Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[alexandertnt]

Im sure there must be some things you would not want in a film or game. Think of the most abhorrent, twisted, and currently illegal things you possibly can.

No, I don't have a problem with them being in it. I just wouldn't buy the game.

I think any kind of image should be legal provided the characters depicted are fictional and it's not, for example, a live action video of an actual animal being murdered or child being abused.

You said you had no problem with anything full stop, and then proceeded to give an example of what you did have a problem with, supporting a form of censorship through making actual images of certain actual deplorable events illegal.

That is censorship, and that is my point. Almost everyone will support some form of it (except mostly hardcore anarchists). But because it is a loaded word, some people may pretend that what they support is not actual censorship.

I would argue that only the production of it harms the child and the distribution and possession of it should only be criminalized in cases where they directly aid the production of it, such as if it has been paid for.

Furthermore, the law and the assumption of harm makes the assumption that the child has been coerced against their will; In probably upwards 99% of cases this is true, but does that justify demonizing and persecuting the remaining fraction of a percent?

I am pretty sure that having images of you doing very nasty things from when you were a child circulating around would continue to significantly harm you for the rest of your life. The distibution would most likely harm you. Especially if you were one of the 99% and forced agains't your will.

It is generally accepted that a child's brain is not fully developed, and is less capable of making informed decisions than an adult. A young child may be fully willing to do some nasty things in order to get that shiny something-or-other without realising how much it could affect them in the future.

Children are rarely demonized or prosecuted in these photo's, they are seen as victims usually given support etc. The 1% of children will almost certainly grow up regretting what they did later. People that may convince them to do this are generally manipulating them, as manipulating a child can be quite easy. This is why a child can not give consent to something like this, it is assumed they do not have the mental facilities required to make these decisions.

[misko27]

Stop the Presses! This is why Obama Won!
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzvm7zd4Z-s&feature=g-vrec
 
Or, as Letterman pointed out "So Lindsey Lohan endorsed Romney. I think this may well be the thing that pushes Obama over the edge."

[Reelya]

My God the glimpse into that girl's brain was scary.

[Owlbread]

Im sure there must be some things you would not want in a film or game. Think of the most abhorrent, twisted, and currently illegal things you possibly can.

No, I don't have a problem with them being in it. I just wouldn't buy the game.

I think any kind of image should be legal provided the characters depicted are fictional and it's not, for example, a live action video of an actual animal being murdered or child being abused.

You said you had no problem with anything full stop, and then proceeded to give an example of what you did have a problem with, supporting a form of censorship through making actual images of certain actual deplorable events illegal.

That is censorship, and that is my point. Almost everyone will support some form of it (except mostly hardcore anarchists). But because it is a loaded word, some people may pretend that what they support is not actual censorship.

At the time, that didn't appear to be censorship to me because I got confused in my own judgement. Something jarred there between people acting out fantasies and having the fantasy. I think it was about production of things that did break that old rule - do whatever you want, as long as you don't harm others. But then again, that permits censorship of offensive material. Ah, damnit, I'm going to bed.

[Jervill]

There are still two uncalled house races (AZ-02, and NC-07), but both are currently showing the Democratic candidates leading.  If those leads hold, the final tally for the house will be 234 R 201 D, an 8-seat net gain for Democrats.
House Results.

I really wish there was a cartogram or equal area projection of the house districts.  The geographic map is fine, but not perfect.

Spoiler: Party breakdown by region, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau (click to show/hide)

Map here.
Wikipedia's map of the seats.
New England: 21 D, 0 R
Middle Atlantic: 32 D, 25 R (<-Pennyslvania gerrymander inflates Rs numbers)
South Atlantic: 32 D, 52 R
East South Central: 5 D, 21 R
West South Central: 13 D, 38 R(<-Texas has most of these seats)
East North Central: 26 D, 39 R(<-The Ohio & Michigan gerrymanders really have an effect here)
West North Central: 9 D, 20 R
Mountain: 13 D, 18 R
Pacific: 50 D, 21 R (<-California is one big state)

Independent Redistricting really needs to be implemented nationwide...

[Darvi]

Just remember that the Republicans are right-wing.

[SealyStar]

Just remember that the Republicans are right-wing.

And Democrats don't dare defend.

[scriver]

They say the Red Flag
They wore the blue one

[Dutchling]

Just remember that the Republicans are right-wing.

And Democrats don't dare defend.

Also, GOP = Republicans. Took me a while to figure that one out.

[Mego]

Just remember that the Republicans are right-wing.

And Democrats don't dare defend.

Also, GOP = Republicans. Took me a while to figure that one out.

Yeah, they like to call themselves the Grand Old Party because they've been around for so long. Disregard that the modern, right-wing conservative Republican party has only been around for about 80-90 years. Before the realignment during FDR's presidency, they were left-wing liberals.

[Owlbread]

So, what effect did the liberal crime squad have on the votes?

To be honest, I can't even remember which party is the right-wing and which one is left. All I remember is that blue is left, and red is right.

Actually, the democrats are right wing. Both parties are right wing, it's just the democrats are slightly more to the centre. The republicans are further right. It's a bit like comparing the modern British conservative party with its counterpart from the 70s, although the democrats are more prone to fits of leftism because of the large number of liberals and the like within their party. Interestingly, liberal in America means something quite different to liberal over here.

[SealyStar]

So, what effect did the liberal crime squad have on the votes?

To be honest, I can't even remember which party is the right-wing and which one is left. All I remember is that blue is left, and red is right.

Actually, the democrats are right wing. Both parties are right wing, it's just the democrats are slightly more to the centre. The republicans are further right. It's a bit like comparing the modern British conservative party with its counterpart from the 70s, although the democrats are more prone to fits of leftism because of the large number of liberals and the like within their party. Interestingly, liberal in America means something quite different to liberal over here.

As I've said, both political parties are further right than almost any other nations', but they're only "right-wing" in the sense that socialism is centrist. By that scale, Sweden, often considered the most left-leaning country on earth, is center-right.

[SealyStar]

Just remember that the Republicans are right-wing.

And Democrats don't dare defend.

Also, GOP = Republicans. Took me a while to figure that one out.

Yeah, they like to call themselves the Grand Old Party because they've been around for so long. Disregard that the modern, right-wing conservative Republican party has only been around for about 80-90 years. Before the realignment during FDR's presidency, they were left-wing liberals.

And the fact that the Republican party as a whole hasn't been around as long as the Democratic-Republican Party that was the direct precedent to the modern Democrats.

I think GOP is supposed to refer to their target demographic nowadays. Grumpy Old People

[Owlbread]

So, what effect did the liberal crime squad have on the votes?

To be honest, I can't even remember which party is the right-wing and which one is left. All I remember is that blue is left, and red is right.

Actually, the democrats are right wing. Both parties are right wing, it's just the democrats are slightly more to the centre. The republicans are further right. It's a bit like comparing the modern British conservative party with its counterpart from the 70s, although the democrats are more prone to fits of leftism because of the large number of liberals and the like within their party. Interestingly, liberal in America means something quite different to liberal over here.

As I've said, both political parties are further right than almost any other nations', but they're only "right-wing" in the sense that socialism is centrist. By that scale, Sweden, often considered the most left-leaning country on earth, is center-right.

If we take Sweden as centre-left (because other countries did lean further left), liberalism à la the Liberal Democrat party of the UK as centre, the democrat party of the USA still falls into the right.

[scriver]

I think he's referring to Sweden's current government, which is centre-right. Liberals all.