, hide, and hopefully slaughter your opponents are a "Far Cry" (ha, ha, ha) from a lightweight (but yes, fun) RPG game on a portable. And imagine an 8-bit Silent Hill! Survival horror didn't really become popular until the PSX for a reason.
I find myself greatly missing the graphics of some of the old-school SNES rpgs such as FFVI's look, but I'm not going to say that FFX's (last FF I played) graphics detracted at all from the game's experience. So I can't say it's the type of graphics I enjoy so much as it is the game and how well the graphics fit in with the genre and the game's design. I don't see why it has to be a one-or-the-other situation.
Ethical concerns? I'm getting tired of silly ideological grounds against genetic manipulation. "Natural" does not mean better," and so long as nobody is hurt by doing this then there's no problem. People worried about ethical concerns over things like this are just luddities afraid of human biological progress. All humans are essentially biological machines, and there are no souls, and the faster people realize that the sooner we can progress past our silly human limitations.
My experience in MMOs shows there's a lot of carebears out there that really hate PVP even though they roll on PVP servers. In Age of Conan, before that really fell into the ground, people would petition GMs to intefere in legit PVP and often they would oblige, even though the rules specifically stated that they shouldn't. Of course that was just one aspect of many where AoC was a failure of a game, meh.
Slashdot Mirror
If it's a right, then it should override any laws that contradict it.
You might as well make that same argument in regards to, say, a journalist in a foreign country illegally covering an election scandal. "Oops, shouldn't have opened your mouth, you disobeyed your master now it's time to be put down."
Hardly an improvement. I don't care if one person or many are holding my leash.
And all you need is 2 people, not 350. One police officer and one judge.
Orwell saw all that happening when he was writing 1984, and IIRC he felt vindicated moreso later on.
Though I don't know if Orwell himself believed that people had the right to say racist things; he was a social democrat and, well, progressives are pretty slippery when it comes to individual rights.
I would argue that the crowded theaters thing (a tired old point) is just part of the responsibility of what your rights may entail. You are free to walk around but not walk into others, you are free to play baseball but not hit the ball into someone's window, ad naseum.
I claim that your ability to silence what I say is harm, are you going to lock yourself up in a jail cell? Or wait, lemme guess... it's you, the wise, enlightened populist liberal, that gets to decide what constitutes "harm," what opinions are "harmful," no?
Because you may be liable for damages for causing panic, you therefore conclude... freedom of speech is unnecessary? What? I have the right to swing a bat around but not in a manner that will result it coming in contact with someone's face. Freedom of speech is the same way, as with any other right.
The fact that you say freedom of speech isn't a right is pretty disgusting. You literally do not believe in freedom of speech, no matter what you're going to claim. I understand this is a very "progressive" take on the manner but I do not feel that "progressive" politics is a very good thing.
I "did the dog" once. Never again. Fleas everywhere.
What the military does is most certainly brainwashing.
Basically, you've been brainwashed to obey orders and view people who live their own lives as "useless." Ah, the military, gotta love 'em.
I had the Supreme Court in mind, but clearly judges have also made certain rulings on the matter.
The Republicans are not wrong about activist judges--except that all judges are activists and are a blight on society.
Oh, Common Law now! More magic from the priesthood! Its origin is meaningless when it functions like I stated it does. Not to mention the applications of these grand, holy principles are subject to shift and change depending on the mood of the Supreme Court.
As for education, it doesn't matter. You're making an argument of convenience when the law of the land quite clear (not really, but it appears so). It doesn't matter what the purposes or what functions schools are for. Not to mention students are required to attend schools (for better or worse, clearly education is a benefit, but that is not my point). The simple fact is is that convenience is not an argument--you may as well argue against restrictions on police search may not apply in particular cases contrary to the law because "it's convenient" or some other ad-hoc excuses.
What a load of nonsense! Anyone with an opinion they want to express has, or should have, the freedom of speech to express it.
Both ends are achieved through the same way for similar reasons: offending Joe Normal.
Oh, so you want to wave your own nation's flag and claim your lawmakers have integrity and work for the people! What a quaint little delusions! Why not reveal what country you live in so we can disrobe you of this nonsense?
Not all of us want a "progressive politician"--I don't want a politician making my own life decisions and choices for me, whether it's a corrupt one or one that honestly believes that nonsense.
Exactly. Except it's often clouded in some perverse "community standards" excuse, too.
Also note that to ping in windows, one usually enters a command line emulation prompt anyway.
Do keep in mind that the legal definition is really, past all the smoke and mirrors, whatever the judge personally finds distasteful. Deciding what the population doesn't need or want to view for them has no place in a free society.
Then of course, we're not a free society.
The law often makes up legal principles (usually giving them Latin names to try to make them seem magical and justified) to override other legal principles. Obscenity is a great way to override freedom of speech by taking speech, labeling it "obscenity," and then claiming that it's "not really speech." A problem with the constitution colliding with the rights of minors and school? No problem! "En loco parentis," is right up your alley (whether you agree with the concept or not). The "community standards" excuse is, even if it is applied as per the name, is a violation of individual rights which the legal system has been more than happy to sacrifice in the name of a sort of vicious populism. Why community standards in obscenity, and not political opinion? Obscenity, political opinion, all of it is simply how one takes it. Personally, I find Nazis more distasteful than goatse, but we're not at silencing them (yet...).
This also extends into the domain of politics, where wars become "police action."
Don't think freedom means a damn thing if the government gets to play with the meaning of words, or if whatever is popular reigns over individual rights.
Of course, this isn't to say that gameplay can't make up for graphics. I still think DOOM is one of the best-designed FPSes ever made, not just in graphics but atmospherically and in design. I think there's a reason people were so disappointed in DOOM 3 (and that a good engine can override graphics--people still make note of HL2, while DOOM 3 is mostly forgotten.) But it should be noted that DOOM at its time was also one of the best FPSes, graphically.
That doesn't change the fact that graphics can greatly add to a game's enjoyment.
Actually, yes, graphics should be the #1 focus of survival horror primarily because those games are supposed to draw you and and hopefully unnerve you. Nobody plays Silent Hill for super-innovative gameplay. Trying scaring someone on 8-bit arcade graphics.
Video games are an entertainment medium. So are movies. No one is going to argue that good CG effects can make a movie better, yet when it comes to graphics people want to stomp their foot on about gameplay and how graphics are meaningless.
They're not. Of course, it depends on the game--many games don't translate well to 3D, and the retro charm of 8bit is always nice--but let's not kid ourselves that "immersion" (yeah, yeah) is a part of game enjoyment. You can't make an 8bit WoW, now would you want to try, but a 3D pacman isn't going to translate well either.
You can't say "Oh, well I prefer this over that" because graphics depend on the type of game. Comparing pokemon to Crysis isn't fair at all. FPSes, which put you in an actual environment where you have to run, hide, and hopefully slaughter your opponents are a "Far Cry" (ha, ha, ha) from a lightweight (but yes, fun) RPG game on a portable. And imagine an 8-bit Silent Hill! Survival horror didn't really become popular until the PSX for a reason.
I find myself greatly missing the graphics of some of the old-school SNES rpgs such as FFVI's look, but I'm not going to say that FFX's (last FF I played) graphics detracted at all from the game's experience. So I can't say it's the type of graphics I enjoy so much as it is the game and how well the graphics fit in with the genre and the game's design. I don't see why it has to be a one-or-the-other situation.
So if someone with Huntington's produces children, they ought to be convicted of manslaughter?
I don't think I can tell anything about the game, but I do think that I can say that I believe it will be worth playing on any platform :)
Ethical concerns? I'm getting tired of silly ideological grounds against genetic manipulation. "Natural" does not mean better," and so long as nobody is hurt by doing this then there's no problem. People worried about ethical concerns over things like this are just luddities afraid of human biological progress. All humans are essentially biological machines, and there are no souls, and the faster people realize that the sooner we can progress past our silly human limitations.
My experience in MMOs shows there's a lot of carebears out there that really hate PVP even though they roll on PVP servers. In Age of Conan, before that really fell into the ground, people would petition GMs to intefere in legit PVP and often they would oblige, even though the rules specifically stated that they shouldn't. Of course that was just one aspect of many where AoC was a failure of a game, meh.
I guess I'm in agreement with Chris Mattern--I find it hard to take the police seriously.