OT: Words fail me

[narf poit chez BOOM]

AT: Your point about something being laughed at first and accepted later is exactly my point. I very much fear and expect that that is what will happen, not with this game, but with this type of game.

Also, on the point of laws that diminish our freedom, I say never when it comes to our rights. However, privileges, like being able to drive a car are another thing.

Anyway, of that tangent...

I'm happy with this thread. We've had a generally calm, rational discussion. (Even me, and I wasn't particularly calm when I posted it.)

[Atrocities]

I would really embrace a few restrictions on the media though. Not on the 1st amendment, but on the media itself. I would be for limiting what they could say without having facts, I would before making them accountable when they make mistakes or broadcast / publish, wrongful information that harms people, and require them to prove the truth in what they say. Words do hurt people, and they do harm the society as a whole when they are spoken in deliberately to mislead. I would be for protecting peoples right to privacy and putting an end to the stocker photographers that plague the popular Hollywood crowd. I would make it a law that if the story is BS, that it must contain a disclaimer saying that the story is a fraud as to protect the person to whom the story was written about.

Enough with the media being used as a propaganda machine. Make it a law that if the media is reporting news, it must be neutral and un-bias, and I mean truly unbiased, no more Liberal CBS B.S. or fair and balanced lies from FOX. Make the news truly about just being the news, and if they wish to defer, make it a requirement that they state the purpose of the deferment. IE that they are stating an opinion not based on fact, or they are drawing a conclusion based on such and such facts. If these rules would have been in place than Dan Rather would not have been humiliated by the fake documents last year, and OJ would have been convicted.

Additionally, the news media SHOULD never be allowed into a courtroom. They should be BARED from reporting about a criminal case while it is under investigation or facing court proceedings. I am of firm belief that a lot of people have been cheated out of justice because they were convicted or cleared in the court of public opinion long before they ever stepped foot into a court room. The media has NOT RIGHT to ruin a person�s life just to make copy. Look at what they did to that Richard Jewels guy a few years back. They all but convicted that poor bastard for the Olympic park bombings and it turned out he was completely innocent.

That is only one example of how the media has used its unbridled power of opinion, and not fact, to destroy someone�s life.

We need checks and balances in the system to prevent fraudulent and deliberate misuse of the 1st amendment without limiting or restricting the amendment itself.

Remember when the 1st amendment was written our founding fathers couldn't even begin to conceive Television or radio.

News Papers are held to a higher standard than the news media like CBS or Fox. So why not establish laws that protect 1. a person�s privacy, 2. their right to due process, and 3. their dignity.

How many people have been wrongfully convicted because of the feeding frenzy wrought by the media? Hell the media even tries to influence elections by telling people that X party has won 30 minutes after the polls open so Y party should just stay home. They tell us what we should believe, they tell us what is right and wrong even though we know that what they are telling us is a load of crap. They force feed ridicules over hyped news stories to use on a daily basis without ever really giving us any news. They are now, more often than not, heavily slanted with a political agenda that is as complex to figure out, as it is easy to see.

I mean we all knew that Dan Rather and Ted Turner hate the Republicans, and love the Democrats, and vice versa for Denis Miller and Bill O'Riely.

Don't get me wrong, I like entertainment, I just don't like entrainment posing as news. Especially when it destroys a person or their right to due process.

[Sivran]

As for Bill O'Reilly, you need only listen to the emails he reads at the end of his show to see that he is even-handed in his criticism.

[Atrocities]

Oh Like Bill, and I would rather watch Fox than CNN any day of the week. I just wanted to be fair and balanced in my post as not to offend or give the impression that I was baised against CBS and their uber uber liberal left wing views. (Caugh)

[Rasorow]

hmmmmm

I have to say that I disagree with many opinions here. There is a line where something (anything game or otherwise) harms society by inducing harmful behavior. Where that line is? I dont know but I believe it exists. You have the right to do anything you wish until you cause harm to another, another group, or society at whole. That harm can be physical, spiritual, mental, or emotional.

Having obtained my undergrad in Psych and been a subject (as all undergrads in Psych are) in behavior modification studies at various points it was a real-eye openner just how much your behavior and thoughts are influenced by what is around you and presented to you. You can be influenced by books, games, movies, etc.

I do have a problem with games that are overly violent. There have been people (not always kids) that have modeled the behavior.

There is a level of danger to society. Where does it cross the line? Don't know but I assert there is a line.

The difference between SEIV, Stars!, other grand Strategic games and games that graphically have you stealling cars, killing police, driving over people for points, cutting people open, is that strategic games deal with abstraction. There is little or no emotional desensitization going on due to the abstract nature. The goals/means of those games are beyond what a person can achieve. When is the last time you took your Ravager class Dreadnaught to the nearest star system for a quick spin? When is the last time you took your car for a quick spin around the block? How many people were out walking? Worth how many points?

Do you see my point?

One Truism to remember -> Garabage in = Garabage out

What we do/experience/witness affects us and changes us, we are little bits of experiences - we can choose how much they will affect us to a degree but we can never choose for them to not affect us.

BTW I also support freedom of speech... but it already has limits - ever hear of slander? Libel? You are not permitted to have your rights restrict the rights of another.

So in closing I will respectfully disagree with many of you.

Rasorow

[AMF]

Anyways....you all need to go join the Zeta 2 game... (and get back to something more based in reality)

[AMF]

Tee hee...this is a funny comic (attached), and somehwat (hilariously) relevant. After this, really, I am done posting. Honest.

Thanks,

Alarik

[AgentZero]

There's been a lot of posts here that refer to 'the line' that either needs to be drawn, or should not be crossed, but I'm going to let you all in on a little secret: There is no line! It's more of a box. Outside of this box there are a few things that are unreservedly bad (ie: will never, ever be good no matter what the circumstances), and there are a few things that are unreservedly good. Everything else, morality, religion, politics, theft, violence and murder, go in the box as they cannot be categorized as completely good or completely bad. Sometimes they're one, sometime's they're the other. If you want to speak in general terms, without talking about specific cases, you can only really say something is "mostly good" or "mostly bad."
ie: Charity is "Mostly Good", while murder is "Mostly Bad."

And will people please, PLEASE, PLEASE stop this endless moaning about "the children!" We do NOT need the government to protect our children from adult material. That's what parents are for. I can remember getting caught with a Playboy when I was 13. My parents sat me down and explained to me the whole concept of objectification (in general and of women in specific). Now, granted, if Playboy was illegal, my parents would never have had to have that chat, but therin lies the problem: It would never have been explained to me and a very important lesson on the road to becoming a responsible adult would have been missed.

If anything, the government should put less time and money into protecting our poor children from sex, violence & objectionable material and more into eliminating the concept of 'dual-income families'. I don't mean this in a sexist way, I don't care who is bringing in the money, but I firmly believe that at least one parent should be able to devote a majority of their time to ensuring their child becomes a mature member of society.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Re: AgentZero's last paragraph - Who really thinks daycare (1 to 3 people for 5 to 25 kids) can raise children as well as even a single parent? (1 parent, generally no more than 3-4 kids)

[dogscoff]

Re: AgentZero's last paragraph - Who really thinks daycare (1 to 3 people for 5 to 25 kids) can raise children as well as even a single parent? (1 parent, generally no more than 3-4 kids)

Exclusively, no. But if a kid can spend a few hours a day interacting with other kids in a safe and educational environment, while the parent or parents go out to earn a living and/or get a break from the stresses of parenthood, then that can be a very good thing for everyone involved.