Jump to content

Home

kipperthefrog

Members
  • Posts

    858
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by kipperthefrog

  1. They are trying to pass an anti privacy bill! they want to make "big Brother" a reality! please sign the petition and spread the word!

     

     

     

    We can kill CISPA, the Cyber Security Act and the SECURE IT Act like we killed SOPA, but we've got just one shot -- Memorial Day recess. The Senate votes on the bill in early June. That doesn't give us much time, but if thousands of people call now, we can win. In short, call the Senate in droves, meet with them. We beat CISPA, the Cyber Security Act and the SECURE IT Act.

     

    Whatch this video and see this site!

    http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/183656/privacy-is-awesome-campaign-hopes-to-derail-cybersecurity-bill-cispa/

    http://www.privacyisawesome.com/

  2. Again,

    Ooo, try this part again, but pretend we're talking about porn this time. Does the argument still work? Why or why not?

     

    Hint: if your instinct is to say that porn is different, click here

     

    one guy posted:

     

    Funny that for all the talk about empowering parents to decide what is and is not appropriate for their children to consume, this law would do exactly the opposite.

     

    "No rational justification exists for treating violent material so vastly different than sexual material under the First Amendment when reviewing restrictions on distribution to minors."

     

    You're right. There's no reason to ban sexually explicit material to minors either.

    http://gamepolitics.com/2010/07/12/california-submitting-arguments-schwarzenegger-v-ema-today

  3.  

    So, small chested porn is a fetish of yours? :xp:

    no, i just say that consenting adults know what they are doing regardless of bodyshape. there is no evidence that it does harm, and there is no absolute definition of "too small".

     

    your argument above is fallacious in 2 ways: 1st its an ad homineim: attack the person rather than the argument. 2nd, it s a red herring. you can't compete with the argument at hand and can't provide evidence that it encourages pedophilia, so you create a distraction argument.

     

     

    they will ban other things. all they need is an excuse. it doesnt have to be the same excuse. they can use whatever excuse they find.

  4. So, outside of saying porno is degrading to women or that it somehow leads to the objectification of and subsequent violence toward women, what can they come up with to justify banning the rest of it?

     

     

     

    where will they draw the line between a and b size? when people get in trouble, they woill probably use it as an excuse to ban nude women all together.

     

    Don't move to Oz. Don't know about you, but I've never heard a saying that goes anything remotely like "as goes Austrailia, so goes the world".

     

    ever hear of the bandwagon effect?

     

    also, i still have yet to see proof that A size chests will encourage pedophilia.

  5. Another thing that was mentioned that has not been mention here is that in Australia the female orgasm is banned. More precisely, the showing of female ejaculation is banned because it now counts as urine pornography, which is also banned in Australia. The misinformation behind female orgasms aside, the porn industry within Australia has also been dismantled by the previous government.

     

    All -THAT- aside, most pornography is banned and blocked by internet filters that will be implemented in Australia soon as well. The slippery slope isn't as fallacious as you might think if you take a look at the censorship board that has been growing in power recently. Hell, games that don't match their rating criteria are illegal to sell in Australia.

     

     

    And people who are mentally unbalanced are just that: mentally unbalanced. I'm pretty sure a sociopath is a sociopath without porn or video games, and find and kill animals regardless of what media is at hand for them. Same for pedophiles. Porn or not, a pedophile is going to look at children sexually. They have been around before porn and video games, exist now, and will exist after.

     

    The real question is why does Australia feel the need to ban violence in video games when they have one of the most violent film industries on the planet. Why? Misinformation, finger pointing, and the hot topic of the month. Parents thought Elvis' hips would turn their girls into sluts, boys into sex addicts, and it turns out it didn't. The trends moved, and the new reasons for humanities problems got put on something else.

     

     

    Art is in the eye of the beholder, so I disagree.

     

    thank you Avery. it appears that most people are in denial. I don't live in Australia, but who knows how many other countries will follow suit? If they can filter the internet, they can filter anything that disagrees with the government. Once we loose our freedom, it is hard to get it back.

  6. so who is to say what breast size is too small? if a guy gets caught with an old lover' guide movie and an Agent says "her breasts looks too small" , then what? a court decides if the questioned movie is acceptable or not?

     

    face it. there are no absolute breast sizes. its a gradient. there is size A for example, Size B and any size in between. before you know it they will arrest people for depictions of B size breasts although it not officially illegal, but they will be deemed too small. everyone else will have to stay away from small breasts porn for fear cops can justify calling it obscene. the bar will get raised up to size b to size C untill no women pics at all.

  7. Slippery slope fallacy. Maybe it won't work, but it's not a bad idea to cut into fueling pedophilia. I'm as "free speech" as the next guy, but everybody knows that porn isn't "art."

     

    can you clarify this? what do you mean "Maybe it won't work, but it's not a bad idea to cut into fueling pedophilia?"

  8. vid 1

     

    vid 2

     

    "EA’s measure would tie online game-play to codes that come with select new titles, meaning that purchasers of used games, which feature Online Pass, would need to shell out $10.00 for a new code in order to play online."

    ~gamepolitics.com

    This will hurt the used game industry and your ability to buy and trade used games with cost effectiveness. you wont get as much for your used games you turn in, and those who buy the game used won't be able to play online features unless you fork over an extra 10 bucks.

     

    Online passes will only benefit EA. This is their attempt to line their pockets and discourage the trade of used games. They act like they will "enhance online services" but you will actually get the same services you would get regardless. They just want to make you pay an extra 10 bucks to get features that already come with games. EA can't stand stores making money off used games. watch vids for more details. He explains it better.

     

    Please spread the word to every forum, blog and site you know. If EA's experiment works, This will become the standard of all games. boycott games that feature online passes.

  9. http://theweek.com/article/index/105766/Australias_small_breast_ban

     

    their excuse is that women with small breasts can encourage pedophilia. that will be the doorway to banning anything they don't like.Who decides what breasts are big enough? What will be next? one day their will be no nude women at all. they won't stop with just porno. they will want to control movies, comics, books, everything. it seems to me like a way for the government to soften people up for more censorship and "thought crime".

  10. oops, let me correct my spelling.

     

    I agree. one question: is it legal for parents to buy a playboy for their kid? If not, then whats to stop a politician from later saying that parents can't buy M games for their kids? they will probably say a parent buying a M rated game is like a parent buying a playboy and beer for their kids. then it will be the government in charge of what parents can get for kids and not the parents.

  11. Answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise

     

    Your repeated argument is that the sole purpose of this type of legislation is...well, "they worry that violence and shooting in games increases kid's aggression."

     

    that is their (anti video game types) argument against it. it is a true premise.

     

    My instinct is to point out that the rating boards seem to be able to distinguish between "cartoon violence" and "graphic violence". No special pleading necessary. But since I don't share your opinion that the entire case is hinged upon either, I don't think it's particularly relevant.

     

    it is still a depiction of violence. it still shows hitting and shooting that can be imitated. it also can increase adrenaline. how come they don't claim cartoon violence has the same effect?

    • they worry that violence and shooting in games increases kid's aggression.
    • Star Wars and Indiana Jones games has violence and shooting in them too.
    • Star Wars and Indiana Jones games increases kid's aggression.
    • therefore, Star Wars and Indiana Jones games should not be sold to kids either.
       
      so how come Star Wars and Indiana Jones don't get M too?
       
      Hint: if your instinct is to say that Star Wars and Indiana Jones games are different from other violent video games, click http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

  12. They fear that if kids play games, they will imitate it in real life. by that logic, we might as well also rate Mario and need for speed "M" since he is shown kicking in punching in Mario 64 DS. We need to rate M for any game where we drive above the speed limit. everyone knows if a kid drives too fast in a video game, they are going to drive too fast in real life. Need for Speed needs to be kept from kiddies.

×
×
  • Create New...