I like your use of the word "innocent" to describe her. Appealing to a sense of pity now? The facts are this: Terri Schiavo was dead before the feeding tube was removed. The autopsy later revealed the doctors were right: Her brain was liquified and gone. She couldn't think or feel. For all intents and purposes, she was dead as a doornail.
In fact, the videos they showed of her with slight movements and reactions were dated, as she ceased to do that during the debate.
And the question is not "is the husband a moral person?" The question is, who has legal rights to make that decision? The law clearly states the husband does, not the parents. You can argue about whether or not this law is ETHICAL or not, but it was the case then.
Personally, I feel a little guilt every time this case is brought up, because I'd hate to be a talking point between parties who pretend to care about me. That's the real tragedy here. (That, and the fact that her parents appeared on TV a few months ago claiming there was still a chance to save their daughter, even though they had a doctor there, I believe, who said that there was NOT a chance in Hell. They just can't accept the fact that their daughter died.)
Ack. That's what I get for not reading my own post before I post it. I meant why should I have to suffer through seeing her in such a state for so long? Indeed, people like this are, for all intents and purposes, dead. They can't see, hear, feel, smell, taste, or think. Just because a machine can keep some electrical signal running through a body to keep the other vital organs from stopping doesn't mean the person is alive.
I didn't mean to question what you know. I was just stating the actual source. But it was actually a rather recent event (3 or 4 weeks ago, I believe) so I can see how not everyone would know it. But my main qualm is that if you know he's joking when he states "reality has a well-known liberal bias," then you know he actually KNOWS reality has no liberal bias. However, you apparently have a bias against liberal bias, which means you don't stay in touch with reality, which means you are wrong, which means he wasn't joking and was in fact stating a truth. QED.
(And yes, that was a joke, too. =p Reality has no bias, only fools who think reality is always in their favor)
Actually, it was a joke from Steven Colbert's speech at the White House's Press Dinner of some kind a few weeks ago. And as such, I'm guessing he was just joking.
It's really a matter of law. Mrs. Schiavo was married, and the laws state, if I'm not misinformed, (IANAL) a husband has the right to decide on life support. Can we just let ANYONE come along and say they'll take care of her?
Hypothetical situation: I'm married (Crazy enough right there), and my wife is also on life support. I'm in pain just seeing her in such a state, and would rather see her die than suffer in such a way for so long. However, it turns out Bill Gates it's actually my 5th cousin, and he walks in and says he'll pay for the support forever.
Should he have the right to do that? I don't think so. It's not really an ethical issue, because opinions in this case could vary so much. What it comes down to is should he have the legal right to do that?
I've always thought that if necessity is mother of all inventions, laziness must be the father. Think about it:
Two cave men, Oog and Ug need to move rocks to the top of a hill. Now, Ug is a hard worker, and doesn't mind carrying all those rocks uphill all day. Hey, you do what you have to. But Oog is sick of it, and wants to go home and look at his private "cave drawing" collection, so he invents the wheelbarrow sohe gets done in 1/4 the time as Ug.
The next day, Ug collapses of heat exhastion and is crushed by a rock he was carrying, ensuring Oog's reproduction, setting up humanity to be perfectly fine with inventing new things so they can be lazier.
I know that that would not traditionally be considered child porn, but rationality and reason are not two words that come to mind when I think of censors and law-makers. It is nudity, and it is on a child. Remember, there are crazy people in this world that assume nudity = sexual. Therefore, a pedophile COULD, theoretically, get off to the picture of a newborn baby. It doesn't matter if one will or will not, just that one has the possibility to. I don't find this reasoning sound (Because fetishes can be so strange I'm sure you can find at least one person to get off to just about anything), but I think it is very probable that some would follow it.
And remember, if you question the motives of politicians trying to get rid of anything even remotely similar to child porn, you're against the children!
Thank you for the reasonible response. The other responses have not been so friendly... (This is what happens when I forget to add "IANAL")
At first I did fall victim to the rationalization that Child porn is easily defined, which it is not. I have seen lolita manga in Japan, and it is often debated if it should be counted as child porn. (It's clearly sexual in nature against people far below most age-of-consent laws in just about every country I know. Though on the other hand, it's also entirely fictional (which is why, IMHO, it shouldn't be illegal because no actual crime has taken place)
I still hold to the idea that if a website (let's assume it's based in the US to avoid difficult International laws) clearly showing homemade movies of a 7 year old girl being sexually assaulted, I would expect that the police can shut it down and hopefully use some info on the site to locate and arresst the owner. But I admit, there is so much gray in the situation that rarely is it that simple. But as much as I detest censorship, I believe websites which promote DIRECT, PHYSICAL harm to individuals can and should be shut down (as an example, a site on how to build a bomb is fine, as it has other purposes, but a site about sodomizing extremely young kids or a site about stolen, black market goods are quite clearly illegal and I'd expect to react to it as if they found a poster advertising such services.)
In cases where such cut and dry, I'd expect debate to occur, and hope the government wouldn't abuse its power.... But giving a government too much power is like asking the fox to guard the proverbial chicken coop. It feels like real lose/lose situation.
First, they came for Fark, and I said nothing because I wasn't a Fark-er.
Then, they came for SomethingAwful, and I said nothing because I wasn't a goon.
Then they came for Gamespot, and I said nothing because I wasn't a Gamespotter.
And at last they came for/. and there was no one left to help me.
P.S. I hate to respond to my own topic, but I needed to add, as the poster above me stated, How do we define said websites? Suppose someone takes a picture of their newborn baby which is, naturally, naked? Is that child porn? What about tasteful nudes of children, or children from a country where nudity isn't an issue at all? Is this porn? What about a website that says "I disagree with Al Qaeda's methods, but I do think they have a legitimate reason to be angry?" Is this a terrorist sponsoring site?
You're making the assumption that we who don't believe in Internet censorship all believe there should be child porn on the web. Not true at all.
Child pornography is a crime. It is illegal in every industrialized society that I know of, and shutting down these websites is merely an extension of the enforcement of said laws. Similarly, a website clearly made to recruit terrorists is in violation of International Law. Again, shutting down this website is merely enforcing a law already in place. No one sane is going to complain when a website for black market goods is shut down.
But when they shut down a website that merely criticizes a government, posts unpoplar opinions, or some other legal content, that is when a problem arises.
I believe what the OP was stating is that there are certain things we consume that actually are poisonous... in large doses. Alcohol is one such example. Ever heard of alcohol POISONING? No, if you have a beer, you won't die, because your body can deal with such a small level of poison. But keep drinking vodka, whisky, and whatever else you can get your hands on all night long and you could very well die.
Similarly, cyanide is obviously poisonous. But one molecule? Not so much, because your body can surely handle that. Poisons are only dangerous at various levels.
While I agree with the legality of what you speak, remember, this is/. and how often do we hear "_______ is a Nazi?" It may be slander, and it may be outrageous and stupid, but people do call others Nazis as an insult all the time. It may be nigh impossible to enforce (If I were to make a blog and made every article about "How George Bush is a Nazi" I doubt I'd be arressted.) Simply because the President, as a public figure, takes a great deal of abuse, no matter how well he preforms in office. As such, if we were to punish everyone who slandered him, there'd be a lot of people in trouble with the police. (Does anyone remember a certain famous black singer saying live, "George Bush doesn't care about black people?") Plus, in the case of referring to the president as a Nazi, it's somewhat subjective. It is assumed I'm saying the actions he takes resemble those of a Nazi, which are only my opinions, as insane as they might be.
This is, of course, different with, say, a corporation. If you publically state that the President is a Nazi, 99% of people will just think you're a nut and ignore you. But if you start saying, "Apple products will burn down your house and kill you," without any scientific basing for that, you're likely to get into a bit of trouble with a few lawsuits from Apple.
So my original example was meant to be taken rather literally. You CAN call the president a Nazi on the Internet. Plenty of people have done it, and plenty of people will do so in the future. Is it technically legal? No, but neither is Jaywalking, but that doesn't stop countless people from doing it. Legality, however justified or unjustified, doesn't stop people from downloading copyrighted files. And slander laws certainly won't stop people from throwing baseless insults at any president.
Note: The idea of George Bush being a Nazi is merely my example of an opinion that can be expressed on the Internet, and may or may not actually reflect my view of the man, so please, no flamewars, it was just an example.
I'm glad that decision was overturned, or think of the message it sends:
At home, you can call the president a Nazi. You can mock spiritual leaders all you want. But for Christ's sake, don't say your school principal wears a dumb looking suit.
The Freedom-Fighter in me wants to hug this girl for speaking the truth, but the English teacher in me wants to strangle her. I mean, seriously, mi instead of my? Is it really that hard to move your finger two keys over?
You're still making some false accusations. Again, Democrats back in the early 20th century were very conservative. Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat, sure, but the Democrats of 1906 != the Democrats of 2006. They're essentially two seperate parties with two seperate beliefs. Those who led the Democrats of the past do not lead them today. As another example, I think it's no small stretch of the imagination to say that blacks, even before they could really vote, liked the Republicans. (Lincoln was one) Now, the roles are reversed, and blacks largely vote for Democrats. This is, again, because as time goes on, party stances change. And just because I wish a Democrat in power now does NOT mean I liked nor supported past Democrats. Just because I don't like Bush does not mean I liked Clinton. Just because I would support a Democrat doesn't mean I didn't like Lincoln. As a matter of fact, I hate all political parties, and agree with George Washington when he said they would only tear our nation apart.
Democrats and Republicans have done some really fucking stupid things in both of their histories. Some started unnecessary wars (See: Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat. George W. Bush, Republican) Others were essentially forced into wars and just finished them. (See FDR, Democrat)
So stop mistaking the messenger for the message. Yes, a Democrat got us into Vietnam, which was one majorly stupid fuck up, and I will GLADLY point out it was a dumb mistake. But just because some people NOW want to avoid a stupid mistake of a war and of the "same" party (even though the beliefs have changed) doesn't mean their point is invalidated.
Liberals, conservatives, Christians, Muslims, whatever. Whatever group you belong to, you have a long history of screw ups and today you still have loud mouthed morons trying to "represent you." It's best to just ignore them.
I'd like to point out that the political parties had a bit of a switch around the age of Teddy Roosevelt. Originally, Republicans were the "liberals" of the era. In case you've forgotten, T.R. was known as the Trust Buster, for his role in attempting to take down big businesses. I hardly consider opposing big business to be a stance of modern Republicans.
Times change and so do political party stances. Hey, Nixon was also a Republican, and he formed the EPA and opened talks with China! I guess that makes him a tree-hugging pinko commie!
No party will stand for one thing too long, because the flaws become too apparent.
As a representative of H. Games, Inc. I am obligated to inform you that your use of the word "bukkakefest" is in direct copryright infringement of our company and is taken as slander. We'll see you in court.
Well, by no means did I want to suggest the problem would actually end by me alone simply avoiding things I don't like. Rather, I was suggesting to ALL Americans that if you don't like something, if it offends you, you don't need to go out and demand that the government get rid of it for you, to demand that congress protect your feelings from getting hurt. You can simply ignore it. You can tell the speaker to piss off. You can rant about it on a message board or public forum, whatever. I'm just saying Americans need to learn to have thicker skin. You WILL get offended sometimes. It's just a fact of life.
If it takes a bitch slapping to get it into people's heads that free speech means people can say things you don't agree with without being forced off of television/radio/books/public venues/etc. then so be it, but I just think it's a sad world we live in if that's not common sense. (And it's not like America's alone there, looking at the riots that have happened recently in France.) But hey, if it takes that slap, I'll gladly step up to help.
While I don't necessarily agree with your inflamatory tone, I agree with your message whole heartidly. Personally, I think the game is a dumb idea, but I haven't (nor do I intend) to play it. I also don't intend to do anything about it, either. The maker has as much right to make this as anything else, regardless of what I think.
I forget what it's name is, but I think the idea for that Quentin Tarintino movie about torture is one of the worst ideas for a movie in history. It makes me kind of sick to know people could enjoy it. However... I didn't do anything about it. All I did is not see it in theaters. And I won't buy the DVD. Problem solved.
Sometimes I think a game or a movie is in bad taste, so I just don't see or play them. It's really that simple. Just like United 93. I think the premise is stupid, so I stay home and read/. instead.
So, as we have people on the other side of the world literally blowing themselves up in spite, and countries spying on their own citizens for no reason, we're worried about what fictional people are doing? Did I miss something here?
I agree with your point, but keep in mind a lot of people (myself included) have spent time at home neglecting their Xcubestations in favor of a Gameboy or DS. I love my consoles, but I'll follow games like Phoenix Wright and Advance Wars, no matter where they are. (And given the Poke'mon fad in the 90's in America, as well as right now in Japan still, I'd say it's entirely possible to happen again)
Well, MGS2 is often considered the least popular MGS game, but in general, I like it because it's a little more fast-paced (gameplay wise, obviously. Story wise, not so much) compared to Splinter Cell. Sort of like a Cyber Punk's dream. It's more fantasy based, too.
That's not to say that I don't love Splinter Cell, too, just that they're very different types of stealth games. I've beaten 1-3 of both and somehow manage to avoid prefering one over the other.
Okay, you're just being silly here. You should know by now, that this is/. and facts are meaningless here. They can be used to prove anything! However, as our Lord and Savior, Steven Colbert, has taught us, it's not what is true, it's what FEELS true. And it FEELS like Zonk posts 50 of his own stories, all on gaming, per day.
Next time you want to argue with fanboys and trolls, you should probably do your homework. =)
Get two of the smartest, most well-read and diligent scientists together, and they can design and screate amazing wonders... Yet they still can't create anything even remotely as complex as two of the dumbest fucks (pun intended) in the world can do if they're of the opposite sexes.
I think you're missing the point the GP made. Of course the idea of banning cars is stupid and pointless. What he was trying to get at was this:
People die in car crashes. We need to prevent this from happening. Therefore, we need to make cars safer. The cars are made safer, but, hey, people are still dying! We need to make them safer still! Again they're made safer, but still people DO die. No matter how many safety features and traffic laws you add, people will STILL die in auto accidents. The ONLY way to completely prevent ANYONE from dying in a car accident is to ban every last car.
But anyone with two braincells to rub together can tell you that that is one of the stupidest ideas in history. For modern society to function, we need cars for trade, travel, and pretty much everything. Maybe the GP should have been a bit clearer, but he was stating that there is a need to maximize safety and convenience together, not one or the other. We need JUST the right amount of traffic and safety laws to prevent as many deaths as possible without bogging down the main point of having a car, which is, obviously, to get from point A to point B safely and quickly.
Now apply this to National Security. Of course the government is supposed to try and prevent attacks on our soil. In this case, let's assume all terrorists are Muslim (which is total bullshit, but just for the sake of argument). We could increase all security from the outside world, scanning every last Muslim that comes into the country. But more terrorists still get in! So we raise MORE security. But more still get in! Plus, we have Muslims living here already! So the only logical thing to do is kill, banish, or detain any Muslims living here or coming here, right?
Obviously, this is bullshit for a number of reasons. A) We still couldn't catch every Muslin getting into the country (they'd still sneak in) B) The terrorist mnasterminds would STILL find ways around all our securty C) The people would lose so many rights under the Constitution. D) Obviously, not all terrorists are Muslim and not all Muslims are terrorists as I've said (and obviously we can't ban ALL immigrants). So, in reality, all we can do is increase our vigilance and our security up to the point that it is sensible in actually detecting possible threats, but without trampling all over individual liberties and the Constitution. Airliners checking luggage is an acceptable way of being secure without being a super inconvenience. Getting records of every phonecall in the US and Europe, however, is excessive and too easily abused.
Slashdot Mirror
I like your use of the word "innocent" to describe her. Appealing to a sense of pity now? The facts are this: Terri Schiavo was dead before the feeding tube was removed. The autopsy later revealed the doctors were right: Her brain was liquified and gone. She couldn't think or feel. For all intents and purposes, she was dead as a doornail.
In fact, the videos they showed of her with slight movements and reactions were dated, as she ceased to do that during the debate.
And the question is not "is the husband a moral person?" The question is, who has legal rights to make that decision? The law clearly states the husband does, not the parents. You can argue about whether or not this law is ETHICAL or not, but it was the case then.
Personally, I feel a little guilt every time this case is brought up, because I'd hate to be a talking point between parties who pretend to care about me. That's the real tragedy here. (That, and the fact that her parents appeared on TV a few months ago claiming there was still a chance to save their daughter, even though they had a doctor there, I believe, who said that there was NOT a chance in Hell. They just can't accept the fact that their daughter died.)
Ack. That's what I get for not reading my own post before I post it. I meant why should I have to suffer through seeing her in such a state for so long? Indeed, people like this are, for all intents and purposes, dead. They can't see, hear, feel, smell, taste, or think. Just because a machine can keep some electrical signal running through a body to keep the other vital organs from stopping doesn't mean the person is alive.
I didn't mean to question what you know. I was just stating the actual source. But it was actually a rather recent event (3 or 4 weeks ago, I believe) so I can see how not everyone would know it. But my main qualm is that if you know he's joking when he states "reality has a well-known liberal bias," then you know he actually KNOWS reality has no liberal bias. However, you apparently have a bias against liberal bias, which means you don't stay in touch with reality, which means you are wrong, which means he wasn't joking and was in fact stating a truth. QED.
(And yes, that was a joke, too. =p Reality has no bias, only fools who think reality is always in their favor)
Actually, it was a joke from Steven Colbert's speech at the White House's Press Dinner of some kind a few weeks ago. And as such, I'm guessing he was just joking.
It's really a matter of law. Mrs. Schiavo was married, and the laws state, if I'm not misinformed, (IANAL) a husband has the right to decide on life support. Can we just let ANYONE come along and say they'll take care of her?
Hypothetical situation: I'm married (Crazy enough right there), and my wife is also on life support. I'm in pain just seeing her in such a state, and would rather see her die than suffer in such a way for so long. However, it turns out Bill Gates it's actually my 5th cousin, and he walks in and says he'll pay for the support forever.
Should he have the right to do that? I don't think so. It's not really an ethical issue, because opinions in this case could vary so much. What it comes down to is should he have the legal right to do that?
I've always thought that if necessity is mother of all inventions, laziness must be the father. Think about it:
Two cave men, Oog and Ug need to move rocks to the top of a hill. Now, Ug is a hard worker, and doesn't mind carrying all those rocks uphill all day. Hey, you do what you have to. But Oog is sick of it, and wants to go home and look at his private "cave drawing" collection, so he invents the wheelbarrow sohe gets done in 1/4 the time as Ug.
The next day, Ug collapses of heat exhastion and is crushed by a rock he was carrying, ensuring Oog's reproduction, setting up humanity to be perfectly fine with inventing new things so they can be lazier.
I know that that would not traditionally be considered child porn, but rationality and reason are not two words that come to mind when I think of censors and law-makers. It is nudity, and it is on a child. Remember, there are crazy people in this world that assume nudity = sexual. Therefore, a pedophile COULD, theoretically, get off to the picture of a newborn baby. It doesn't matter if one will or will not, just that one has the possibility to. I don't find this reasoning sound (Because fetishes can be so strange I'm sure you can find at least one person to get off to just about anything), but I think it is very probable that some would follow it.
And remember, if you question the motives of politicians trying to get rid of anything even remotely similar to child porn, you're against the children!
Thank you for the reasonible response. The other responses have not been so friendly... (This is what happens when I forget to add "IANAL")
At first I did fall victim to the rationalization that Child porn is easily defined, which it is not. I have seen lolita manga in Japan, and it is often debated if it should be counted as child porn. (It's clearly sexual in nature against people far below most age-of-consent laws in just about every country I know. Though on the other hand, it's also entirely fictional (which is why, IMHO, it shouldn't be illegal because no actual crime has taken place)
I still hold to the idea that if a website (let's assume it's based in the US to avoid difficult International laws) clearly showing homemade movies of a 7 year old girl being sexually assaulted, I would expect that the police can shut it down and hopefully use some info on the site to locate and arresst the owner. But I admit, there is so much gray in the situation that rarely is it that simple. But as much as I detest censorship, I believe websites which promote DIRECT, PHYSICAL harm to individuals can and should be shut down (as an example, a site on how to build a bomb is fine, as it has other purposes, but a site about sodomizing extremely young kids or a site about stolen, black market goods are quite clearly illegal and I'd expect to react to it as if they found a poster advertising such services.)
In cases where such cut and dry, I'd expect debate to occur, and hope the government wouldn't abuse its power.... But giving a government too much power is like asking the fox to guard the proverbial chicken coop. It feels like real lose/lose situation.
First, they came for Fark, and I said nothing because I wasn't a Fark-er. Then, they came for SomethingAwful, and I said nothing because I wasn't a goon. Then they came for Gamespot, and I said nothing because I wasn't a Gamespotter. And at last they came for /. and there was no one left to help me.
P.S. I hate to respond to my own topic, but I needed to add, as the poster above me stated, How do we define said websites? Suppose someone takes a picture of their newborn baby which is, naturally, naked? Is that child porn? What about tasteful nudes of children, or children from a country where nudity isn't an issue at all? Is this porn? What about a website that says "I disagree with Al Qaeda's methods, but I do think they have a legitimate reason to be angry?" Is this a terrorist sponsoring site?
You're making the assumption that we who don't believe in Internet censorship all believe there should be child porn on the web. Not true at all.
Child pornography is a crime. It is illegal in every industrialized society that I know of, and shutting down these websites is merely an extension of the enforcement of said laws. Similarly, a website clearly made to recruit terrorists is in violation of International Law. Again, shutting down this website is merely enforcing a law already in place. No one sane is going to complain when a website for black market goods is shut down.
But when they shut down a website that merely criticizes a government, posts unpoplar opinions, or some other legal content, that is when a problem arises.
I believe what the OP was stating is that there are certain things we consume that actually are poisonous... in large doses. Alcohol is one such example. Ever heard of alcohol POISONING? No, if you have a beer, you won't die, because your body can deal with such a small level of poison. But keep drinking vodka, whisky, and whatever else you can get your hands on all night long and you could very well die.
Similarly, cyanide is obviously poisonous. But one molecule? Not so much, because your body can surely handle that. Poisons are only dangerous at various levels.
While I agree with the legality of what you speak, remember, this is /. and how often do we hear "_______ is a Nazi?" It may be slander, and it may be outrageous and stupid, but people do call others Nazis as an insult all the time. It may be nigh impossible to enforce (If I were to make a blog and made every article about "How George Bush is a Nazi" I doubt I'd be arressted.) Simply because the President, as a public figure, takes a great deal of abuse, no matter how well he preforms in office. As such, if we were to punish everyone who slandered him, there'd be a lot of people in trouble with the police. (Does anyone remember a certain famous black singer saying live, "George Bush doesn't care about black people?") Plus, in the case of referring to the president as a Nazi, it's somewhat subjective. It is assumed I'm saying the actions he takes resemble those of a Nazi, which are only my opinions, as insane as they might be.
This is, of course, different with, say, a corporation. If you publically state that the President is a Nazi, 99% of people will just think you're a nut and ignore you. But if you start saying, "Apple products will burn down your house and kill you," without any scientific basing for that, you're likely to get into a bit of trouble with a few lawsuits from Apple.
So my original example was meant to be taken rather literally. You CAN call the president a Nazi on the Internet. Plenty of people have done it, and plenty of people will do so in the future. Is it technically legal? No, but neither is Jaywalking, but that doesn't stop countless people from doing it. Legality, however justified or unjustified, doesn't stop people from downloading copyrighted files. And slander laws certainly won't stop people from throwing baseless insults at any president.
Note: The idea of George Bush being a Nazi is merely my example of an opinion that can be expressed on the Internet, and may or may not actually reflect my view of the man, so please, no flamewars, it was just an example.
I'm glad that decision was overturned, or think of the message it sends:
At home, you can call the president a Nazi. You can mock spiritual leaders all you want. But for Christ's sake, don't say your school principal wears a dumb looking suit.
The Freedom-Fighter in me wants to hug this girl for speaking the truth, but the English teacher in me wants to strangle her. I mean, seriously, mi instead of my? Is it really that hard to move your finger two keys over?
You're still making some false accusations. Again, Democrats back in the early 20th century were very conservative. Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat, sure, but the Democrats of 1906 != the Democrats of 2006. They're essentially two seperate parties with two seperate beliefs. Those who led the Democrats of the past do not lead them today. As another example, I think it's no small stretch of the imagination to say that blacks, even before they could really vote, liked the Republicans. (Lincoln was one) Now, the roles are reversed, and blacks largely vote for Democrats. This is, again, because as time goes on, party stances change. And just because I wish a Democrat in power now does NOT mean I liked nor supported past Democrats. Just because I don't like Bush does not mean I liked Clinton. Just because I would support a Democrat doesn't mean I didn't like Lincoln. As a matter of fact, I hate all political parties, and agree with George Washington when he said they would only tear our nation apart. Democrats and Republicans have done some really fucking stupid things in both of their histories. Some started unnecessary wars (See: Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat. George W. Bush, Republican) Others were essentially forced into wars and just finished them. (See FDR, Democrat) So stop mistaking the messenger for the message. Yes, a Democrat got us into Vietnam, which was one majorly stupid fuck up, and I will GLADLY point out it was a dumb mistake. But just because some people NOW want to avoid a stupid mistake of a war and of the "same" party (even though the beliefs have changed) doesn't mean their point is invalidated. Liberals, conservatives, Christians, Muslims, whatever. Whatever group you belong to, you have a long history of screw ups and today you still have loud mouthed morons trying to "represent you." It's best to just ignore them.
I'd like to point out that the political parties had a bit of a switch around the age of Teddy Roosevelt. Originally, Republicans were the "liberals" of the era. In case you've forgotten, T.R. was known as the Trust Buster, for his role in attempting to take down big businesses. I hardly consider opposing big business to be a stance of modern Republicans.
Times change and so do political party stances. Hey, Nixon was also a Republican, and he formed the EPA and opened talks with China! I guess that makes him a tree-hugging pinko commie!
No party will stand for one thing too long, because the flaws become too apparent.
As a representative of H. Games, Inc. I am obligated to inform you that your use of the word "bukkakefest" is in direct copryright infringement of our company and is taken as slander. We'll see you in court.
Well, by no means did I want to suggest the problem would actually end by me alone simply avoiding things I don't like. Rather, I was suggesting to ALL Americans that if you don't like something, if it offends you, you don't need to go out and demand that the government get rid of it for you, to demand that congress protect your feelings from getting hurt. You can simply ignore it. You can tell the speaker to piss off. You can rant about it on a message board or public forum, whatever. I'm just saying Americans need to learn to have thicker skin. You WILL get offended sometimes. It's just a fact of life.
If it takes a bitch slapping to get it into people's heads that free speech means people can say things you don't agree with without being forced off of television/radio/books/public venues/etc. then so be it, but I just think it's a sad world we live in if that's not common sense. (And it's not like America's alone there, looking at the riots that have happened recently in France.) But hey, if it takes that slap, I'll gladly step up to help.
While I don't necessarily agree with your inflamatory tone, I agree with your message whole heartidly. Personally, I think the game is a dumb idea, but I haven't (nor do I intend) to play it. I also don't intend to do anything about it, either. The maker has as much right to make this as anything else, regardless of what I think.
/. instead.
I forget what it's name is, but I think the idea for that Quentin Tarintino movie about torture is one of the worst ideas for a movie in history. It makes me kind of sick to know people could enjoy it. However... I didn't do anything about it. All I did is not see it in theaters. And I won't buy the DVD. Problem solved.
Sometimes I think a game or a movie is in bad taste, so I just don't see or play them. It's really that simple. Just like United 93. I think the premise is stupid, so I stay home and read
So, as we have people on the other side of the world literally blowing themselves up in spite, and countries spying on their own citizens for no reason, we're worried about what fictional people are doing? Did I miss something here?
I agree with your point, but keep in mind a lot of people (myself included) have spent time at home neglecting their Xcubestations in favor of a Gameboy or DS. I love my consoles, but I'll follow games like Phoenix Wright and Advance Wars, no matter where they are. (And given the Poke'mon fad in the 90's in America, as well as right now in Japan still, I'd say it's entirely possible to happen again)
Well, MGS2 is often considered the least popular MGS game, but in general, I like it because it's a little more fast-paced (gameplay wise, obviously. Story wise, not so much) compared to Splinter Cell. Sort of like a Cyber Punk's dream. It's more fantasy based, too.
That's not to say that I don't love Splinter Cell, too, just that they're very different types of stealth games. I've beaten 1-3 of both and somehow manage to avoid prefering one over the other.
Okay, you're just being silly here. You should know by now, that this is /. and facts are meaningless here. They can be used to prove anything! However, as our Lord and Savior, Steven Colbert, has taught us, it's not what is true, it's what FEELS true. And it FEELS like Zonk posts 50 of his own stories, all on gaming, per day.
Next time you want to argue with fanboys and trolls, you should probably do your homework. =)
This is one of the greatest ironies in the world.
Get two of the smartest, most well-read and diligent scientists together, and they can design and screate amazing wonders... Yet they still can't create anything even remotely as complex as two of the dumbest fucks (pun intended) in the world can do if they're of the opposite sexes.
If only it were the other way around...
I think you're missing the point the GP made. Of course the idea of banning cars is stupid and pointless. What he was trying to get at was this:
People die in car crashes. We need to prevent this from happening. Therefore, we need to make cars safer. The cars are made safer, but, hey, people are still dying! We need to make them safer still! Again they're made safer, but still people DO die. No matter how many safety features and traffic laws you add, people will STILL die in auto accidents. The ONLY way to completely prevent ANYONE from dying in a car accident is to ban every last car.
But anyone with two braincells to rub together can tell you that that is one of the stupidest ideas in history. For modern society to function, we need cars for trade, travel, and pretty much everything. Maybe the GP should have been a bit clearer, but he was stating that there is a need to maximize safety and convenience together, not one or the other. We need JUST the right amount of traffic and safety laws to prevent as many deaths as possible without bogging down the main point of having a car, which is, obviously, to get from point A to point B safely and quickly.
Now apply this to National Security. Of course the government is supposed to try and prevent attacks on our soil. In this case, let's assume all terrorists are Muslim (which is total bullshit, but just for the sake of argument). We could increase all security from the outside world, scanning every last Muslim that comes into the country. But more terrorists still get in! So we raise MORE security. But more still get in! Plus, we have Muslims living here already! So the only logical thing to do is kill, banish, or detain any Muslims living here or coming here, right?
Obviously, this is bullshit for a number of reasons. A) We still couldn't catch every Muslin getting into the country (they'd still sneak in) B) The terrorist mnasterminds would STILL find ways around all our securty C) The people would lose so many rights under the Constitution. D) Obviously, not all terrorists are Muslim and not all Muslims are terrorists as I've said (and obviously we can't ban ALL immigrants). So, in reality, all we can do is increase our vigilance and our security up to the point that it is sensible in actually detecting possible threats, but without trampling all over individual liberties and the Constitution. Airliners checking luggage is an acceptable way of being secure without being a super inconvenience. Getting records of every phonecall in the US and Europe, however, is excessive and too easily abused.