[Patch]

Can someone please explain the censorship problem. I never understood why video games couldn't just be rated the same way as dvd's. Fair enough, your target audience is quite often kids, but if it's R and a child does get it, then they can't be blamed.

I heard that Obama (is it?), running for the democrats (is it?) top seat in America said that the reponsibility of the video games relies with the parents. Not in those words, of course.

[joshofalltrades]

Since censorship seems to be the topic here, let me just throw some more fuel on the fire.

Apparently, having "Tobacco Use" in your movie will immediately garner an 'R' rating. One person smoking one cigarette and you must be 18+ to watch. This is something that happened recently, if I'm not mistaken (feel free to correct me if I am). This is also happening at a time when many cities are passing smoking bans. These bans make it illegal for you to allow smoking in your bar. If your patrons wish to smoke, they must now (in my city) be 30 feet from the entrance of any business.

Now, I've always been pretty uncaring about smoking rights. I don't smoke cigarettes and I only smoke a tobacco pipe once a month in the privacy of my own backyard. But it sure seems a lot like pandering to anti-tobacco lobbyists when you rip freedom from business owners in order to push your own morality on everyone else.

Smoking is bad for you. Does that mean we can't have the right to allow smoking in our place of business? Does that mean that we have to shield our children's eyes every time they see somebody smoking a cigarette, in order to protect them from harsh reality (apply sarcasm liberally)?

This post has been edited by joshofalltrades: 07 May 2008 - 09:15 AM

[reiner]

They don't want children to see how cool it is to smoke~

[Mandy Writes]

I don't get the smoking bans in privately owned establishments. If someone has a bar and they want adults* to be able to smoke there, why not? They own the place. Oh, yeah, because smoking is bad for you. Just like booze is bad for you, weed is bad for you, junk food is bad for you...

I'm not the biggest fan of smoking, and I understand people wanting safe spaces from it because they are asthma sufferers, have allergies, etc. I want people to be healthy. Healthy people mean less people in hospitals, perhaps lowering health care costs, but I can't force my idea of healthy on them. (I'm vegan, I know this fact VERY well.)

Which leads me to what Obama said:

“I know how hard it will be to alleviate poverty that has built up over centuries, how hard it will be to fix schools, because changing our schools will require not just money, but a change in attitudes.

We’re going to have to parent better, and turn off the television set, and put the video games away, and instill a sense of excellence in our children, and that’s going to take some time.”

I've seen him getting flack for comments like these because people take it as an attack on video games. I think he's is calling on people to have more responsibility.

Putting "BAN" stickers on one or two things don't make the problems go away. I'm pretty sure smokers are just going to get annoyed and use up personal and government time and money to try and fight the bans*. Banning didn't work during the Prohibition and trolls are still rampant on the internets.


*I'm not saying they shouldn't. I wish they didn't have to in the first place.

[joshofalltrades]

Sorry to post about this again so soon, but something else occurred to me.

Has the government got so little to do as far as huge problems that it can spend time on this small-fry stuff?

[Mandy Writes]

I think that is one of the reasons we have the idea of local, state, and federal governments, so everyone has their own place to deal with.

Obviously it doesn't always work because some people want their rules to be everyone's rules. What is "small fry" to one person can be a huge thing to another.

Edit: Obviously I speak from a US POV.

This post has been edited by Mandy Writes: 07 May 2008 - 11:54 AM

[Dr Lecter]

The point is, junk food and booze kill you, smoking kills you and everyone around you. If people really want to kill themselves, I say go right ahead, just don't take everyone else with you.

[joshofalltrades]

I don't want to turn this into an "Us Vs. Them" thing, so I'll try to be sensitive in my response.

First of all, let me address the argument that an hour of secondhand smoke exposure will cause irreversible damage. It's absolutely a fabrication comprised of a mixture of cherry-picked data and outright lies.

Further evidence? How about a quote from a leading advocate of smoking bans?

"Dr. Michael Siegel, a leading advocate of bans on smoking in the workplace because of the harm from daily exposure to secondhand smoke, says the 20 or 30 minute claims are ridiculous.

"If someone is just exposed for 30 minutes, it's completely reversible, and it's not gonna cause hardening of the arteries," Siegel said."

So, since short-term exposure isn't really the health danger conservative news outlets would have you believe it is, it comes down to annoyance, an admittedly valid issue.

Unfortunately, the bans limit freedoms on private property. A bar owner should be able to make up his/her own mind about whether to allow smoking or not. In fact, if I was going to open up a bar, I would seriously consider making it a non-smoking bar for two reasons:

1. I'm not a smoker myself.

2. If most bars allow smoking and I'm one of the few who doesn't, where do you think non-smokers will go to?

In reality, the smoking bans only limit capitalism and small business freedoms. It's just one group imposing their will on another. In my opinion, anyway.

But please don't believe everything you hear on FOX News.

This post has been edited by joshofalltrades: 07 May 2008 - 12:54 PM

[Game Over]

Which leads me to what Obama said:

“I know how hard it will be to alleviate poverty that has built up over centuries, how hard it will be to fix schools, because changing our schools will require not just money, but a change in attitudes.

We’re going to have to parent better, and turn off the television set, and put the video games away, and instill a sense of excellence in our children, and that’s going to take some time.”

I've seen him getting flack for comments like these because people take it as an attack on video games. I think he's is calling on people to have more responsibility.

Putting "BAN" stickers on one or two things don't make the problems go away. I'm pretty sure smokers are just going to get annoyed and use up personal and government time and money to try and fight the bans*. Banning didn't work during the Prohibition and trolls are still rampant on the internets.


*I'm not saying they shouldn't. I wish they didn't have to in the first place.

And that is one reson why people should vote for Mr. Amerikenya.

They don't want children to see how cool it is to smoke~

I love my dad more than women, but I won't be around him while he is smoking.

[Patch]

Which leads me to what Obama said:

“I know how hard it will be to alleviate poverty that has built up over centuries, how hard it will be to fix schools, because changing our schools will require not just money, but a change in attitudes.

We’re going to have to parent better, and turn off the television set, and put the video games away, and instill a sense of excellence in our children, and that’s going to take some time.”

I was cheering for him from day one. I hope he beats Hilary, then becomes the president. Can you imagine the first black president of America? That would be good and maybe liberating.

I love my dad more than women, but I won't be around him while he is smoking.

My grandad smokes. I can't stand the smell.

[reiner]

Yeah, I hope I put enough sarcasm behind that statement. The whole reasoning is that those in power think that children are so impressionable that they will instantly imitate anything regardless of any opinion or previously instilled values. They forget that imitation will only go so far. It's the same reason why I think rampant advertisment is a joke, annoying and a waste of money. The federal government has slowly cut down on how tobacco can be presented in media (print, broadcast or digitally) and it's all a huge waste of time and effort. To me, it feels as if the anti-smoking lobby in the US is about as large, if not larger, than the tobacco lobby. God bless our legalized system of bribes.

[Uszi]

I don't want to turn this into an "Us Vs. Them" thing, so I'll try to be sensitive in my response.

First of all, let me address the argument that an hour of secondhand smoke exposure will cause irreversible damage. It's absolutely a fabrication comprised of a mixture of cherry-picked data and outright lies.

Further evidence? How about a quote from a leading advocate of smoking bans?

"Dr. Michael Siegel, a leading advocate of bans on smoking in the workplace because of the harm from daily exposure to secondhand smoke, says the 20 or 30 minute claims are ridiculous.

"If someone is just exposed for 30 minutes, it's completely reversible, and it's not gonna cause hardening of the arteries," Siegel said."

So, since short-term exposure isn't really the health danger conservative news outlets would have you believe it is, it comes down to annoyance, an admittedly valid issue.

Unfortunately, the bans limit freedoms on private property. A bar owner should be able to make up his/her own mind about whether to allow smoking or not. In fact, if I was going to open up a bar, I would seriously consider making it a non-smoking bar for two reasons:

1. I'm not a smoker myself.

2. If most bars allow smoking and I'm one of the few who doesn't, where do you think non-smokers will go to?

In reality, the smoking bans only limit capitalism and small business freedoms. It's just one group imposing their will on another. In my opinion, anyway.

But please don't believe everything you hear on FOX News.

QFT, entirely.

So here in Iowa, it will become illegal to smoke in ANY public place by the end of the summer. That means parks, outside of bars, inside of bars, on the street corner, etc.

Here's an experiment I want to run:

Group #1 is show a piece of anti-smoking legislation, unaltered. They are then asked whether they approve of it or not and what changes they would make.

Group #2 is show a piece of anti-smoking legislation, however the term SMOKER will be replaced with AFRICAN AMERICAN and the term smoking with BEING BLACK.

Lets see how well group two responds to the same goddam piece of legislation!

I was cheering for him from day one. I hope he beats Hilary, then becomes the president. Can you imagine the first black president of America? That would be good and maybe liberating.

Obama is a lier. He'll change nothing, he's just a different head on the same political piece spewing the same lies. So its not a matter of, "Who will change the country?" or, "Who has the right vision?" It's a matter of, "Which candidate is going to win the election for my party, and accomplish the aims that I want in the government." Keep that in mind.

These are the only differences between Obama and the other candidates:

1. He is inexperienced, new to politics, and so has only a very short paper trail to track. He could tell you whatever the hell he wanted at this point and you'd have to trust him.
2. He is a better speaker that Hillary, and way better than McCain, so when he has enough charisma that when he lies to your face you love him for it.

On the first point, he does have a bit of a paper trail though, and the first thing that should suggest he's a damn lier is that he keeps talking about how much he wants to "unify" the country, and yet has VERY LITTLE history of BIPARTISAN EFFORT. Guess what? Hillary or McCain both have a much better working relationship with the other side, a history of efforts at negotiation, and so are in A MUCH BETTER POSITION to unify the country.

On the second point, do you know WHY Obama is always turning down Hillary's invitations to debates? Because he sucks at them! Hillary can debate circles around Obama. The reason he has so much support is because he tells everyone exactly what they want to hear, in exactly the way they want to hear it, and he offers it in a handsome young package to appeal to us 18-30-year-olds. But you know what? He has a much harder time bullshitting in a debate! He can't turn specific questions about his policies into anything other than, "Look, Change. CHANGE. We're going to change and unify. Change, Change, Change."

And the simply truth of the matter is that Obama will HAVE to debate McCain, and the presidential debates HAVE SWAYED ELECTIONS in the past.



And all of that is just the very tip of the ice berg.



There's a whole separate issue of why you would even nominate Obama in the first place. Which votes has he been getting? He's been getting white, upper-middle class white liberals and blacks. He's been getting people in the cities. AND WHO DO THESE DEMOGRAPHICS VOTE FOR IN EVERY ELECTION? They vote democrat. Every time. Regardless of the candidate.

On the other hand, Hillary is courting more independents, more so-called "blue-collar democrats" who are the people who are going to DECIDE this election. So you can elect a candidate who only appeals to the demographic that makes the very foundation of the democratic party, or you can elect the candidate that will win this vote ANYWAY because these voters ALWAYS VOTE DEMOCRAT, as well as IMPORTANT VOTES from SWING VOTERS.

AND THEN: there is a surprising fact about young, college age voters, black voters, and Obama's whole base constituency. THEY HAVE MISERABLE TURN OUT AT THE POLLS! Black people do not participate in presidential elections on the same level as white people, and that's just statistical fact. Young people and black people don't vote.

AND EVEN THEN: how important is the damn black vote? They're 13% of the damn population. Guess who makes up more? Hispanics. Guess who they vote for? Clinton. Guess who makes up the vast majority of the population? White people! Old White People! BABY BOOMERS! Who will they vote for? White people and republicans!

Ahem.

THEN there's the whole issue of right now, everyone and there grandmother is saying, "Good Lord, a black man for president, OF COURSE I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT! OH, no, no, no, no, no."

Guess what! People are way more racist than they seem! There's still a lot of old people, racist people, etc who will not vote for a black man. I guarantee you that when you offer them the choice between a young black president, and a seasoned, white VETERAN, who was TORTURED in VIETNAM, then they WILL VOTE FOR THE WHITE GUY.


I am not racist. I don't trust Obama. I don't trust Clinton much more, but I think she has a much better shot of beating McCain. Feel free to hate me for ripping on your hip, young candidate and his phony visions of change.

This post has been edited by Uszi: 08 May 2008 - 12:22 PM

[Patch]

So here in Iowa, it will become illegal to smoke in ANY public place by the end of the summer. That means parks, outside of bars, inside of bars, on the street corner, etc.

Here's an experiment I want to run:

Group #1 is show a piece of anti-smoking legislation, unaltered. They are then asked whether they approve of it or not and what changes they would make.

Group #2 is show a piece of anti-smoking legislation, however the term SMOKER will be replaced with AFRICAN AMERICAN and the term smoking with BEING BLACK.

Lets see how well group two responds to the same goddam piece of legislation!

I don't know if I was meant to or not, but I laughed.

Obama is a lier. He'll change nothing, he's just a different head on the same political piece spewing the same lies. So its not a matter of, "Who will change the country?" or, "Who has the right vision?" It's a matter of, "Which candidate is going to win the election for my party, and accomplish the aims that I want in the government." Keep that in mind.

The same could be said about all politicians.

These are the only differences between Obama and the other candidates:

1. He is inexperienced, new to politics, and so has only a very short paper trail to track. He could tell you whatever the hell he wanted at this point and you'd have to trust him.
2. He is a better speaker that Hillary, and way better than McCain, so when he has enough charisma that when he lies to your face you love him for it.

On the first point, he does have a bit of a paper trail though, and the first thing that should suggest he's a damn lier is that he keeps talking about how much he wants to "unify" the country, and yet has VERY LITTLE history of BIPARTISAN EFFORT. Guess what? Hillary or McCain both have a much better working relationship with the other side, a history of efforts at negotiation, and so are in A MUCH BETTER POSITION to unify the country.

On the second point, do you know WHY Obama is always turning down Hillary's invitations to debates? Because he sucks at them! Hillary can debate circles around Obama. The reason he has so much support is because he tells everyone exactly what they want to hear, in exactly the way they want to hear it, and he offers it in a handsome young package to appeal to us 18-30-year-olds. But you know what? He has a much harder time bullshitting in a debate! He can't turn specific questions about his policies into anything other than, "Look, Change. CHANGE. We're going to change and unify. Change, Change, Change."

And the simply truth of the matter is that Obama will HAVE to debate McCain, and the presidential debates HAVE SWAYED ELECTIONS in the past.

This is called 'tactics'. While it's a very good point, Obama may equally know this and then avoid debates. Play to your strengths, as they say.

There's a whole separate issue of why you would even nominate Obama in the first place. Which votes has he been getting? He's been getting white, upper-middle class white liberals and blacks. He's been getting people in the cities. AND WHO DO THESE DEMOGRAPHICS VOTE FOR IN EVERY ELECTION? They vote democrat. Every time. Regardless of the candidate.

On the other hand, Hillary is courting more independents, more so-called "blue-collar democrats" who are the people who are going to DECIDE this election. So you can elect a candidate who only appeals to the demographic that makes the very foundation of the democratic party, or you can elect the candidate that will win this vote ANYWAY because these voters ALWAYS VOTE DEMOCRAT, as well as IMPORTANT VOTES from SWING VOTERS.

AND THEN: there is a surprising fact about young, college age voters, black voters, and Obama's whole base constituency. THEY HAVE MISERABLE TURN OUT AT THE POLLS! Black people do not participate in presidential elections on the same level as white people, and that's just statistical fact. Young people and black people don't vote.

AND EVEN THEN: how important is the damn black vote? They're 13% of the damn population. Guess who makes up more? Hispanics. Guess who they vote for? Clinton. Guess who makes up the vast majority of the population? White people! Old White People! BABY BOOMERS! Who will they vote for? White people and republicans!

Another good few points, not that I can confirm or deny them from Australia. I don't personally know how it is in America.
Careful when you say things like this. People are quick to acuse racism.

Ahem.

THEN there's the whole issue of right now, everyone and there grandmother is saying, "Good Lord, a black man for president, OF COURSE I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT! OH, no, no, no, no, no."

Guess what! People are way more racist than they seem! There's still a lot of old people, racist people, etc who will not vote for a black man. I guarantee you that when you offer them the choice between a young black president, and a seasoned, white VETERAN, who was TORTURED in VIETNAM, then they WILL VOTE FOR THE WHITE GUY.


I am not racist. I don't trust Obama. I don't trust Clinton much more, but I think she has a much better shot of beating McCain. Feel free to hate me for ripping on your hip, young candidate and his phony visions of change.

Oh, nevermind about the racist thing.
The reason it would be quite impressive for Obama to get in is because of the racism. I mean, it would be equally good if Hilary got in for women, but Obama is from a minority, so to speak. To get in he has to prove that he will be a good enough president, overcome the racism and out manouver his opponents.

But this is just running for the lead seat, not even for the presidency.
And it's off topic by a long shot.

So why aren't video games rated like videos? Sorry, DVD's.

[Uszi]

Eh, yeah, I kind of went off the deep end a bit there. Thanks for your patient reply.

Honestly, I feel like there was a definite media bias against Hillary the whole election. Which really sucks.


Er, um, yeah.

Video games are kind of rated like films are, if you think about it. Both have industry run rating systems, independent of the government... at least in America. I suppose the ratings can't be exactly equivalent, but I've never had any trouble with being confused about a rating one way or another.

[Patch]

Eh, yeah, I kind of went off the deep end a bit there. Thanks for your patient reply.

Honestly, I feel like there was a definite media bias against Hillary the whole election. Which really sucks.


Er, um, yeah.

Video games are kind of rated like films are, if you think about it. Both have industry run rating systems, independent of the government... at least in America. I suppose the ratings can't be exactly equivalent, but I've never had any trouble with being confused about a rating one way or another.

When I say the word election, I thought I saw 'erection'. Then I thought, 'Hillary the whole erection'. That was scary.
Video games don't have an R rating, which they should. I don't care about the core demographic, at least parents won't complain. Anyway, I've seen gorier M rated horror movies then games like Manhunt and the GTA series.