Wait, so... you're saying... people might like companies whose first action ISN'T to legally rape anyone who even remotely steps into questionable copyright territory?...I just don't see it.
I'd assumed by black and white, they meant "The world is black and white. Downloading anything you don't own is bad. If you download things, you're supporting sodomizing kittens. Who grow up to be terrorists."
Somehow, I doubt these comics will cover some of the more debatable aspects of the issue (for example, downloading clips from a radio broadcast. I don't download the latest Weird Al CD, I buy it. But what about the latest JRock CD that I can't actually buy in America, anyway?).
Truly, the "homefront" of gaming is in the Land of the Rising Sun. It's where most of the truly BIG names in gaming comes from, and where the biggest sellers are made. I know it's just anecdotal evidence, but let's take a look at my gaming library: Wii: 6 games, 2 US made, 4 Japan PS2: 35 games, 12 US, 23 Japan GCN: 41 games, 12 US, 29 Japan DS: 22 games, ALL Japanese
So, it looks to me that since the Japanese PC game market seems to consist mostly of porn games and little more, which hardly has the greatest graphic ever, it is unlikely that the Japanese gaming market is thanks to the PC gaming market.
I can't speak for what's on Japanese shelves, but it would seem to me that the Japanese easily hold the majority of big name franchises (I say to exclude MY LITTLE PONIES: RAINBOW FUNLAND ADVENTURE(tm) and other abysmal titles) in the west. I don't know why. Maybe it's Japan's apparent preference for swords over guns (whereas in Western games, swords are a last resort, usually, when your long-range weaponry is out of/low on ammo) and RPGs.
I'm not saying I hate the PC gaming market. I play City of Heroes/Villains, Neverwinter Nights 1&2, Hitman... I love so many PC games, but the hassle of using them is often quite frustrating. The keyboard was NOT designed for many types of games (just as a console controller, save the Wii) was not designed for shooters or RTS. And most casual players aren't going to want to have to replace their otherwise-fine desktop to play the newest Half-life. If they mainly use their computer for Internet tube exploration and typing up papers, why should they buy $500 minimum in upgrades to play a game when they can spend ~$50 for a new game for their console and still (ultimately) have fun?
I agree. There's a time and place for ads. In Madden 2000-Whatever-It's-The-Same-Damn-Game, ads can... well... add realism. In a modern day shooter, seeing a Coca Cola billboard is just dandy. But when a level 24 Paladin finds Sprite bumper stickers all over his horses ass, that's a bit much.
And speaking of asses... When you're throwing a party, don't make an ass of yourself, and choose the right beer for your guests, and choose Samuel Adams. Samuel Adams: Always a good decision.
*Gets handed a large wad of cash* (Hey, I might be a corporate whore, but... did I mention the money?)
Bah. The Democrats are just trying to scare you into ignoring the REAL problem with airlines.
Gremlins. Turbulence is actually Gremlinese for "plane smashing." How is an external laser going to protect you from a monster tearing up your engine from the inside?
Just another example of the BureaucRATS in Washington trying to hide the truth from us, and to get us to ignore the REAL issues, like the Boogeyman serial killings and aliens stealing the world's supply of linoleum.
But... but... whatever happened to "With us or against us?" You mean that DOESN'T work? I am SHOCKED!
If what you're suggesting is true, it may even suggest the following: Let's pretend you have an enemy. Let's call them... "Bommunists..." to make up a totally original word. And to combat them, you give some crazy people in another country weapons and funding to fight them for you. Let's call this country... "Bafghanistan." You're suggesting that these people may not be real allies and hurt you in the end?
Honestly, it seems too far fetched. I can't think of a single example of this.
Well, I'll admit I'm not very knowledgeable in business or computer terms, so I just took a reoccurring joke from Dilbert (something being ISO-9000 certified... I'd assumed that name was too silly to be real, though it seems I was wrong).
I don't know if the Wii was donated or not either, but I would suspect not. If Nintendo knew of the contest, it... just doesn't seem to be their image. I seriously doubt Nintendo would want to REINFORCE the rather old and annoying "Ha ha, Wii sounds like a synonym for urine!" joke.
If Nintendo were to donate some systems, I would bet it wouldn't be a single unit. More like "1 in 500 boxtops wins a free Nintendo Wii, on specially marked boxes of Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs!" So... I can't prove it, but I seriously doubt it.
And as much as I love my Wii, if that were my mother... I'd feel kinda guilty playing a system my mother DIED trying to get. But then again, wouldn't it be better to use it, to give her death some, albeit extremely trivial, significance? Either way, they're gonna need therapy someday...
Oh please. I more than understand that this was related to the name of the console, but I'm simply arguing that making Nintendo LIABLE for what happened is pure bullshit. I'm merely arguing that the real people responsible are: A) The woman and B) The radio station. Was Nintendo technically involved? Yes. But should they pay damages? No way. (And I assure you, I'm a big advocate for making corporations pay their dues, but this is not such a time.)
Maybe the server could talk like a waiter, too? "Good evening, clients. I'm ISO-9000, and I'll be your server for this evening. If you need any web pages tonight, just ask, and here is your menu of exotic pornography we have as specials tonight, oh, and here are some GameFAQs.com forum accounts for the kids."
Definitely the best analogy I've ever seen to explain the Interwebs. And you even one up Mr. "Bridge to Nowhere" by essentially reversing HIS analogy. Bravo.
People hype things. It's human nature, and we've been doing it for so long. "Martin's Snake Oil Potion! It will cure any and every disease from the warts on your toe to the measles in your children!"
"...In other news today, a woman was killed while playing chicken with a runaway bull to win a bottle of Martin's Snake Oil Potion..."
And let's not forget good old religion. Religion is the KING of marketing, and they do it well. (Not an insult on religion, but it's true. People have killed and died for their religious beliefs. This contest was for something worth $250 American.)
The ONLY thing I can say about this situation is... shit happens, and sometimes, it happens to you. You can talk about "what should have they done?" all day, but the fact remains, they didn't. It happened. And it's over. The world is a pretty nasty place, and there's no end to horrible, humiliating, and downright awful things that can happen to you. But we can't go around covering the world in styrofoam, wearing helmets and kneepads everywhere with our own personal rescue squad. The most we can do is educate people into not doing these things a second time.
I disagree. Nintendo should NOT be held liable in any way, shape, or form. If the death of this woman was DIRECTLY related to the use of a Wii (for example, the Wii-mote exploded because of direct contact with something) that'd be one thing. However, the reason for her death was only related to a competition. This competition's ONLY connection to Nintendo was that Nintendo sold these people a system, which they then offered as a prize in a publicity stunt.
If I offer you a new Honda Civic car if you'll run across a busy highway naked, and you get hit by a truck and killed, should HONDA be held responsible because they made their product "too desirable?" Fuck no. The only people who should be held accountable should be me for being an asshole, and you for being an idiot that listened to an asshole.
What about competitions that offer money as a reward? Should the U.S. mint be held accountable for people getting hurt while trying to earn money?
All I'm saying is, people want things. Always. They offered something for free, and someone died because of it. There is no harm in playing a Wii system. In that regard, Nintendo has done their job. There certainly IS, however, a danger in playing Russian Roulette for one. So, Nintendo has nothing to do with this. Only the woman and the radio station. So until a Wii itself hurts someone, and not what people would do for one (and those damn Klondike bars. *MY* great grandmother died because someone shot her for one...) Nintendo's clean.
Plus, it's rather inaccurate. By definition, a Darwin Award is given to someone by "helping to ensure their genes do not get passed on." This woman had three kids. Her genes are already out there. So, technically, she's already passed them on... you know, before SHE passed on.
Geeze... it sucks for her kids. To have their mother die, because of an idiotic stunt in order to make a urine joke. God, I'd hate to see their therapy bills when they get older.
True, he did lose, but he did pretty damn well for himself.
As for nationality, I did not know that about Napoleon. But at the same time, I don't really care so much about where one was born as where one lives later and what they do there. Einstein is often credited as one of the top U.S. scientists, even though he was not born in America. So, as long as he fought under the French banner... eh, works for me, though I understand if some may disagree.
Well, there is a bit of difference in display. Nudity can be erotic, and erotic things are often nude, but the two are different. There's a difference between a person being naked, and someone "presenting" himself/herself. And let's face it, there will always be a place in the world for corny, unrealistic porn dialogue. It might just have to move to the Comedy section. And it will always be welcomed at home, as I imagine no matter how accepted public nudity became, public fapping... probably not a good idea (if just for hygenic reasons).
(And on a side note, Troll? WTF? Mods here apparently can't read a joke)
If I had mod points, they'd be all yours. As someone who is part French (Probably like 1/6. I've got blood from a ridiculous amount of European countries) it does get under my skin when the French are taunted for no reason. (*With fake accent* Besides, as we all know, ze French are ze best taunters of all! Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!) Does anyone remember a little name... something like... Napoleon? I seem to recall he was a pretty decent commander.
And I also tire of people who act like the U.S. won WWII all on its own, like the Nazis were ready to topple all of the world, when all of a sudden, "AMERICA MAN" appears and bam, Hitler goes down, good triumphs over evil AND gets the girl, and they live happily ever after. The truth is more like even without our help, the Allies would have more than likely won. Making enemies with Russia was really the Nazis biggest mistake. (But don't get me wrong. It's a good thing that we did, eventually, come to battle. It sped up Germany's defeat. I'm just saying that the idea that the French did nothing but surrender is, at best, totally historically inaccurate and, at worst, plain bigotry.)
Perhaps to convert, we simply need to offer similar life or death situations for average people to measure things? "Please stop pumping gas momentarily when you reach 4 liters. Pumping to 4 gallons will result in a horrendous explosion."
People tend to pay attention more when explosions are involved.
So, what you're saying here is... the Porn industry is like the Diamond Industry? The product (breasts and diamonds) are extremely common, but when you cut people off from the supply (by shooting people who take them or introduce rape/sexual offense laws) the price skyrockets? My God, it makes so much sense now! The Courts are merely a puppet of pornographers!
To continue with the slim jim analogy, they are also shirvled up, wrinkly strips of flesh. =p And from a salary stand-point, most politicians don't make much money, at least when compared to other "higher ups" on the social ladder, and deducting campaign costs. The real money comes from sponsors and under-the-table deals.
These people make laws at random, it seems like it must be some kind of drinking game. "All right, Kennedy vs. McCain! Whoever drinks 20 shots first wins. Loser has to finish his, drink another 10 shots, then write 5 bills about regulating the Internet!"
The problem with your reasoning is: A) You're using reason. That's the first sign you're an immoral heathen. B)Violence is natural. Sex is not. If God wanted us to have sex, we would be born with some kind of genitals which would develop over time, allowing us to perform and desire sexual acts, not the submachines guns babies come with out of the womb....Hey, wait a minute...
When I was a young boy (probably around 10), I'd just gotten out of the pool and while walking around, I saw my 5 year-old-cousin drying off. She had her towel open in the front.
That's right: I, a boy as young as 10, saw my first naked girl. So terrible was the sight I went on a killing spree for weeks to calm my troubled mind. And did you know the assassin who killed Archduke Ferdinand, which launched WWI, became an assassin after walking in on his parents having sex?
Seriously, there is no logic. Sex is natural. It's about the most natural thing there is. And plenty of young children, get this, even like to play with their genitals. They may not understand why, but they think it feels good. So, why some people think it's okay to see the aftermath of a carpet bombing but not a pair of breasts I'll never understand.
So, he's against teaching kids about safe sex, and quite obviously doesn't use it himself. He's also obviously some kind of literalist Christian. I mean, no self-respecting science journal would EVER claim the Earth was 14,000 years old. We Humans have been around a lot longer than that (despite being no more than a mere blip on the time line of the Earth), and we have skeletal remains, carbon dating, sedimentary layers, etc. etc. etc. to back it up. Unless just about every form of archeology is ridiculously wrong in every conceivable way (or you go with that "God put that there to trick us" logic, which is a whole other can of worms), there is no way in Hell that can be right.
So, why is it that a man who is obviously not very well versed in the realms of science trying to have so much say in what takes place in a science class?
What really concerns me is that schools AVOID controversy. Think about that. The place we send our children to in order to become knowledgeable enough to integrate with society and contribute to our pool of knowledge (Or at least, this is the supposed ideal. The execution and goals of specific individuals within may vary). And they do what they can to AVOID subjects kids may have disagree with?
Am I the only one here who thinks this is a good thing for kids to see, whether or not you AGREE with Mr. Gore? How about watching it... and then forming an opinion? Or is that a skill we're no longer supposed to possess?
How about dissecting the movie? Taking classes to identify facts, identify opinion, where people may be just guessing, where people are just trying to sway your opinion, and so on?
Personally, on Global Warming, I'm rather neutral. I don't feel that I know enough to form a truly educated opinion. However, I do think that pouring poisonous chemicals non-stop into the atmosphere we breathe isn't very likely to have many "beneficial" side-effects, regardless of whether or not it's contributing/contributing a lot to global warming.
Sorry if this sounded inflammatory, but I'm just rather irritated that the U.S. (from my experience) is doing the best it can to avoid hearing conflicting opinions. "Freedom from offensive or disagreeing speech" is not a Constitutional Right, and I'm sick of people having their lawyers on speed dial for every instance someone decides to bring up unpopular/unorthodox/taboo ideas.
To quote Lewis Black, "THEY'RE NOT ALIVE! They have the POTENTIAL for life, but until they do, they're about as alive as a mini-pizza. If we're going to protect frozen embryos, we ought to have National Guardsmen in every frozen food section of the country with guns. 'GET BACK! The crab strips may come back to life!'"
My take on this? Well, let me ask this question: If an embryo is a person, why do people say "we have one child and another on the way" instead of "we have 2 children?" If a human becomes a human at conception, why is it most (I lack the exact figure at the moment, but I've always seen 60%-80%) of fertilized eggs get flushed out of a woman's body during her periods? (Fertilization is only half the start-up process)
One of the largest arguments I hear for the "pro-life" side is "You're denying a person life." Well, an embryo can't think. Not at all. Even someone who is mentally retarded is capable of some thought. But an embryo is, still, just a clump of expanding cells that have the POTENTIAL for thought. Someday. If things go right enough, though there's a good chance it'll be flushed away, form incorrectly, come out too soon, etc.
I do suppose "adoption" is a choice. I mean, there's just a shortage of kids up for adoption now, we're running on empty, right? And the human race is just so close to extinction... Seriously, I know family traditions, socio-economic structures, $DEITY tell people to "be fruitful," but I think we've harvested enough for now, and I'm pretty much for any and all means of population reduction short of genocide, random murder, etc.
In a technical sense, I will admit that an embryo is alive. It is alive in the sense that it takes in energy, gives off waste, can reach a stage where it can possibly reproduce someday, etc. but that describes so many things in the universe it's ridiculous. But then the question is, "Is life sacred?" Most people will say, "yes, life is sacred." Though we certainly don't act like it. Humans kill for so many reasons. Food. Entertainment. To get rid of a pest. Even typing on these keys, I'm prbably crushing some spores that could have, potentially, become a fungus someday, a living entity. And most people, I'm sure, aren't going to find said fungus to be sacred.
So now we arrive at the point where we're saying "SOME life is sacred" (whatever the Hell "Sacred" means, seems a bit subjective to me). So we can think about sentient life now, ignoring the fungus and amoebas in the world. Is a cow sacred? Well, we kill 'em and eat 'em. So, some will say, no. (Though to act on an old stereotype, Hinduism finds them sacred)
So now we're back to people. Is human life sacred? Well, what even defines "human life?" DNA? Any cell with Human DNA? What about blood? Pouring through my veins is an assload of blood cells, which are living things, with my DNA in them. If someone punched me in the face and gave me a nosebleed, is he guilty of assault, or manslaughter? Seems the courts don't find living things with human DNA to be automatically given human rights.
So, what's the difference between that clump of my red blood cells and that clump of cells in a woman's uterus? That the Uterus has the POTENTIAL for life? But, and this may surprise you, I am a male. As a human male, I have certain characteristics, including genitals. These "genitals" have these things called "testicles" which are full of sperm. Every sperm in my body has the POTENTIAL for life (assuming it wasn't poorly made. I hear the male body really does a rush job on a lot of them, and some end up deformed and essentially useless, so the male relies on sheer numbers, causing the female immune system to cry out, "OMG SPERM RUSH!").
So, then here's a question: Is every sperm sacred? Is every sperm good? IS every sperm neeeeeeeeeeded in your neighborhoooooooood? For once, I'm going to disagree with Monty Python. If I don't have sex with a woman and get her pregnant RIGHT NOW, well, all those sperm are probably going to die. They'll never fufill their potent
But America: The Book described Brazil as the "#1 exporter of jiggling butt cheeks in the world!" I'd always assumed Brazil was one of those countries where everyone was naked all the time! Well, another one of my stereotypes has been crushed. It's just like the time I learned that Mexicans don't really wear sombreros and eat tacos all day, that the British don't all have bad teeth and that not every Japanese schoolgirl is secretly a magical warrior princess fighting for Peace and Love(tm).
I swear to God, if it turns out not ever Italian loves pasta with every meal, my worldview will be utterly shattered...
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, so... you're saying... people might like companies whose first action ISN'T to legally rape anyone who even remotely steps into questionable copyright territory? ...I just don't see it.
I'd assumed by black and white, they meant "The world is black and white. Downloading anything you don't own is bad. If you download things, you're supporting sodomizing kittens. Who grow up to be terrorists."
Somehow, I doubt these comics will cover some of the more debatable aspects of the issue (for example, downloading clips from a radio broadcast. I don't download the latest Weird Al CD, I buy it. But what about the latest JRock CD that I can't actually buy in America, anyway?).
What you say is true.
Truly, the "homefront" of gaming is in the Land of the Rising Sun. It's where most of the truly BIG names in gaming comes from, and where the biggest sellers are made. I know it's just anecdotal evidence, but let's take a look at my gaming library:
Wii: 6 games, 2 US made, 4 Japan
PS2: 35 games, 12 US, 23 Japan
GCN: 41 games, 12 US, 29 Japan
DS: 22 games, ALL Japanese
So, it looks to me that since the Japanese PC game market seems to consist mostly of porn games and little more, which hardly has the greatest graphic ever, it is unlikely that the Japanese gaming market is thanks to the PC gaming market.
I can't speak for what's on Japanese shelves, but it would seem to me that the Japanese easily hold the majority of big name franchises (I say to exclude MY LITTLE PONIES: RAINBOW FUNLAND ADVENTURE(tm) and other abysmal titles) in the west. I don't know why. Maybe it's Japan's apparent preference for swords over guns (whereas in Western games, swords are a last resort, usually, when your long-range weaponry is out of/low on ammo) and RPGs.
I'm not saying I hate the PC gaming market. I play City of Heroes/Villains, Neverwinter Nights 1&2, Hitman... I love so many PC games, but the hassle of using them is often quite frustrating. The keyboard was NOT designed for many types of games (just as a console controller, save the Wii) was not designed for shooters or RTS. And most casual players aren't going to want to have to replace their otherwise-fine desktop to play the newest Half-life. If they mainly use their computer for Internet tube exploration and typing up papers, why should they buy $500 minimum in upgrades to play a game when they can spend ~$50 for a new game for their console and still (ultimately) have fun?
I agree. There's a time and place for ads. In Madden 2000-Whatever-It's-The-Same-Damn-Game, ads can... well... add realism. In a modern day shooter, seeing a Coca Cola billboard is just dandy. But when a level 24 Paladin finds Sprite bumper stickers all over his horses ass, that's a bit much.
And speaking of asses... When you're throwing a party, don't make an ass of yourself, and choose the right beer for your guests, and choose Samuel Adams. Samuel Adams: Always a good decision.
*Gets handed a large wad of cash* (Hey, I might be a corporate whore, but... did I mention the money?)
Bah. The Democrats are just trying to scare you into ignoring the REAL problem with airlines.
Gremlins. Turbulence is actually Gremlinese for "plane smashing." How is an external laser going to protect you from a monster tearing up your engine from the inside?
Just another example of the BureaucRATS in Washington trying to hide the truth from us, and to get us to ignore the REAL issues, like the Boogeyman serial killings and aliens stealing the world's supply of linoleum.
But... but... whatever happened to "With us or against us?" You mean that DOESN'T work? I am SHOCKED!
If what you're suggesting is true, it may even suggest the following: Let's pretend you have an enemy. Let's call them... "Bommunists..." to make up a totally original word. And to combat them, you give some crazy people in another country weapons and funding to fight them for you. Let's call this country... "Bafghanistan." You're suggesting that these people may not be real allies and hurt you in the end?
Honestly, it seems too far fetched. I can't think of a single example of this.
Well, I'll admit I'm not very knowledgeable in business or computer terms, so I just took a reoccurring joke from Dilbert (something being ISO-9000 certified... I'd assumed that name was too silly to be real, though it seems I was wrong).
I don't know if the Wii was donated or not either, but I would suspect not. If Nintendo knew of the contest, it... just doesn't seem to be their image. I seriously doubt Nintendo would want to REINFORCE the rather old and annoying "Ha ha, Wii sounds like a synonym for urine!" joke.
If Nintendo were to donate some systems, I would bet it wouldn't be a single unit. More like "1 in 500 boxtops wins a free Nintendo Wii, on specially marked boxes of Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs!" So... I can't prove it, but I seriously doubt it.
And as much as I love my Wii, if that were my mother... I'd feel kinda guilty playing a system my mother DIED trying to get. But then again, wouldn't it be better to use it, to give her death some, albeit extremely trivial, significance? Either way, they're gonna need therapy someday...
Oh please. I more than understand that this was related to the name of the console, but I'm simply arguing that making Nintendo LIABLE for what happened is pure bullshit. I'm merely arguing that the real people responsible are: A) The woman and B) The radio station. Was Nintendo technically involved? Yes. But should they pay damages? No way. (And I assure you, I'm a big advocate for making corporations pay their dues, but this is not such a time.)
Maybe the server could talk like a waiter, too?
"Good evening, clients. I'm ISO-9000, and I'll be your server for this evening. If you need any web pages tonight, just ask, and here is your menu of exotic pornography we have as specials tonight, oh, and here are some GameFAQs.com forum accounts for the kids."
Definitely the best analogy I've ever seen to explain the Interwebs. And you even one up Mr. "Bridge to Nowhere" by essentially reversing HIS analogy. Bravo.
People hype things. It's human nature, and we've been doing it for so long. "Martin's Snake Oil Potion! It will cure any and every disease from the warts on your toe to the measles in your children!"
"...In other news today, a woman was killed while playing chicken with a runaway bull to win a bottle of Martin's Snake Oil Potion..."
And let's not forget good old religion. Religion is the KING of marketing, and they do it well. (Not an insult on religion, but it's true. People have killed and died for their religious beliefs. This contest was for something worth $250 American.)
The ONLY thing I can say about this situation is... shit happens, and sometimes, it happens to you. You can talk about "what should have they done?" all day, but the fact remains, they didn't. It happened. And it's over. The world is a pretty nasty place, and there's no end to horrible, humiliating, and downright awful things that can happen to you. But we can't go around covering the world in styrofoam, wearing helmets and kneepads everywhere with our own personal rescue squad. The most we can do is educate people into not doing these things a second time.
I disagree. Nintendo should NOT be held liable in any way, shape, or form. If the death of this woman was DIRECTLY related to the use of a Wii (for example, the Wii-mote exploded because of direct contact with something) that'd be one thing. However, the reason for her death was only related to a competition. This competition's ONLY connection to Nintendo was that Nintendo sold these people a system, which they then offered as a prize in a publicity stunt.
If I offer you a new Honda Civic car if you'll run across a busy highway naked, and you get hit by a truck and killed, should HONDA be held responsible because they made their product "too desirable?" Fuck no. The only people who should be held accountable should be me for being an asshole, and you for being an idiot that listened to an asshole.
What about competitions that offer money as a reward? Should the U.S. mint be held accountable for people getting hurt while trying to earn money?
All I'm saying is, people want things. Always. They offered something for free, and someone died because of it. There is no harm in playing a Wii system. In that regard, Nintendo has done their job. There certainly IS, however, a danger in playing Russian Roulette for one. So, Nintendo has nothing to do with this. Only the woman and the radio station. So until a Wii itself hurts someone, and not what people would do for one (and those damn Klondike bars. *MY* great grandmother died because someone shot her for one...) Nintendo's clean.
Plus, it's rather inaccurate. By definition, a Darwin Award is given to someone by "helping to ensure their genes do not get passed on." This woman had three kids. Her genes are already out there. So, technically, she's already passed them on... you know, before SHE passed on.
Geeze... it sucks for her kids. To have their mother die, because of an idiotic stunt in order to make a urine joke. God, I'd hate to see their therapy bills when they get older.
True, he did lose, but he did pretty damn well for himself.
As for nationality, I did not know that about Napoleon. But at the same time, I don't really care so much about where one was born as where one lives later and what they do there. Einstein is often credited as one of the top U.S. scientists, even though he was not born in America. So, as long as he fought under the French banner... eh, works for me, though I understand if some may disagree.
Well, there is a bit of difference in display. Nudity can be erotic, and erotic things are often nude, but the two are different. There's a difference between a person being naked, and someone "presenting" himself/herself. And let's face it, there will always be a place in the world for corny, unrealistic porn dialogue. It might just have to move to the Comedy section. And it will always be welcomed at home, as I imagine no matter how accepted public nudity became, public fapping... probably not a good idea (if just for hygenic reasons).
(And on a side note, Troll? WTF? Mods here apparently can't read a joke)
If I had mod points, they'd be all yours. As someone who is part French (Probably like 1/6. I've got blood from a ridiculous amount of European countries) it does get under my skin when the French are taunted for no reason. (*With fake accent* Besides, as we all know, ze French are ze best taunters of all! Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!) Does anyone remember a little name... something like... Napoleon? I seem to recall he was a pretty decent commander.
And I also tire of people who act like the U.S. won WWII all on its own, like the Nazis were ready to topple all of the world, when all of a sudden, "AMERICA MAN" appears and bam, Hitler goes down, good triumphs over evil AND gets the girl, and they live happily ever after. The truth is more like even without our help, the Allies would have more than likely won. Making enemies with Russia was really the Nazis biggest mistake. (But don't get me wrong. It's a good thing that we did, eventually, come to battle. It sped up Germany's defeat. I'm just saying that the idea that the French did nothing but surrender is, at best, totally historically inaccurate and, at worst, plain bigotry.)
Perhaps to convert, we simply need to offer similar life or death situations for average people to measure things?
"Please stop pumping gas momentarily when you reach 4 liters. Pumping to 4 gallons will result in a horrendous explosion."
People tend to pay attention more when explosions are involved.
So, what you're saying here is... the Porn industry is like the Diamond Industry? The product (breasts and diamonds) are extremely common, but when you cut people off from the supply (by shooting people who take them or introduce rape/sexual offense laws) the price skyrockets? My God, it makes so much sense now! The Courts are merely a puppet of pornographers!
To continue with the slim jim analogy, they are also shirvled up, wrinkly strips of flesh. =p
And from a salary stand-point, most politicians don't make much money, at least when compared to other "higher ups" on the social ladder, and deducting campaign costs. The real money comes from sponsors and under-the-table deals.
These people make laws at random, it seems like it must be some kind of drinking game. "All right, Kennedy vs. McCain! Whoever drinks 20 shots first wins. Loser has to finish his, drink another 10 shots, then write 5 bills about regulating the Internet!"
The problem with your reasoning is: ...Hey, wait a minute...
A) You're using reason. That's the first sign you're an immoral heathen.
B)Violence is natural. Sex is not. If God wanted us to have sex, we would be born with some kind of genitals which would develop over time, allowing us to perform and desire sexual acts, not the submachines guns babies come with out of the womb.
When I was a young boy (probably around 10), I'd just gotten out of the pool and while walking around, I saw my 5 year-old-cousin drying off. She had her towel open in the front.
That's right: I, a boy as young as 10, saw my first naked girl. So terrible was the sight I went on a killing spree for weeks to calm my troubled mind. And did you know the assassin who killed Archduke Ferdinand, which launched WWI, became an assassin after walking in on his parents having sex?
Seriously, there is no logic. Sex is natural. It's about the most natural thing there is. And plenty of young children, get this, even like to play with their genitals. They may not understand why, but they think it feels good. So, why some people think it's okay to see the aftermath of a carpet bombing but not a pair of breasts I'll never understand.
So, he's against teaching kids about safe sex, and quite obviously doesn't use it himself. He's also obviously some kind of literalist Christian. I mean, no self-respecting science journal would EVER claim the Earth was 14,000 years old. We Humans have been around a lot longer than that (despite being no more than a mere blip on the time line of the Earth), and we have skeletal remains, carbon dating, sedimentary layers, etc. etc. etc. to back it up. Unless just about every form of archeology is ridiculously wrong in every conceivable way (or you go with that "God put that there to trick us" logic, which is a whole other can of worms), there is no way in Hell that can be right.
So, why is it that a man who is obviously not very well versed in the realms of science trying to have so much say in what takes place in a science class?
What really concerns me is that schools AVOID controversy. Think about that. The place we send our children to in order to become knowledgeable enough to integrate with society and contribute to our pool of knowledge (Or at least, this is the supposed ideal. The execution and goals of specific individuals within may vary). And they do what they can to AVOID subjects kids may have disagree with?
Am I the only one here who thinks this is a good thing for kids to see, whether or not you AGREE with Mr. Gore? How about watching it... and then forming an opinion? Or is that a skill we're no longer supposed to possess?
How about dissecting the movie? Taking classes to identify facts, identify opinion, where people may be just guessing, where people are just trying to sway your opinion, and so on?
Personally, on Global Warming, I'm rather neutral. I don't feel that I know enough to form a truly educated opinion. However, I do think that pouring poisonous chemicals non-stop into the atmosphere we breathe isn't very likely to have many "beneficial" side-effects, regardless of whether or not it's contributing/contributing a lot to global warming.
Sorry if this sounded inflammatory, but I'm just rather irritated that the U.S. (from my experience) is doing the best it can to avoid hearing conflicting opinions. "Freedom from offensive or disagreeing speech" is not a Constitutional Right, and I'm sick of people having their lawyers on speed dial for every instance someone decides to bring up unpopular/unorthodox/taboo ideas.
To quote Lewis Black, "THEY'RE NOT ALIVE! They have the POTENTIAL for life, but until they do, they're about as alive as a mini-pizza. If we're going to protect frozen embryos, we ought to have National Guardsmen in every frozen food section of the country with guns. 'GET BACK! The crab strips may come back to life!'"
My take on this? Well, let me ask this question:
If an embryo is a person, why do people say "we have one child and another on the way" instead of "we have 2 children?" If a human becomes a human at conception, why is it most (I lack the exact figure at the moment, but I've always seen 60%-80%) of fertilized eggs get flushed out of a woman's body during her periods? (Fertilization is only half the start-up process)
One of the largest arguments I hear for the "pro-life" side is "You're denying a person life." Well, an embryo can't think. Not at all. Even someone who is mentally retarded is capable of some thought. But an embryo is, still, just a clump of expanding cells that have the POTENTIAL for thought. Someday. If things go right enough, though there's a good chance it'll be flushed away, form incorrectly, come out too soon, etc.
I do suppose "adoption" is a choice. I mean, there's just a shortage of kids up for adoption now, we're running on empty, right? And the human race is just so close to extinction... Seriously, I know family traditions, socio-economic structures, $DEITY tell people to "be fruitful," but I think we've harvested enough for now, and I'm pretty much for any and all means of population reduction short of genocide, random murder, etc.
In a technical sense, I will admit that an embryo is alive. It is alive in the sense that it takes in energy, gives off waste, can reach a stage where it can possibly reproduce someday, etc. but that describes so many things in the universe it's ridiculous. But then the question is, "Is life sacred?" Most people will say, "yes, life is sacred." Though we certainly don't act like it. Humans kill for so many reasons. Food. Entertainment. To get rid of a pest. Even typing on these keys, I'm prbably crushing some spores that could have, potentially, become a fungus someday, a living entity. And most people, I'm sure, aren't going to find said fungus to be sacred.
So now we arrive at the point where we're saying "SOME life is sacred" (whatever the Hell "Sacred" means, seems a bit subjective to me). So we can think about sentient life now, ignoring the fungus and amoebas in the world. Is a cow sacred? Well, we kill 'em and eat 'em. So, some will say, no. (Though to act on an old stereotype, Hinduism finds them sacred)
So now we're back to people. Is human life sacred? Well, what even defines "human life?" DNA? Any cell with Human DNA? What about blood? Pouring through my veins is an assload of blood cells, which are living things, with my DNA in them. If someone punched me in the face and gave me a nosebleed, is he guilty of assault, or manslaughter? Seems the courts don't find living things with human DNA to be automatically given human rights.
So, what's the difference between that clump of my red blood cells and that clump of cells in a woman's uterus? That the Uterus has the POTENTIAL for life? But, and this may surprise you, I am a male. As a human male, I have certain characteristics, including genitals. These "genitals" have these things called "testicles" which are full of sperm. Every sperm in my body has the POTENTIAL for life (assuming it wasn't poorly made. I hear the male body really does a rush job on a lot of them, and some end up deformed and essentially useless, so the male relies on sheer numbers, causing the female immune system to cry out, "OMG SPERM RUSH!").
So, then here's a question: Is every sperm sacred? Is every sperm good? IS every sperm neeeeeeeeeeded in your neighborhoooooooood? For once, I'm going to disagree with Monty Python. If I don't have sex with a woman and get her pregnant RIGHT NOW, well, all those sperm are probably going to die. They'll never fufill their potent
But America: The Book described Brazil as the "#1 exporter of jiggling butt cheeks in the world!" I'd always assumed Brazil was one of those countries where everyone was naked all the time! Well, another one of my stereotypes has been crushed. It's just like the time I learned that Mexicans don't really wear sombreros and eat tacos all day, that the British don't all have bad teeth and that not every Japanese schoolgirl is secretly a magical warrior princess fighting for Peace and Love(tm).
I swear to God, if it turns out not ever Italian loves pasta with every meal, my worldview will be utterly shattered...