Boingo_Buzzard Wrote: What about a gun made out of an oil filter?

I dont trust anyone who makes a oil filter, or a gun.

That may say something about what I find interesting, not of whom I am interested in, my friend.

Boingo_Buzzard Wrote: Hrmm... that sounds strangely judgemental.

If I sound strange, what do you sound like? I would atleast justify my reason.
If you wonder if GTA is meaningfull to me in any way, it isn't.

My tone is that I dislike propaganda, that may be present, for the supreme court, to make law based on huminism, and the likenesses, they encroach upon. That is judgemental, and it doesn't change anything, but, that you shouldn't have to hear it in written law, we see this stuff all day long. who cares?

I'd like to see the US government become originally what it was intended for. Does that clarify my position?


on line abortion pill misoprostol dose abortion medical abortion pill online

I would make that look alot simpler, but it just takes too long.

EDIT: 8/22/05 9:53 pm. Howerver, this type of thinking may contribute to adolescent death. Maybe you'd be happy with just a warning label?

blah blah....
The reason to have games are as you said, entertainment. The reason to have a bureaucrat, entertainment.

haha..

So why can't they ever shut up? I dont really mean to prescribe the painfull truth, but they are probably jealous of each other there Boingo Buzzard. That's the easiest explanation I can give. just think of all the games they are going to make about the polititians now. There goes clintons legacy, now it's all W. boo hoo. I could go on with my reasons for weeks, and I dont really think it's material you want to read.

EDIT: What, there's no underground for all those crazy chinese or whatever games they distribute over there?? hahaah. the gamesters....abortion pills online http://www.kvicksundscupen.se/template/default.aspx?abortion-questions cytotec abortion

Why should games be singled out?

Because.... it's the topic here? I never once claimed it was the only concern over children. But, in the interests of staying on topic, it's the one I rightly chose to present here.

Funny how you follow up a post claiming I put words in your mouth by putting words in my mouth.

Well, it seemed to me you were making a connection between my statements and translating it into policies, when stating this...

"I applaud you for your concern about what your child sees, but I do not agree with that concern translating into policy about what *I* can and cannot have."

I see now you say it was an unrelated rant, and that's fine. It just looked more directly related in your statements above.

What *I* am against is then making policy and law to prevent ME from having things, based on someone else’s perception of what is moral and right.

There's hardly anything new about that, nor will it ever go away. All law is in it's very core is forced application of morality. One can hardly say one is for law at all but against it being about morality when it's impossible to seperate the two. It's not a matter of whether or not a law is about morality but more about who's morality is chosen to enforce. To say that the law has no buisiness whatsoever in filtering imadry a society openly sells, then one cannot fight the extreme likes of child pornography. Like it or not, there is a demand for child pornography and those people would sound much like yourself that "laws should not try to enforce someone else's morality."

So, instead of saying that there should be no such thing as laws pertaining to censorship at all, merely stick with arguing for your specific standards of saying certain specific games of yours should not apply. To argue that the idea of any standards all-together should be dropped is not an argument at all but unrealistic extremism.

Anyway, successfully, law equals a society's common-most morality. If there were no morality, there'd be no basis for law.

It's alright, JediUnit. It's probably best if we don't get too involved in this on

Agreed.

I preferred against personalizing this debate, but remember, I didn't make an example of yourself, you did. I only followed your suit. I agree I don't know you, and as such, your personal instances can't clarify anything in the grand scale of this discussion anyway.Notice I haven't presented my personal life story as any example here, and for good reason. We don't need to shed ourselves wide open as any examples of something so broad. We not only can discuss without personal examples, but I agree it's best left that way.

where to buy abortion pill http://blog.bitimpulse.com/template/default.aspx?abortion-types buy abortion pill online

I didn't mean your argument/stance. I meant the whole issue itself.

Okay, I see. Well, I for one am not lashing out at videogames, but nor am I turning a blind eye to a blatant contributor to the sum of our children's influences.

Child Pornography is a victimization of other people. I hardly see how violent video games victimize people

I don't see perverting children's minds with wontonly violent games as a victimless crime either. I never pretended that the two were close in scale. I only illustrate how the scale leads to wrongs we both would clearly agree to being just that, wrong.

Man you can blow things way out of context. I thought video games were the topic here?? Didn't you already chastise me once for that?

Talk about blowing things out of proportion. Chastise? No, I did not chastise you. Ease back. I'm only making conversation. There's no reason to feel so assaulted. It is funny though, how your main thrust is that violent video games have at least a minimal affect on children, but perfectly civil posts on a BBS here are obviously a profoundly emotional affect upon you.

Interesting?

I think so.

When I made the comment about not allowing things based on people's perceptions of morality, I meant violent video games.

...more specificly, we're talking about the prospects of banning certain video games on the basis of their content by using the law. Your comments about morality having no place in the discussion is faulty for reasons I already illustrated.

Maybe we can think of some other more moderate example...

Perhaps, but in the context of censorship, which sounds like the thrust of your disfavor, I thought the one I provided worked rather well.

At any rate, let's play it cool. Nobody is railing you.

You know, I've lost total interest in the topic.

I have a lot of replies, but no stomach for the unwelcome inclusions into personal berating.

Just call it another one of my old tricks.

*out*