I hate Hilary b/c she hates on video game violence. And I'll be damned if someone ever takes away my god-given right to shoot someone with a double barrel shotgun and then chainsaw their remains in a video game.
Oh christ, shut up. There are so many better reasons to hate Hillary Clinton than that she doesn't understand that people over the age of 16 play vidja games.
Like it or not, Baptists do not, as a rule, think highly of Mormons.
I don't know many people that think highly of Mormons at all, other than Mormons themselves. It's an absolutely retarded religion, and all this talk of "is America ready for a Mormon president?" completely dodges the bit that Mormonism requires you to believe very stupid things, even worse than mainstream religions.
Like it or not, Baptists do not, as a rule, think highly of Mormons.
I don't know many people that think highly of Mormons at all, other than Mormons themselves. It's an absolutely retarded religion, and all this talk of "is America ready for a Mormon president?" completely dodges the bit that Mormonism requires you to believe very stupid things, even worse than mainstream religions.
I don't really see how Mormonism is any more ridiculous than other religions.
I'm going to call this a case of Pot v. Kettle (2007).
Objectively, no. But most other major religions seem to sort of keep quiet about the details that make them look silly, and they have the weight of thousands of years of tradition.
Mormonism has gold plates and poligamy and paradise in middle america.
Also, re: videogames, and what point does not being aware that adults play video games cross into the H.W. Bush and the price of milk territory? I mean, come on, the industry grossed more than hollywood last year (IIRC.)
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Objectively, no. But most other major religions seem to sort of keep quiet about the details that make them look silly, and they have the weight of thousands of years of tradition.
Mormonism has Looking in hats to translate mysteriously missing gold plates and poligamy and paradise in middle america.
Also, re: videogames, and what point does not being aware that adults play video games cross into the H.W. Bush and the price of milk territory? I mean, come on, the industry grossed more than hollywood last year (IIRC.)
I mean, come on, the industry grossed more than hollywood last year (IIRC.)
Actually, video games gross (and probably also net) more than movie theater ticket sales. DVDs still win overall, though. So, if you include movie theaters + DVD sales/rentals, games aren't quite on top yet.
Even so, your point still stands, and it's almost quaint to see people saying "vidja games in our TVs, corrupting our youths". Really, that was the second thing to clue me in to her triangulation style of governance. She doesn't actually know anything about video games, except that it's popular to blame them for things.
Video Game Violence is just an issue to be dragged out for election time. "Look at me, I'm trying to stop the corruption of our youth" type crap plays well to the stupid. It goes and hides under the table once elections are done and doesn't come out again till the next round.
Video Game Violence is just an issue to be dragged out for election time. "Look at me, I'm trying to stop the corruption of our youth" type crap plays well to the stupid. It goes and hides under the table once elections are done and doesn't come out again till the next round.
Is there a single issue that ISN'T just to be dragged out at election time? Seriously, I'm starting to wonder why the hell we even have a congress. It certainly isn't there to provide any checks or balances.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Video Game Violence is just an issue to be dragged out for election time. "Look at me, I'm trying to stop the corruption of our youth" type crap plays well to the stupid. It goes and hides under the table once elections are done and doesn't come out again till the next round.
Is there a single issue that ISN'T just to be dragged out at election time? Seriously, I'm starting to wonder why the hell we even have a congress. It certainly isn't there to provide any checks or balances.
The important issues. The important ones are too complicated to be distilled down into sound-bites. So we switch to things like "Gay Marriage", "Video Game Violence", "Flag Burning", "Abortion", "Gun Control" and so on. Stuff that gets people rilled up, but for which you only need to say one sentence for people to grasp your position. Although, alot of these positions can actually be quite complicated, but we ignore that shit for election time.
shryke on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Also, the dog thing may come back later to bite him in the ass (especially in light of Vick's recent problems).
The dog thing is more or less a non-issue. The dog wasn't hurt and the whole thing comes off as a cute funny family road-trip anecdote. Anyone who would vote on that is already a member of PETA and considers pet ownership slavery.
Irond Will on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Also, re: videogames, and what point does not being aware that adults play video games cross into the H.W. Bush and the price of milk territory? I mean, come on, the industry grossed more than hollywood last year (IIRC.)
It is such a non-issue. I mean honestly who really finds it deeply objectionable that 15 year-old kids need their parents permission to buy an M rated game?
Also, the dog thing may come back later to bite him in the ass (especially in light of Vick's recent problems).
The dog thing is more or less a non-issue. The dog wasn't hurt and the whole thing comes off as a cute funny family road-trip anecdote. Anyone who would vote on that is already a member of PETA and considers pet ownership slavery.
But... he just seems creepy to me. What I'm saying is, I think that he has sex with children.
I have no data to support this.
Mithrandir86 on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I mean, come on, the industry grossed more than hollywood last year (IIRC.)
Actually, video games gross (and probably also net) more than movie theater ticket sales. DVDs still win overall, though. So, if you include movie theaters + DVD sales/rentals, games aren't quite on top yet.
Even so, your point still stands, and it's almost quaint to see people saying "vidja games in our TVs, corrupting our youths". Really, that was the second thing to clue me in to her triangulation style of governance. She doesn't actually know anything about video games, except that it's popular to blame them for things.
Do you really need to know more than that the vidja games allow for capping hookers and gruesome and graphically precise chainsaw deaths, and that parents are complaining that their kids have easy access to this at a point-of-sale?
Video Game Violence is just an issue to be dragged out for election time. "Look at me, I'm trying to stop the corruption of our youth" type crap plays well to the stupid. It goes and hides under the table once elections are done and doesn't come out again till the next round.
Is there a single issue that ISN'T just to be dragged out at election time? Seriously, I'm starting to wonder why the hell we even have a congress. It certainly isn't there to provide any checks or balances.
The important issues. The important ones are too complicated to be distilled down into sound-bites. So we switch to things like "Gay Marriage", "Video Game Violence", "Flag Burning", "Abortion", "Gun Control" and so on. Stuff that gets people rilled up, but for which you only need to say one sentence for people to grasp your position. Although, alot of these positions can actually be quite complicated, but we ignore that shit for election time.
You just reminded me of something that really bothers me. There are certain questions about the way our government is structured that we can answer easily and unquestioningly. Should there be a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning? The answer, without question, is a resounding "No!" The only reason it's ever come into question is become some fucktwit asshole douche decided he'd suggest it, and it's become another "issue" for people to quabble over.
That's normal, but here's what gets me about it. There is an answer to the question, and it's a very clear answer, but people are ignoring that. Instead, what we have is a false division between the dipshits and the people that know the answer, and politicians and the media, in their deific wisdom, have decided that simply because some people hold the belief that the first fucking amendment doesn't exist, they must have some justification for it, despite the fact that they are pushing a factually unconstitutional amendment. It blows my fucking mind, and it's just like that whole "teach the controversy" bullshit for ID v. reality. Any time spent on the flag burning amendment without blatantly mocking it or outright laughing at it is a waste, as is any time where people act like there's a fucking choice between gay marriage and idiocy.
Wonder_Hippie on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Also, the dog thing may come back later to bite him in the ass (especially in light of Vick's recent problems).
The dog thing is more or less a non-issue. The dog wasn't hurt and the whole thing comes off as a cute funny family road-trip anecdote. Anyone who would vote on that is already a member of PETA and considers pet ownership slavery.
But... he just seems creepy to me. What I'm saying is, I think that he has sex with children.
I have no data to support this.
I cite Why All Mormons are Secretly Child Molestors, Especially the Really Uptight and Straight-Laced Ones With Great Hair, Journal of Unsubstantiated Claims, vol XXI, 2003,
Also, the dog thing may come back later to bite him in the ass (especially in light of Vick's recent problems).
The dog thing is more or less a non-issue. The dog wasn't hurt and the whole thing comes off as a cute funny family road-trip anecdote. Anyone who would vote on that is already a member of PETA and considers pet ownership slavery.
But... he just seems creepy to me. What I'm saying is, I think that he has sex with children.
I have no data to support this.
I cite Why All Mormons are Secretly Child Molestors, Especially the Really Uptight and Straight-Laced Ones With Great Hair, Journal of Unsubstantiated Claims, vol XXI, 2003,
You say that, but the state of Utah and all of their federally protected child molesters are inclined to agree with Mith, at least unknowingly.
I'll amend that by saying that the child molestation that goes on in with 50-year-old mend marrying 12-year-old girls. But they're fucking protected.
Do you really need to know more than that the vidja games allow for capping hookers and gruesome and graphically precise chainsaw deaths, and that parents are complaining that their kids have easy access to this at a point-of-sale?
I mean is it really that complex an issue?
Is the access all that easy? Seems like everywhere up here cards like a motherfucker, and I'm pretty sure it's the policy at pretty much any nationwide chain (whether it's followed or not). My experience in both rental and retail (which, admittedly, isn't that recent...2003) is that a majority of the time when kids are getting Hooker Slaughter 4: The Hookening, it's because their damn parents bought it/rented it for them. Generally because they couldn't be bothered find out what that little "M" down in the corner means.
That, or older siblings and get it for them.
Neither will be prevented by any of the policies I've seen proposed.
they are pushing a factually unconstitutional amendment.
O_o
That's...that's what an amendment is. Almost every amendment, before ratification, is unconstitutional. Otherwise it would have been pushed through as an act of congress and not had to bother with the super majority vote requirement and asking the states really nicely.
they are pushing a factually unconstitutional amendment.
O_o
That's...that's what an amendment is. Almost every amendment, before ratification, is unconstitutional. Otherwise it would have been pushed through as an act of congress and not had to bother with the super majority vote requirement and asking the states really nicely.
Well shit... yeah, but you get the idea. I'm saying that it's something that is wrong, that history has shown us is wrong, and that there's no real question about that, but these people are creating a false one.
Video Game Violence is just an issue to be dragged out for election time. "Look at me, I'm trying to stop the corruption of our youth" type crap plays well to the stupid. It goes and hides under the table once elections are done and doesn't come out again till the next round.
Is there a single issue that ISN'T just to be dragged out at election time? Seriously, I'm starting to wonder why the hell we even have a congress. It certainly isn't there to provide any checks or balances.
The important issues. The important ones are too complicated to be distilled down into sound-bites. So we switch to things like "Gay Marriage", "Video Game Violence", "Flag Burning", "Abortion", "Gun Control" and so on. Stuff that gets people rilled up, but for which you only need to say one sentence for people to grasp your position. Although, alot of these positions can actually be quite complicated, but we ignore that shit for election time.
You just reminded me of something that really bothers me. There are certain questions about the way our government is structured that we can answer easily and unquestioningly. Should there be a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning? The answer, without question, is a resounding "No!" The only reason it's ever come into question is become some fucktwit asshole douche decided he'd suggest it, and it's become another "issue" for people to quabble over.
That's normal, but here's what gets me about it. There is an answer to the question, and it's a very clear answer, but people are ignoring that. Instead, what we have is a false division between the dipshits and the people that know the answer, and politicians and the media, in their deific wisdom, have decided that simply because some people hold the belief that the first fucking amendment doesn't exist, they must have some justification for it, despite the fact that they are pushing a factually unconstitutional amendment. It blows my fucking mind, and it's just like that whole "teach the controversy" bullshit for ID v. reality. Any time spent on the flag burning amendment without blatantly mocking it or outright laughing at it is a waste, as is any time where people act like there's a fucking choice between gay marriage and idiocy.
The entire reason that this is an issue is because the answer ISN'T a clear cut between correct and delusional choices.
The easy answer, for you (and I and a large but not unanimous group of people) is that there SHOULDN'T be an amendment, not that there CAN'T be one. The entire point of an amendment is it modifies what has come before, so of course this proposed amendment would rectify what its proponents see as a flaw in some other part of the Constitution (in this case the First Amendment). This by no means makes it a matter of inherent idiocy to feel that an amendment against flag burning would be a good thing. I think it's a bad idea, but that's a matter of opinion and principle, which is subjective and not some inherent and unalterable fact.
The bumper sticker mentality may be stupid, there may be some positions I strongly disagree with, but those two facts combined don't mean a different opinion than mine on certain issues is inherently wrong.
they are pushing a factually unconstitutional amendment.
O_o
That's...that's what an amendment is. Almost every amendment, before ratification, is unconstitutional. Otherwise it would have been pushed through as an act of congress and not had to bother with the super majority vote requirement and asking the states really nicely.
Well, I think his point is that many Constitutional amendments don't directly contradict the previous Constitution; they're meant to either expand previous rights or clarify them. That, or change simple points of procedure (like how elections are handled, number of terms for president, etc.). Whereas this, on the other hand, would directly contradict the current Constitution, and more importantly the actual Bill of Rights (as opposed to the 3/5 compromise).
mcdermott on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Do you really need to know more than that the vidja games allow for capping hookers and gruesome and graphically precise chainsaw deaths, and that parents are complaining that their kids have easy access to this at a point-of-sale?
I mean is it really that complex an issue?
Is the access all that easy? Seems like everywhere up here cards like a motherfucker, and I'm pretty sure it's the policy at pretty much any nationwide chain (whether it's followed or not). My experience in both rental and retail (which, admittedly, isn't that recent...2003) is that a majority of the time when kids are getting Hooker Slaughter 4: The Hookening, it's because their damn parents bought it/rented it for them. Generally because they couldn't be bothered find out what that little "M" down in the corner means.
That, or older siblings and get it for them.
Neither will be prevented by any of the policies I've seen proposed.
That's fine. Kids pull "hey misters" or their older siblings or parents buy them alcohol all the time, but it's not unreasonable that they card for drinks. I mean - the problem is not that kids are getting violent games. The problem is that parents object to their kids being sold violent games without their approval, which is where carding comes in.
No one that I've heard is advocating government censorship of the vidja. However, there's a great deal of industry censorship (Sony, MS and Nintendo refuse to publish AO games). If we're really concerned about the squelching of the artistic medium to shoot off boobs with a shotgun or whatever, it would be important to first force console censors to defend their positions.
The entire reason that this is an issue is because the answer ISN'T a clear cut between correct and delusional choices.
The easy answer, for you (and I and a large but not unanimous group of people) is that there SHOULDN'T be an amendment, not that there CAN'T be one. The entire point of an amendment is it modifies what has come before, so of course this proposed amendment would rectify what its proponents see as a flaw in some other part of the Constitution (in this case the First Amendment). This by no means makes it a matter of inherent idiocy to feel that an amendment against flag burning would be a good thing. I think it's a bad idea, but that's a matter of opinion and principle, which is subjective and not some inherent and unalterable fact.
The bumper sticker mentality may be stupid, there may be some positions I strongly disagree with, but those two facts combined don't mean a different opinion than mine on certain issues is inherently wrong.
The thing is, though, that I'm not saying they're wrong because they believe differently than me, I'm saying they're wrong because the US Constitution documents written by the founders lead us to believe that an amendment against flag burning is completely contrary to the nature of this country. Further, we know that laws and regulations like that are characteristic of totalitarian regimes, and generally made in the interest of suppressing opposition to the government, which is exactly the kind of thing that we eschew in this country.
They're not wrong because they hold a different opinion, they're wrong because they're wrong.
Do you really need to know more than that the vidja games allow for capping hookers and gruesome and graphically precise chainsaw deaths, and that parents are complaining that their kids have easy access to this at a point-of-sale?
I mean is it really that complex an issue?
Is the access all that easy? Seems like everywhere up here cards like a motherfucker, and I'm pretty sure it's the policy at pretty much any nationwide chain (whether it's followed or not). My experience in both rental and retail (which, admittedly, isn't that recent...2003) is that a majority of the time when kids are getting Hooker Slaughter 4: The Hookening, it's because their damn parents bought it/rented it for them. Generally because they couldn't be bothered find out what that little "M" down in the corner means.
That, or older siblings and get it for them.
Neither will be prevented by any of the policies I've seen proposed.
That's fine. Kids pull "hey misters" or their older siblings or parents buy them alcohol all the time, but it's not unreasonable that they card for drinks. I mean - the problem is not that kids are getting violent games. The problem is that parents object to their kids being sold violent games without their approval, which is where carding comes in.
No one that I've heard is advocating government censorship of the vidja. However, there's a great deal of industry censorship (Sony, MS and Nintendo refuse to publish AO games). If we're really concerned about the squelching of the artistic medium to shoot off boobs with a shotgun or whatever, it would be important to first force console censors to defend their positions.
I do love how the vast majority of these truly offensive games suck so hard they're not even worth considering.
That's fine. Kids pull "hey misters" or their older siblings or parents buy them alcohol all the time, but it's not unreasonable that they card for drinks. I mean - the problem is not that kids are getting violent games. The problem is that parents object to their kids being sold violent games without their approval, which is where carding comes in.
No one that I've heard is advocating government censorship of the vidja. However, there's a great deal of industry censorship (Sony, MS and Nintendo refuse to publish AO games). If we're really concerned about the squelching of the artistic medium to shoot off boobs with a shotgun or whatever, it would be important to first force console censors to defend their positions.
Well, most stores (actually, every chain as far as I know) have internal policies that require carding. I know that where I worked (Target) failing to do so was a quick way to get written up, and possibly canned. I just don't see how video games (or, for that matter, movies) warrant actually bringing this into the realm of law rather than letting the stores take care of it themselves. Especially since, at least in my experience, they've actually been doing a quasi-decent job of it.
So is the problem that in other areas (say, urban areas) employees just don't bother to follow these polices? Is it that much easier there? Because if that's the case then I guess I can see where it's an issue to at least be discussed. But up here I've had kids hanging out outside the GameStop offering me money to go in and buy them GTA:WhichFuckingEver, which tells me that the company's own carding policies seem to be working.
The thing is, though, that I'm not saying they're wrong because they believe differently than me, I'm saying they're wrong because the US Constitution documents written by the founders lead us to believe that an amendment against flag burning is completely contrary to the nature of this country.
Only if you agree with SCOTUS precedent and not with other documents written by our founders. Documents like the Alien and Sedition Acts. Besides, why should we even care what you think under originalist interpretation unless you're a white land owning male?
The entire reason that this is an issue is because the answer ISN'T a clear cut between correct and delusional choices.
The easy answer, for you (and I and a large but not unanimous group of people) is that there SHOULDN'T be an amendment, not that there CAN'T be one. The entire point of an amendment is it modifies what has come before, so of course this proposed amendment would rectify what its proponents see as a flaw in some other part of the Constitution (in this case the First Amendment). This by no means makes it a matter of inherent idiocy to feel that an amendment against flag burning would be a good thing. I think it's a bad idea, but that's a matter of opinion and principle, which is subjective and not some inherent and unalterable fact.
The bumper sticker mentality may be stupid, there may be some positions I strongly disagree with, but those two facts combined don't mean a different opinion than mine on certain issues is inherently wrong.
The thing is, though, that I'm not saying they're wrong because they believe differently than me, I'm saying they're wrong because the US Constitution documents written by the founders lead us to believe that an amendment against flag burning is completely contrary to the nature of this country. Further, we know that laws and regulations like that are characteristic of totalitarian regimes, and generally made in the interest of suppressing opposition to the government, which is exactly the kind of thing that we eschew in this country.
They're not wrong because they hold a different opinion, they're wrong because they're wrong.
The gist of my rebuttal wasn't that I didn't see the case for why the amendment would be bad, or agree with it, it was that it is just that, a case for a position and not an inescapable conclusion. There are any number of issues where we've quite rightly departed from both the original intent of certain sections of the Constitution or the intents of the founders (who get a degree of hero worship all out of proportion to there merits as legal and philosophical scholars).
Just because you and I weigh the various factors in such a way that we see the amendment as extremely contrary to our beliefs in what's "right" doesn't mean that is the only valid way to look at it. I personally think the motivations behind it are somewhere between archaic and repressive, but that doesn't automatically mean my opinion of the issue is without question enough to dismiss opposing ones in this case.
werehippy on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
That's fine. Kids pull "hey misters" or their older siblings or parents buy them alcohol all the time, but it's not unreasonable that they card for drinks. I mean - the problem is not that kids are getting violent games. The problem is that parents object to their kids being sold violent games without their approval, which is where carding comes in.
No one that I've heard is advocating government censorship of the vidja. However, there's a great deal of industry censorship (Sony, MS and Nintendo refuse to publish AO games). If we're really concerned about the squelching of the artistic medium to shoot off boobs with a shotgun or whatever, it would be important to first force console censors to defend their positions.
Well, most stores (actually, every chain as far as I know) have internal policies that require carding. I know that where I worked (Target) failing to do so was a quick way to get written up, and possibly canned. I just don't see how video games (or, for that matter, movies) warrant actually bringing this into the realm of law rather than letting the stores take care of it themselves. Especially since, at least in my experience, they've actually been doing a quasi-decent job of it.
So is the problem that in other areas (say, urban areas) employees just don't bother to follow these polices? Is it that much easier there? Because if that's the case then I guess I can see where it's an issue to at least be discussed. But up here I've had kids hanging out outside the GameStop offering me money to go in and buy them GTA:WhichFuckingEver, which tells me that the company's own carding policies seem to be working.
In the end, it doesn't really matter to me whether or not there's a statutory requirement for stores to card. If they're doing a bang-up job as it is, the law might be unnecessary from a policy point of view, but it still might be necessary from a public-perception point of view. And as far as I'm concerned, it's not terribly pernicious legislation to empower parents with oversight over their kids media purchases.
The thing is, though, that I'm not saying they're wrong because they believe differently than me, I'm saying they're wrong because the US Constitution documents written by the founders lead us to believe that an amendment against flag burning is completely contrary to the nature of this country.
Only if you agree with SCOTUS precedent and not with other documents written by our founders. Documents like the Alien and Sedition Acts. Besides, why should we even care what you think under originalist interpretation unless you're a white land owning male?
Well, I am, so there.
I suppose you're right, though. But haven't we learned in time to pick through the ideals that lead to progression and drop the ones that are clearly a hinderance to our society as a whole? Things we regard as mistakes shouldn't look so similar to things some people are trying to do now.
In the end, it doesn't really matter to me whether or not there's a statutory requirement for stores to card. If they're doing a bang-up job as it is, the law might be unnecessary from a policy point of view, but it still might be necessary from a public-perception point of view. And as far as I'm concerned, it's not terribly pernicious legislation to empower parents with oversight over their kids media purchases.
I'm not sure I like the implications of this kind of thinking though. "You don't have to accept this infringement of your right, but it would make a lot of people feel better about you" is a hell of a slippery slope to take without significantly more compelling evidence than we have for violent videogames being a pervasive threat to minors.
werehippy on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
In the end, it doesn't really matter to me whether or not there's a statutory requirement for stores to card. If they're doing a bang-up job as it is, the law might be unnecessary from a policy point of view, but it still might be necessary from a public-perception point of view. And as far as I'm concerned, it's not terribly pernicious legislation to empower parents with oversight over their kids media purchases.
I'm not sure I like the implications of this kind of thinking though. "You don't have to accept this infringement of your right, but it would make a lot of people feel better about you" is a hell of a slippery slope to take without significantly more compelling evidence than we have for violent videogames being a pervasive threat to minors.
Where is the infringement of rights, though? Do we have some little-known provision of the constitution that give minors unlimited consumer rights? Parental rights, on the other hand, are pretty well-established.
The gist of my rebuttal wasn't that I didn't see the case for why the amendment would be bad, or agree with it, it was that it is just that, a case for a position and not an inescapable conclusion. There are any number of issues where we've quite rightly departed from both the original intent of certain sections of the Constitution or the intents of the founders (who get a degree of hero worship all out of proportion to there merits as legal and philosophical scholars).
Just because you and I weigh the various factors in such a way that we see the amendment as extremely contrary to our beliefs in what's "right" doesn't mean that is the only valid way to look at it. I personally think the motivations behind it are somewhere between archaic and repressive, but that doesn't automatically mean my opinion of the issue is without question enough to dismiss opposing ones in this case.
See, I read this, and it just reminds me of people who defend ID. Reasonable people know evolution is, given our evidence, the correct conclusion, and the contrary "opinion" of ID is just ignorance and idiocy. Reasonable people know a flag burning amendment, given the way our country works, is wrong, and the contrary "opinion" is rooted in jingoism.
In the end, it doesn't really matter to me whether or not there's a statutory requirement for stores to card. If they're doing a bang-up job as it is, the law might be unnecessary from a policy point of view, but it still might be necessary from a public-perception point of view. And as far as I'm concerned, it's not terribly pernicious legislation to empower parents with oversight over their kids media purchases.
I'm not sure I like the implications of this kind of thinking though. "You don't have to accept this infringement of your right, but it would make a lot of people feel better about you" is a hell of a slippery slope to take without significantly more compelling evidence than we have for violent videogames being a pervasive threat to minors.
Where is the infringement of rights, though? Do we have some little-known provision of the constitution that give minors unlimited consumer rights? Parental rights, on the other hand, are pretty well-established.
I'd guess it's more along the lines of the stores' right to run their business as they see fit. The adverse effects of videogames are nowhere near as clear as those of tobacco or alcohol, which is why I don't think it's nearly as necessary to bring this into the realm of law. And even if it does enter the realm of law, I think the public interest is not so compelling that I'd care to see it pushed down from the federal level. In many areas (even entire states) existing store policies seem to be working just fine.
In the end, it doesn't really matter to me whether or not there's a statutory requirement for stores to card. If they're doing a bang-up job as it is, the law might be unnecessary from a policy point of view, but it still might be necessary from a public-perception point of view. And as far as I'm concerned, it's not terribly pernicious legislation to empower parents with oversight over their kids media purchases.
I'm not sure I like the implications of this kind of thinking though. "You don't have to accept this infringement of your right, but it would make a lot of people feel better about you" is a hell of a slippery slope to take without significantly more compelling evidence than we have for violent videogames being a pervasive threat to minors.
Where is the infringement of rights, though? Do we have some little-known provision of the constitution that give minors unlimited consumer rights? Parental rights, on the other hand, are pretty well-established.
This isn't a parental issue by any stretch, it's a First Amendment issue as (at least as far as I can remember) every single piece of videogame legislation has shown.
edit: mcdermott said it better than I, but the basic idea is the same
In the end, it doesn't really matter to me whether or not there's a statutory requirement for stores to card. If they're doing a bang-up job as it is, the law might be unnecessary from a policy point of view, but it still might be necessary from a public-perception point of view. And as far as I'm concerned, it's not terribly pernicious legislation to empower parents with oversight over their kids media purchases.
I'm not sure I like the implications of this kind of thinking though. "You don't have to accept this infringement of your right, but it would make a lot of people feel better about you" is a hell of a slippery slope to take without significantly more compelling evidence than we have for violent videogames being a pervasive threat to minors.
Where is the infringement of rights, though? Do we have some little-known provision of the constitution that give minors unlimited consumer rights? Parental rights, on the other hand, are pretty well-established.
Wait, are you suggesting a law that would enforce the ESRB ratings or one that would co-opt them and the MPAA's ratings board into the government's control which would then enforce those ratings? Because noone really opposes the former, but the latter has chilling effect written all over it. Besides I'd rather eliminate the FCC than tack an extra department onto it.
The gist of my rebuttal wasn't that I didn't see the case for why the amendment would be bad, or agree with it, it was that it is just that, a case for a position and not an inescapable conclusion. There are any number of issues where we've quite rightly departed from both the original intent of certain sections of the Constitution or the intents of the founders (who get a degree of hero worship all out of proportion to there merits as legal and philosophical scholars).
Just because you and I weigh the various factors in such a way that we see the amendment as extremely contrary to our beliefs in what's "right" doesn't mean that is the only valid way to look at it. I personally think the motivations behind it are somewhere between archaic and repressive, but that doesn't automatically mean my opinion of the issue is without question enough to dismiss opposing ones in this case.
See, I read this, and it just reminds me of people who defend ID. Reasonable people know evolution is, given our evidence, the correct conclusion, and the contrary "opinion" of ID is just ignorance and idiocy. Reasonable people know a flag burning amendment, given the way our country works, is wrong, and the contrary "opinion" is rooted in jingoism.
And when I see this I'm somewhat more sympathetic to the asshats who are in favor of this amendment (only some mind you, but still). There is a word of difference between whether or not something conforms to scientific fact, or even the fundamental idea of science itself, and whether or view or another of some piece of human behavior is desirable for a society.
One is as objective as it's humanly possible for anything to be, and the other is among the fuzzier of subjective calls. Again, I agree with you on the analysis, I just happen to feel strongly that it's not the only possible one and any attempts to make it so is vastly more damaging than the "wrong" belief you're trying to root out.
Say, do the flag-burning amendments that've been drafted so far make an exception for burning it ceremonially, since that is the traditional, accepted, patriotic means of disposing of an old flag? It seems like a flag burning amendment would have to actually say "You can't burn a flag specifically as a means of protest, you america-hating hippie" which would be such an obvious and egregious assault on free speech that I can't imagine it would ever pass.
Posts
Oh christ, shut up. There are so many better reasons to hate Hillary Clinton than that she doesn't understand that people over the age of 16 play vidja games.
I don't know many people that think highly of Mormons at all, other than Mormons themselves. It's an absolutely retarded religion, and all this talk of "is America ready for a Mormon president?" completely dodges the bit that Mormonism requires you to believe very stupid things, even worse than mainstream religions.
I don't really see how Mormonism is any more ridiculous than other religions.
I'm going to call this a case of Pot v. Kettle (2007).
Mormonism has gold plates and poligamy and paradise in middle america.
Also, re: videogames, and what point does not being aware that adults play video games cross into the H.W. Bush and the price of milk territory? I mean, come on, the industry grossed more than hollywood last year (IIRC.)
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Even so, your point still stands, and it's almost quaint to see people saying "vidja games in our TVs, corrupting our youths". Really, that was the second thing to clue me in to her triangulation style of governance. She doesn't actually know anything about video games, except that it's popular to blame them for things.
Is there a single issue that ISN'T just to be dragged out at election time? Seriously, I'm starting to wonder why the hell we even have a congress. It certainly isn't there to provide any checks or balances.
The important issues. The important ones are too complicated to be distilled down into sound-bites. So we switch to things like "Gay Marriage", "Video Game Violence", "Flag Burning", "Abortion", "Gun Control" and so on. Stuff that gets people rilled up, but for which you only need to say one sentence for people to grasp your position. Although, alot of these positions can actually be quite complicated, but we ignore that shit for election time.
The dog thing is more or less a non-issue. The dog wasn't hurt and the whole thing comes off as a cute funny family road-trip anecdote. Anyone who would vote on that is already a member of PETA and considers pet ownership slavery.
It is such a non-issue. I mean honestly who really finds it deeply objectionable that 15 year-old kids need their parents permission to buy an M rated game?
Answer: 15 year old kids.
Important note: 15 year old kids cannot vote.
But... he just seems creepy to me. What I'm saying is, I think that he has sex with children.
I have no data to support this.
Do you really need to know more than that the vidja games allow for capping hookers and gruesome and graphically precise chainsaw deaths, and that parents are complaining that their kids have easy access to this at a point-of-sale?
I mean is it really that complex an issue?
You just reminded me of something that really bothers me. There are certain questions about the way our government is structured that we can answer easily and unquestioningly. Should there be a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning? The answer, without question, is a resounding "No!" The only reason it's ever come into question is become some fucktwit asshole douche decided he'd suggest it, and it's become another "issue" for people to quabble over.
That's normal, but here's what gets me about it. There is an answer to the question, and it's a very clear answer, but people are ignoring that. Instead, what we have is a false division between the dipshits and the people that know the answer, and politicians and the media, in their deific wisdom, have decided that simply because some people hold the belief that the first fucking amendment doesn't exist, they must have some justification for it, despite the fact that they are pushing a factually unconstitutional amendment. It blows my fucking mind, and it's just like that whole "teach the controversy" bullshit for ID v. reality. Any time spent on the flag burning amendment without blatantly mocking it or outright laughing at it is a waste, as is any time where people act like there's a fucking choice between gay marriage and idiocy.
I cite Why All Mormons are Secretly Child Molestors, Especially the Really Uptight and Straight-Laced Ones With Great Hair, Journal of Unsubstantiated Claims, vol XXI, 2003,
You say that, but the state of Utah and all of their federally protected child molesters are inclined to agree with Mith, at least unknowingly.
I'll amend that by saying that the child molestation that goes on in with 50-year-old mend marrying 12-year-old girls. But they're fucking protected.
Is the access all that easy? Seems like everywhere up here cards like a motherfucker, and I'm pretty sure it's the policy at pretty much any nationwide chain (whether it's followed or not). My experience in both rental and retail (which, admittedly, isn't that recent...2003) is that a majority of the time when kids are getting Hooker Slaughter 4: The Hookening, it's because their damn parents bought it/rented it for them. Generally because they couldn't be bothered find out what that little "M" down in the corner means.
That, or older siblings and get it for them.
Neither will be prevented by any of the policies I've seen proposed.
I'm pretty sure that his anti-gay policies make it statistically more likely. Science is on your side.
O_o
That's...that's what an amendment is. Almost every amendment, before ratification, is unconstitutional. Otherwise it would have been pushed through as an act of congress and not had to bother with the super majority vote requirement and asking the states really nicely.
Well shit... yeah, but you get the idea. I'm saying that it's something that is wrong, that history has shown us is wrong, and that there's no real question about that, but these people are creating a false one.
The entire reason that this is an issue is because the answer ISN'T a clear cut between correct and delusional choices.
The easy answer, for you (and I and a large but not unanimous group of people) is that there SHOULDN'T be an amendment, not that there CAN'T be one. The entire point of an amendment is it modifies what has come before, so of course this proposed amendment would rectify what its proponents see as a flaw in some other part of the Constitution (in this case the First Amendment). This by no means makes it a matter of inherent idiocy to feel that an amendment against flag burning would be a good thing. I think it's a bad idea, but that's a matter of opinion and principle, which is subjective and not some inherent and unalterable fact.
The bumper sticker mentality may be stupid, there may be some positions I strongly disagree with, but those two facts combined don't mean a different opinion than mine on certain issues is inherently wrong.
Well, I think his point is that many Constitutional amendments don't directly contradict the previous Constitution; they're meant to either expand previous rights or clarify them. That, or change simple points of procedure (like how elections are handled, number of terms for president, etc.). Whereas this, on the other hand, would directly contradict the current Constitution, and more importantly the actual Bill of Rights (as opposed to the 3/5 compromise).
That's fine. Kids pull "hey misters" or their older siblings or parents buy them alcohol all the time, but it's not unreasonable that they card for drinks. I mean - the problem is not that kids are getting violent games. The problem is that parents object to their kids being sold violent games without their approval, which is where carding comes in.
No one that I've heard is advocating government censorship of the vidja. However, there's a great deal of industry censorship (Sony, MS and Nintendo refuse to publish AO games). If we're really concerned about the squelching of the artistic medium to shoot off boobs with a shotgun or whatever, it would be important to first force console censors to defend their positions.
The thing is, though, that I'm not saying they're wrong because they believe differently than me, I'm saying they're wrong because the US Constitution documents written by the founders lead us to believe that an amendment against flag burning is completely contrary to the nature of this country. Further, we know that laws and regulations like that are characteristic of totalitarian regimes, and generally made in the interest of suppressing opposition to the government, which is exactly the kind of thing that we eschew in this country.
They're not wrong because they hold a different opinion, they're wrong because they're wrong.
I do love how the vast majority of these truly offensive games suck so hard they're not even worth considering.
Anyways, I'm glad he joined as the race has finally become interesting but now I want to see how he does in the bullshit sound bite debates.
Well, most stores (actually, every chain as far as I know) have internal policies that require carding. I know that where I worked (Target) failing to do so was a quick way to get written up, and possibly canned. I just don't see how video games (or, for that matter, movies) warrant actually bringing this into the realm of law rather than letting the stores take care of it themselves. Especially since, at least in my experience, they've actually been doing a quasi-decent job of it.
So is the problem that in other areas (say, urban areas) employees just don't bother to follow these polices? Is it that much easier there? Because if that's the case then I guess I can see where it's an issue to at least be discussed. But up here I've had kids hanging out outside the GameStop offering me money to go in and buy them GTA:WhichFuckingEver, which tells me that the company's own carding policies seem to be working.
Only if you agree with SCOTUS precedent and not with other documents written by our founders. Documents like the Alien and Sedition Acts. Besides, why should we even care what you think under originalist interpretation unless you're a white land owning male?
The gist of my rebuttal wasn't that I didn't see the case for why the amendment would be bad, or agree with it, it was that it is just that, a case for a position and not an inescapable conclusion. There are any number of issues where we've quite rightly departed from both the original intent of certain sections of the Constitution or the intents of the founders (who get a degree of hero worship all out of proportion to there merits as legal and philosophical scholars).
Just because you and I weigh the various factors in such a way that we see the amendment as extremely contrary to our beliefs in what's "right" doesn't mean that is the only valid way to look at it. I personally think the motivations behind it are somewhere between archaic and repressive, but that doesn't automatically mean my opinion of the issue is without question enough to dismiss opposing ones in this case.
In the end, it doesn't really matter to me whether or not there's a statutory requirement for stores to card. If they're doing a bang-up job as it is, the law might be unnecessary from a policy point of view, but it still might be necessary from a public-perception point of view. And as far as I'm concerned, it's not terribly pernicious legislation to empower parents with oversight over their kids media purchases.
Well, I am, so there.
I suppose you're right, though. But haven't we learned in time to pick through the ideals that lead to progression and drop the ones that are clearly a hinderance to our society as a whole? Things we regard as mistakes shouldn't look so similar to things some people are trying to do now.
I'm not sure I like the implications of this kind of thinking though. "You don't have to accept this infringement of your right, but it would make a lot of people feel better about you" is a hell of a slippery slope to take without significantly more compelling evidence than we have for violent videogames being a pervasive threat to minors.
Where is the infringement of rights, though? Do we have some little-known provision of the constitution that give minors unlimited consumer rights? Parental rights, on the other hand, are pretty well-established.
See, I read this, and it just reminds me of people who defend ID. Reasonable people know evolution is, given our evidence, the correct conclusion, and the contrary "opinion" of ID is just ignorance and idiocy. Reasonable people know a flag burning amendment, given the way our country works, is wrong, and the contrary "opinion" is rooted in jingoism.
Land of the Free, my ass.
I'd guess it's more along the lines of the stores' right to run their business as they see fit. The adverse effects of videogames are nowhere near as clear as those of tobacco or alcohol, which is why I don't think it's nearly as necessary to bring this into the realm of law. And even if it does enter the realm of law, I think the public interest is not so compelling that I'd care to see it pushed down from the federal level. In many areas (even entire states) existing store policies seem to be working just fine.
This isn't a parental issue by any stretch, it's a First Amendment issue as (at least as far as I can remember) every single piece of videogame legislation has shown.
edit: mcdermott said it better than I, but the basic idea is the same
Wait, are you suggesting a law that would enforce the ESRB ratings or one that would co-opt them and the MPAA's ratings board into the government's control which would then enforce those ratings? Because noone really opposes the former, but the latter has chilling effect written all over it. Besides I'd rather eliminate the FCC than tack an extra department onto it.
And when I see this I'm somewhat more sympathetic to the asshats who are in favor of this amendment (only some mind you, but still). There is a word of difference between whether or not something conforms to scientific fact, or even the fundamental idea of science itself, and whether or view or another of some piece of human behavior is desirable for a society.
One is as objective as it's humanly possible for anything to be, and the other is among the fuzzier of subjective calls. Again, I agree with you on the analysis, I just happen to feel strongly that it's not the only possible one and any attempts to make it so is vastly more damaging than the "wrong" belief you're trying to root out.