I don't disagree, mostly. I think that women should not 'do the deed' if they don't want to raise the child. On the other hand, I don't believe it is my right to enforce that belief on them. I believe in personal responsiblity -- that a person is responsible for themselves and their actions, and should accept responsibility for these things. By this, I agree that a woman who gets herself pregnant should not get herself pregnant if she doesn't want the child. I also believe that it is her choice as to how she deals with the situation (up to a point.)
A common misconception is that abortions are simple, quick, and painless. A 'choice' for a woman to make that ultimately ends in the destruction of a living (or soon to be living) being. This is both true and untrue.
The decision is not an easy one to bear. I have no personal experience, being male, but I know several people who have had abortions in the near and distant past and have had an opportunity to speak with them regarding their thoughts. One of them regretted it and wished she had offered the child up for adoption instead. I agreed with her that it would have been a better option for the child -- if she couldn't support it, she should put it up for adoption. Adoption is 1000% more humane than abortion is (in my opinion). The other two were satisfied with their decision and while they had pangs of guilt and regret about it, said they would make the same choice in the same circumstance, were they able to change it. They did, however, explain that it was one of the most difficult decisions they had ever had to make.
My main point is that I don't believe that abortion is for anyone else to legislate. I believe that it is up to the woman. Period. Personally, I do think that adoption is a MUCH better method. But I also understand that my thoughts are only my thoughts, and my opinions are only my opinions. People don't always agree with them, and I have no right to enforce my beliefs on someone else who has a completely different belief system or sees things in a different way than I do.
I understand that many people will respond telling me that it's not the woman's right to enforce her belief system on the child -- and my only defense is relatively weak, depending on your point of view. I don't believe that a child, before the third trimester, is a child. That is my opinion. If I wanted to take a different approach, I could argue that a fetus does not have a belief system, either. It's hard to betray a belief system that does not yet exist.
Your position on rapist's children, on the other hand I agree with 100%. Regardless of what happens with the law I believe that it should be 100% legal to abort a rapists child.
And yes, you're right, I'm thankful that my mother didn't abort me. I wouldn't be here spewing my verminous filth were I... well, not here! I appreciate that she let me exist, however, I also trust her decision making skills. Had she thought it was in her/my best interest to abort me, she probably would have been correct. I don't know that for a fact -- no one can. But I trust her enough to believe it would have been.
It's impossible for someone to imagine what it would be like to be aborted, so that is not really a worthy ending argument, but I'll let it be.
Just because this needs to be said, and it's not specifically direct at you, per se, but all MALE Pro-Lifers out there.
How can ANY Male *EVER* even begin to think for EVEN JUST A SECOND that he has any idea how hard the decision for a woman to have an abortion is?
How can ANY MALE, who cannot/will not ever conceive a child and hold it in their womb EVER decide what a WOMAN can and cannot do with HER egg?
I'm against Pro-life. Call me Pro-Death or Pro-Choice, I don't care.
It's not up for me to decide whether a woman can or cannot kill her fetus. It is up to the woman. Until that baby has a brain and some semblance of 'person' in it (which iirc is the Third Trimester), it's not a person to me. But again, it's also NOT MY DECISION.
It aggravates me that men will step up and decide for women everywhere without even thinking for a second that there is no possible way for them to ever understand what they are deciding.
And before someone starts flaming and telling me 'KILLING IS KILLING YOU MURDERER'... Keep in mind that is YOUR OPINION. Just as this is MY OPINION. Unborn fetuses are NOT PEOPLE (in my mind) until the third trimester. Hence, Pro-Choice.
The joy of my viewpoint is that it allows the WOMAN the choice to do what she feels is right. As she, ultimately, is the one who will be dealing with the ramifications of her choice, I believe it is she, ultimately, who should DECIDE.
Hehe. I think I'm the only one here that got that.
Final Fantasy III did suck. Final Fantasy VI, on the other hand, kicked serious tail.
Great graphics, compelling storyline, and a few good plot twists. The only villian I've ever hated as much as Kefka (I can't believe he poisoned the water at Doma Castle!) was Sephiroth -- because he killed Aeris...
Well, you see -- The reason I beat up 7 hookers and ran them over with my car after killing two police officers and driving through the city at madcap speeds while drinking and driving on amphetamines was because I played a video game earlier today. The fact that I was allowed to do it in a video game MUST make it right. It's not that I'm a looney to begin with, I promise. I was 100% sane before I played that game. These ideas never came to me before, honest.
On a side note, the fact that my parents spend absolutely no time effectively teaching me how to be a respectful and respectable person, also never spending any time watching me and prohibiting me, at 15 years old, from playing a game that is designated 17+ -- has NOTHING to do with this.
Thank Buddha for Personal Responsibility.
/me moves to any country other than the United States of Blamerica.
On a side note -- Don't lump Guild Wars in the same category. While it does cost $49.95, it is NOT pay-per-month. You pay for the game, and that's it. As it rightfully should be.
I'm more than tired of the 'Pay-per-month' business model. I don't like weighing whether or not I used the game enough to merit the $14 bucks at the end of the month. Guild Wars will be the first MMORPG I have played, as it is the first to offer me a promising pricing schema. (AKA - the first MMORPG to not be pay-per-month.)
IIRC, VMWare will not emulate a PowerPC processor.
It's been a while since I tinkered with it though, it may be a feature available in a newer version.
OK -- So his waste of time by investigating something that was entertaining to him is a BIGGER waste of time than your COMPLETE waste of time by being an absolute troll?
Stupid, stupid, stupid Anonymous Coward.
It's very easy for the guilty to proclaim their innocence.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying take it with a grain of salt. I could send out 100,000,000 e-mails and then say I had nothing to do with it.... Would it still be wrong to DDoS me?
I purchased a Gameboy Advance from Media Play and noticed immediately when I turned it on at home that there was a single pixel what was always white. I took it back and they gladly exchanged it for a different one that we tested at the store.
One of the better customer service experiences I've had.
Unfortunately, the letter we sent to Saddam that read "Dear Saddam, We'd like it if you were nicer. We don't agree with you killing dissidents in your country. Please stop. Warm Regards, George W. Bush" wasn't so well received.
Two wrongs may not make a right, but it would be the same if not worse if Saddam was still in power. We'd just be talking about how many civilians Saddam had killed instead of trying to blame every death in Iraq on America.
I may not agree with the war, but that doesn't mean Iraq is in a worse place now because of America's interference.
I agree that shouting "First Amendment" is not the end-all defense, and also agree that Manhunt crosses the line for violence in a video game, and you do bring up an interesting point about simulated rape or other socially inacceptable behavior, but it all returns to the fact of choice.
People choose to play games like this for a multitude of reasons. I, personally, play UT2003 (graphically violent) with my boss, as a way to alleviate tension. We'll chat on the phone while we frag each other a few times, then team up and frag some others. It is entertaining. I don't believe it has 'desensitized' or made the act of killing someone more 'acceptable' to me. Anyone who argues that point has no ground to stand on. I find it entertaining to digitally attack and kill digital representations of people. That does not mean I could or would ever enjoy the same act in real life. As an example. People watch violent / gory movies all the time. For this example, let's use the movie 'The Cell'. While not a particularly great movie, the graphic violence and gore in it make it a prime example. There is a scene where a character has disemboweled another character and is pulling their intestines out by wrapping it around a spiked spit. I did not vomit when I saw that on the television. As a matter of fact, while it was shocking to see, it wasn't as though I was actually seeing it. Had I seen the exact same thing in real life, it would have had a completely different effect.
Now-- why am I bringing this up? What relevance does this have? I'll tell ya. It's all about choice. Graphic violence is shocking, whether it be in video games or in movies or in television. It's shocking. Shock sells. Shock gets hype. Shock gets notice. People who are shocked (whether good or bad) will tell their friends about being shocked, whether good or bad. It's how it works. A long time ago, people were shocked by violence in video games, some people hated it, some people liked it. Games cater to the masses, not to everyone. Someone is always going to have a problem with something. For better or for worse, games have a right to be violent because gamers have a right to choice. If I want to play a game like Manhunt that has extreme graphic violence, it is my choice. There is no crime in playing a game like that. However, enacting a scene like one in Manhunt in real life, that's a different story. It's not taboo to kill people on a screen because anyone with a moral and ethical grounding will NOT re-create the same situation in real life. Game producers take for granted the fact that the people playing their games have a head on their shoulders.
Take for example, Mortal Kombat. That game had people up in arms when it came out because it was bloody, it was violent, it was gory. You didn't see an immediate increase in people uppercutting others heads off. I will say that violence in video games does lead to more violence. But only in video games. I like UT2003, when UT2004 comes out, with its updated graphics and better physics engine, I'll buy it too. And I'll play it. And I'll like it. But I won't go out with a gun and shoot someone just because I did it in a video game.
Now. As for why killing people in games is socially acceptable, and other things aren't, I'll bring you back to the movies point. People have been killing people in movies for years. Long before there were violent video games. There are parallels between gaming and movies, as the censors ban similar things and rate based on similar things. Rape and pedophelia are not mainstream. They are not in (many) movies. They are not a topic that is regarded with high stature. People don't talk about that great movie they just saw where the 14 year old got raped. But they DO talk about that great movie they just saw with that awesome explosion, or that great bullet-time effect, or what about when Neo beat up Agent Smith, or how about when John Wayne killed the indians. The point is, killing was
Don't forget kids, GTA killed your wife, shot your dog, repossessed your house, shattered your septic tank, stole $2 billion from Metallica, stole your girlfriend, and is the single cause of all the evils in society. Honestly. I'm not kidding.
On the serious side though, this game is rated M, that means your children, the kids that Lieberman is so sure are being desecrated by this game, are the same children that should NOT be playing the game. That's what the M rating is for.
So before you allow the government to control your children for you, why don't you try to raise them yourselves. How about you take an active interest in their life? Maybe keep tabs on what they're doing and what games they're playing. If your kid likes to sacrifice woodland animals, don't buy him GTA, and if you notice he's got it, find out how he got it and take it away from him. There is no substitution for good parenting, and allowing the government to parent for you is a surefire way to end up in a 1984-esque society.
GTA doesn't kill people. GTA doesn't teach people to kill. America's Army (the game) is just as efficient a society demoralizer as any other violent game, except it's sanctioned by the US. You'll note you never hear people complain that AA is too violent. It's ok to be violent when you're killing commies and nazis, but it's not ok to be violent when you have the ability (note, have the ability - there is much more to GTA than killing women and cops) to do things society frowns on.
In AA, you could kill your team-mates. That is just as demoralizing.
--- What preceeds is nothing more than opinion. If you take it for more than that, it is your own fault.
Adventure games now have all become along the lines of Myst and such, there is very little interaction in them between multiple characters, and most of the games I've played lately that call themselves 'Adventure' games have less adventure in them than Grand Theft Auto! I'd say it's not that Adventure games don't exist or are dying, but that they've changed significantly from the older Adventure games. IMHO, the older games like Kings Quest and Space Quest, Bards Tale, Loom, Sam and Max, Day of the Tentacle, etc, are all substantially better games than the newer Adventure games like Ico (PS2), Syberia (XBOX), or Myst.
The new games just seem to be lacking in story and interaction.. Space Quest and such had such great plots (even if they were tongue in cheek!) and at the very least were entertaining throughout, whereas Myst and such just don't seem gripping to me.
But-- That's just my opinion, and I've been wrong before.
sYn
I just patented a "method of using one's diaphragm to forcefully ingest air into said person's lungs", and then subsequently patented a "method of using one's diaphragm to forcefully remove air from said person's lungs."
Now you all owe me 25$ every time you inhale, and 25$ more every time you exhale.
All your lungs are belong to me.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't disagree, mostly. I think that women should not 'do the deed' if they don't want to raise the child. On the other hand, I don't believe it is my right to enforce that belief on them. I believe in personal responsiblity -- that a person is responsible for themselves and their actions, and should accept responsibility for these things. By this, I agree that a woman who gets herself pregnant should not get herself pregnant if she doesn't want the child. I also believe that it is her choice as to how she deals with the situation (up to a point.)
... well, not here! I appreciate that she let me exist, however, I also trust her decision making skills. Had she thought it was in her/my best interest to abort me, she probably would have been correct. I don't know that for a fact -- no one can. But I trust her enough to believe it would have been.
A common misconception is that abortions are simple, quick, and painless. A 'choice' for a woman to make that ultimately ends in the destruction of a living (or soon to be living) being. This is both true and untrue.
The decision is not an easy one to bear. I have no personal experience, being male, but I know several people who have had abortions in the near and distant past and have had an opportunity to speak with them regarding their thoughts. One of them regretted it and wished she had offered the child up for adoption instead. I agreed with her that it would have been a better option for the child -- if she couldn't support it, she should put it up for adoption. Adoption is 1000% more humane than abortion is (in my opinion). The other two were satisfied with their decision and while they had pangs of guilt and regret about it, said they would make the same choice in the same circumstance, were they able to change it. They did, however, explain that it was one of the most difficult decisions they had ever had to make.
My main point is that I don't believe that abortion is for anyone else to legislate. I believe that it is up to the woman. Period. Personally, I do think that adoption is a MUCH better method. But I also understand that my thoughts are only my thoughts, and my opinions are only my opinions. People don't always agree with them, and I have no right to enforce my beliefs on someone else who has a completely different belief system or sees things in a different way than I do.
I understand that many people will respond telling me that it's not the woman's right to enforce her belief system on the child -- and my only defense is relatively weak, depending on your point of view. I don't believe that a child, before the third trimester, is a child. That is my opinion. If I wanted to take a different approach, I could argue that a fetus does not have a belief system, either. It's hard to betray a belief system that does not yet exist.
Your position on rapist's children, on the other hand I agree with 100%. Regardless of what happens with the law I believe that it should be 100% legal to abort a rapists child.
And yes, you're right, I'm thankful that my mother didn't abort me. I wouldn't be here spewing my verminous filth were I
It's impossible for someone to imagine what it would be like to be aborted, so that is not really a worthy ending argument, but I'll let it be.
Just because this needs to be said, and it's not specifically direct at you, per se, but all MALE Pro-Lifers out there.
How can ANY Male *EVER* even begin to think for EVEN JUST A SECOND that he has any idea how hard the decision for a woman to have an abortion is?
How can ANY MALE, who cannot/will not ever conceive a child and hold it in their womb EVER decide what a WOMAN can and cannot do with HER egg?
I'm against Pro-life. Call me Pro-Death or Pro-Choice, I don't care.
It's not up for me to decide whether a woman can or cannot kill her fetus. It is up to the woman. Until that baby has a brain and some semblance of 'person' in it (which iirc is the Third Trimester), it's not a person to me. But again, it's also NOT MY DECISION.
It aggravates me that men will step up and decide for women everywhere without even thinking for a second that there is no possible way for them to ever understand what they are deciding.
And before someone starts flaming and telling me 'KILLING IS KILLING YOU MURDERER'... Keep in mind that is YOUR OPINION. Just as this is MY OPINION. Unborn fetuses are NOT PEOPLE (in my mind) until the third trimester. Hence, Pro-Choice.
The joy of my viewpoint is that it allows the WOMAN the choice to do what she feels is right. As she, ultimately, is the one who will be dealing with the ramifications of her choice, I believe it is she, ultimately, who should DECIDE.
Hehe. I think I'm the only one here that got that.
Final Fantasy III did suck. Final Fantasy VI, on the other hand, kicked serious tail.
Great graphics, compelling storyline, and a few good plot twists. The only villian I've ever hated as much as Kefka (I can't believe he poisoned the water at Doma Castle!) was Sephiroth -- because he killed Aeris...
But I digress . . .
Well, you see -- The reason I beat up 7 hookers and ran them over with my car after killing two police officers and driving through the city at madcap speeds while drinking and driving on amphetamines was because I played a video game earlier today. The fact that I was allowed to do it in a video game MUST make it right. It's not that I'm a looney to begin with, I promise. I was 100% sane before I played that game. These ideas never came to me before, honest.
/me moves to any country other than the United States of Blamerica.
On a side note, the fact that my parents spend absolutely no time effectively teaching me how to be a respectful and respectable person, also never spending any time watching me and prohibiting me, at 15 years old, from playing a game that is designated 17+ -- has NOTHING to do with this.
Thank Buddha for Personal Responsibility.
On a side note -- Don't lump Guild Wars in the same category. While it does cost $49.95, it is NOT pay-per-month. You pay for the game, and that's it. As it rightfully should be. I'm more than tired of the 'Pay-per-month' business model. I don't like weighing whether or not I used the game enough to merit the $14 bucks at the end of the month. Guild Wars will be the first MMORPG I have played, as it is the first to offer me a promising pricing schema. (AKA - the first MMORPG to not be pay-per-month.)
IIRC, VMWare will not emulate a PowerPC processor. It's been a while since I tinkered with it though, it may be a feature available in a newer version.
OK -- So his waste of time by investigating something that was entertaining to him is a BIGGER waste of time than your COMPLETE waste of time by being an absolute troll? Stupid, stupid, stupid Anonymous Coward.
It's very easy for the guilty to proclaim their innocence.
.... Would it still be wrong to DDoS me?
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying take it with a grain of salt. I could send out 100,000,000 e-mails and then say I had nothing to do with it
Depends on what you mean.
Final Fantasy VI is the Japanese title to our American SNES Final Fantasy III....
If that's what you're looking for, then you're not out of luck.
When he said that Final Fantasy 3 was only available as an NES rom, I believe he was referring to the Japanese Final Fantasy III.
For informational purposes:
I purchased a Gameboy Advance from Media Play and noticed immediately when I turned it on at home that there was a single pixel what was always white. I took it back and they gladly exchanged it for a different one that we tested at the store.
One of the better customer service experiences I've had.
You're correct -- two wrongs don't make a right.
Unfortunately, the letter we sent to Saddam that read "Dear Saddam, We'd like it if you were nicer. We don't agree with you killing dissidents in your country. Please stop. Warm Regards, George W. Bush" wasn't so well received. Two wrongs may not make a right, but it would be the same if not worse if Saddam was still in power. We'd just be talking about how many civilians Saddam had killed instead of trying to blame every death in Iraq on America. I may not agree with the war, but that doesn't mean Iraq is in a worse place now because of America's interference.
superultra:
I agree that shouting "First Amendment" is not the end-all defense, and also agree that Manhunt crosses the line for violence in a video game, and you do bring up an interesting point about simulated rape or other socially inacceptable behavior, but it all returns to the fact of choice.
People choose to play games like this for a multitude of reasons. I, personally, play UT2003 (graphically violent) with my boss, as a way to alleviate tension. We'll chat on the phone while we frag each other a few times, then team up and frag some others. It is entertaining. I don't believe it has 'desensitized' or made the act of killing someone more 'acceptable' to me. Anyone who argues that point has no ground to stand on. I find it entertaining to digitally attack and kill digital representations of people. That does not mean I could or would ever enjoy the same act in real life. As an example. People watch violent / gory movies all the time. For this example, let's use the movie 'The Cell'. While not a particularly great movie, the graphic violence and gore in it make it a prime example. There is a scene where a character has disemboweled another character and is pulling their intestines out by wrapping it around a spiked spit. I did not vomit when I saw that on the television. As a matter of fact, while it was shocking to see, it wasn't as though I was actually seeing it. Had I seen the exact same thing in real life, it would have had a completely different effect.
Now-- why am I bringing this up? What relevance does this have? I'll tell ya. It's all about choice. Graphic violence is shocking, whether it be in video games or in movies or in television. It's shocking. Shock sells. Shock gets hype. Shock gets notice. People who are shocked (whether good or bad) will tell their friends about being shocked, whether good or bad. It's how it works. A long time ago, people were shocked by violence in video games, some people hated it, some people liked it. Games cater to the masses, not to everyone. Someone is always going to have a problem with something. For better or for worse, games have a right to be violent because gamers have a right to choice. If I want to play a game like Manhunt that has extreme graphic violence, it is my choice. There is no crime in playing a game like that. However, enacting a scene like one in Manhunt in real life, that's a different story. It's not taboo to kill people on a screen because anyone with a moral and ethical grounding will NOT re-create the same situation in real life. Game producers take for granted the fact that the people playing their games have a head on their shoulders.
Take for example, Mortal Kombat. That game had people up in arms when it came out because it was bloody, it was violent, it was gory. You didn't see an immediate increase in people uppercutting others heads off. I will say that violence in video games does lead to more violence. But only in video games. I like UT2003, when UT2004 comes out, with its updated graphics and better physics engine, I'll buy it too. And I'll play it. And I'll like it. But I won't go out with a gun and shoot someone just because I did it in a video game.
Now. As for why killing people in games is socially acceptable, and other things aren't, I'll bring you back to the movies point. People have been killing people in movies for years. Long before there were violent video games. There are parallels between gaming and movies, as the censors ban similar things and rate based on similar things. Rape and pedophelia are not mainstream. They are not in (many) movies. They are not a topic that is regarded with high stature. People don't talk about that great movie they just saw where the 14 year old got raped. But they DO talk about that great movie they just saw with that awesome explosion, or that great bullet-time effect, or what about when Neo beat up Agent Smith, or how about when John Wayne killed the indians. The point is, killing was
Don't forget kids, GTA killed your wife, shot your dog, repossessed your house, shattered your septic tank, stole $2 billion from Metallica, stole your girlfriend, and is the single cause of all the evils in society. Honestly. I'm not kidding.
On the serious side though, this game is rated M, that means your children, the kids that Lieberman is so sure are being desecrated by this game, are the same children that should NOT be playing the game. That's what the M rating is for.
So before you allow the government to control your children for you, why don't you try to raise them yourselves. How about you take an active interest in their life? Maybe keep tabs on what they're doing and what games they're playing. If your kid likes to sacrifice woodland animals, don't buy him GTA, and if you notice he's got it, find out how he got it and take it away from him. There is no substitution for good parenting, and allowing the government to parent for you is a surefire way to end up in a 1984-esque society.
GTA doesn't kill people. GTA doesn't teach people to kill. America's Army (the game) is just as efficient a society demoralizer as any other violent game, except it's sanctioned by the US. You'll note you never hear people complain that AA is too violent. It's ok to be violent when you're killing commies and nazis, but it's not ok to be violent when you have the ability (note, have the ability - there is much more to GTA than killing women and cops) to do things society frowns on.
In AA, you could kill your team-mates. That is just as demoralizing.
--- What preceeds is nothing more than opinion. If you take it for more than that, it is your own fault.
Adventure games now have all become along the lines of Myst and such, there is very little interaction in them between multiple characters, and most of the games I've played lately that call themselves 'Adventure' games have less adventure in them than Grand Theft Auto! I'd say it's not that Adventure games don't exist or are dying, but that they've changed significantly from the older Adventure games. IMHO, the older games like Kings Quest and Space Quest, Bards Tale, Loom, Sam and Max, Day of the Tentacle, etc, are all substantially better games than the newer Adventure games like Ico (PS2), Syberia (XBOX), or Myst. The new games just seem to be lacking in story and interaction.. Space Quest and such had such great plots (even if they were tongue in cheek!) and at the very least were entertaining throughout, whereas Myst and such just don't seem gripping to me. But-- That's just my opinion, and I've been wrong before. sYn
I just patented a "method of using one's diaphragm to forcefully ingest air into said person's lungs", and then subsequently patented a "method of using one's diaphragm to forcefully remove air from said person's lungs." Now you all owe me 25$ every time you inhale, and 25$ more every time you exhale. All your lungs are belong to me.