I don't know about the UK but in the US studies show the average American spends six hours per day watching television, this is 42 hrs per week. The average amount of time gamers spend gaming (this was a targeted poll of the gaming community, and did not factor in those that do not play games.) said that the average gamer spends 25 hrs per week playing video games, sounds like the real killer is television, not that the media would ever want us to know that.
I can't believe that their response to something like this is to try to ruin these kids' lives. Is there no compassion for these girls?
Also, Logically prosecuting the girls for manufacturing child porn of themselves is illogical. Unless we start prosecuting underage teens for statutory rape of themselves when they masturbate.
If you are going to call out the social conservatives for trying to censor sexual content, you have also acknowledge the liberal movement to control violent content. These two groups are two sides of the same coin, no matter who is in power, they push their own version of control. What this will lead to is social conservative controls when they are in power and liberal controls when they are in power. It ends in all content being controlled. The solution is to put people in power who, no matter what side of the "line" they are on will support individual rights and liberty. Blaming the efforts to control the internet on any single group is unwise, labeling is dangerous in this situation. What we need to do is single out the individual people that are pushing tighter control and go after them, replace them and show the rest that this is a dangerous bandwagon to jump on.
Oh, yes, if this goes through there will be granny gangs rolling around in wheel chairs cappin people in their asses and other gangster shit. You have opened my eyes and enlightened me. What was I thinking?
lol@you
just because they are elderly and at a physical disadvantage to somebody in their teens-fourties doesn't make them incompetent or dangerous wielding a weapon. Frankly, I think your attitude treats the elderly as if they are second class citizens, not entitled to be able to protect themselves from harm. Also, the whole point of this gun is to solve some of the challenges physical impairments present to gun operation, so that portion of your argument doesn't really stand. Also, because this will be prescribed by doctors, it leaves the judgment as to whether or not the person can wield the weapon safely up to a medical expert. They aren't just handing this out like candy (or in this case, dentures).
Last time I checked, the cold war never went hot, so you're argument is kind of self defeating. The bottom line is that there will always be people out there willing to murder, it's been around for the entire history of the world and it will always be around. It's not ignorant, it's realistic. As long as the bad people have guns, the good people should be allowed to have guns. The bad people will always have guns, thus the good people should always have guns, so they can kill the bad people and protect themselves and their families. Check the stats man, states with less gun control have less violent crime and home invasions. It works. Who's being ignorant now?
You're an idiot. The rate of violent crime among the elderly is very low, the rate of victimization of the elderly is very high. I'm sorry, I just don't see a gang of grannys rollin' around in their wheel chairs cappin people in their asses. In reality, these guns will help the elderly defend themselves against malicious people who would exploit vulnerability. What's wrong with allowing somebody in a vulnerable state to protect their lives?
By your liberal reasoning, we should allow the taking of the life of a helpless infant, and leave the helpless elderly person at the mercy of any scumbag that wants to take advantage of them. Well, at least you're consistent. Life is sacred, never?
They are helping to preserve the life of their patient. Elderly people are often victimized due to their physical inferiority to their attackers, they are easy targets. This is an equalizer. Why would you want to prevent a little old lady from defending herself? Also, no weapon is inherently offensive or defensive, it is what the owner intends it to be. Correct me if I'm wrong but the rate of violent crime perpetrated by elderly people probably isn't very high.
But my point is that ultimately responsibility for thinking should be laid on the shoulders of the consumer. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that companies should just be able to say whatever they want in their ads, but I don't think this ad crossed the line. The bottom line is that anybody willing to put in ten-twenty minutes of research can find out the truth about product. If I'm going to buy a 200 dollar product, you can bet your ass I'm going to research the hell out of it first. Personally, I want a phone to call people with, the free chocolate I got with my verizon plan is good enough for me.
Oh, and judging from my experience with axe wearers, most of the people that wear it are morons, and probably do believe the commercials.
This is dumb. I'm not the biggest iPhone fan out there, but anybody who expects commercials to be realistic deserves to be disappointed. Does Axe body spray get its ads pulled for being unrealistic? They are, unless it's actually true and Axe is capable of causing girls to throw themselves at you (I've never used it myself but I'd say it probably wouldn't work in my case). I've seen the iPhone ad in question and it never crossed my mind that they were trying to say it could do all those things in 29 seconds, I just assumed they were trying demonstrate all the iPhone's capabilities in a short advertising slot. As I said, I don't think Apple is the end-all be-all of technology, but I'm not a part of the "hate apple" scene either. People not capable of understanding the difference between a commercial and reality, deserve what they get.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about the UK but in the US studies show the average American spends six hours per day watching television, this is 42 hrs per week. The average amount of time gamers spend gaming (this was a targeted poll of the gaming community, and did not factor in those that do not play games.) said that the average gamer spends 25 hrs per week playing video games, sounds like the real killer is television, not that the media would ever want us to know that.
I can't believe that their response to something like this is to try to ruin these kids' lives. Is there no compassion for these girls? Also, Logically prosecuting the girls for manufacturing child porn of themselves is illogical. Unless we start prosecuting underage teens for statutory rape of themselves when they masturbate.
If you are going to call out the social conservatives for trying to censor sexual content, you have also acknowledge the liberal movement to control violent content. These two groups are two sides of the same coin, no matter who is in power, they push their own version of control. What this will lead to is social conservative controls when they are in power and liberal controls when they are in power. It ends in all content being controlled. The solution is to put people in power who, no matter what side of the "line" they are on will support individual rights and liberty. Blaming the efforts to control the internet on any single group is unwise, labeling is dangerous in this situation. What we need to do is single out the individual people that are pushing tighter control and go after them, replace them and show the rest that this is a dangerous bandwagon to jump on.
Oh, yes, if this goes through there will be granny gangs rolling around in wheel chairs cappin people in their asses and other gangster shit. You have opened my eyes and enlightened me. What was I thinking? lol@you
just because they are elderly and at a physical disadvantage to somebody in their teens-fourties doesn't make them incompetent or dangerous wielding a weapon. Frankly, I think your attitude treats the elderly as if they are second class citizens, not entitled to be able to protect themselves from harm. Also, the whole point of this gun is to solve some of the challenges physical impairments present to gun operation, so that portion of your argument doesn't really stand. Also, because this will be prescribed by doctors, it leaves the judgment as to whether or not the person can wield the weapon safely up to a medical expert. They aren't just handing this out like candy (or in this case, dentures).
Last time I checked, the cold war never went hot, so you're argument is kind of self defeating. The bottom line is that there will always be people out there willing to murder, it's been around for the entire history of the world and it will always be around. It's not ignorant, it's realistic. As long as the bad people have guns, the good people should be allowed to have guns. The bad people will always have guns, thus the good people should always have guns, so they can kill the bad people and protect themselves and their families. Check the stats man, states with less gun control have less violent crime and home invasions. It works. Who's being ignorant now?
You're an idiot. The rate of violent crime among the elderly is very low, the rate of victimization of the elderly is very high. I'm sorry, I just don't see a gang of grannys rollin' around in their wheel chairs cappin people in their asses. In reality, these guns will help the elderly defend themselves against malicious people who would exploit vulnerability. What's wrong with allowing somebody in a vulnerable state to protect their lives? By your liberal reasoning, we should allow the taking of the life of a helpless infant, and leave the helpless elderly person at the mercy of any scumbag that wants to take advantage of them. Well, at least you're consistent. Life is sacred, never?
They are helping to preserve the life of their patient. Elderly people are often victimized due to their physical inferiority to their attackers, they are easy targets. This is an equalizer. Why would you want to prevent a little old lady from defending herself? Also, no weapon is inherently offensive or defensive, it is what the owner intends it to be. Correct me if I'm wrong but the rate of violent crime perpetrated by elderly people probably isn't very high.
But my point is that ultimately responsibility for thinking should be laid on the shoulders of the consumer. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that companies should just be able to say whatever they want in their ads, but I don't think this ad crossed the line. The bottom line is that anybody willing to put in ten-twenty minutes of research can find out the truth about product. If I'm going to buy a 200 dollar product, you can bet your ass I'm going to research the hell out of it first. Personally, I want a phone to call people with, the free chocolate I got with my verizon plan is good enough for me. Oh, and judging from my experience with axe wearers, most of the people that wear it are morons, and probably do believe the commercials.
This is dumb. I'm not the biggest iPhone fan out there, but anybody who expects commercials to be realistic deserves to be disappointed. Does Axe body spray get its ads pulled for being unrealistic? They are, unless it's actually true and Axe is capable of causing girls to throw themselves at you (I've never used it myself but I'd say it probably wouldn't work in my case). I've seen the iPhone ad in question and it never crossed my mind that they were trying to say it could do all those things in 29 seconds, I just assumed they were trying demonstrate all the iPhone's capabilities in a short advertising slot. As I said, I don't think Apple is the end-all be-all of technology, but I'm not a part of the "hate apple" scene either. People not capable of understanding the difference between a commercial and reality, deserve what they get.