|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 1:21 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 7:17 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:41 pm
|
|
|
|
I do oppose censorship on principle, so I am, of course, against this law, but...and don't throw things at me...I can understand their purpose. Japan is crazy scary in a lot of ways, and there is an insane amount of ***** crap going on in their media. Yes, I know that some of it is said to not be meant to be ***** stuff, but that's like saying you read Playboy for the articles. It's an excuse to make you sound less sleazy. (Not that I'm equating Playboy with *****; it's just an example, people.)
Of course, I don't think a vague, Puritanical law is the way to fix this. They need an overhaul on a cultural level, which will take a massive mobilization on the part of the people and an honest desire to change and improve. So obviously, it won't happen. xp
Now, dude, when you see this, do me a favor and don't start describing in gruesome detail the bloody things you would like to see done to the adopters of this law. As evidenced by Iakun's post, we already know how you're going to react. So do me a favor and tone it down, please. whee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 12:38 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 3:37 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 4:17 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 12:29 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:30 am
|
|
|
|
A little you say, huh? This law is EXTREMELY vague, which means that they could (and most likely will) us it to ban anything and everything that they, personally, don't like. They only care about what THEY don't like, and don't care how many people and how many freedoms they crush, just to get their way.
Because it's so vague it has the ability to ban every tiny bit that we find entertaining. Think... it bans violence in media: That means someone could use it to attack stuff like: Tomb raider, jurassic park, inuyasha, sailor moon, dragon ball z, spyro the dragon, jaws, final fantasy, yugioh, home alone, inspector gadget, Irobot, hercules, underworld, waterworld, twister, men in black, teenage mutant ninja turtles, scooby doo...
THE LIST NEVER ENDS!!! EVERYTHING in moddern media has violence in it, even if just a small amount. You say: well it'll never get that far. But think for a second about all the extremists out there. They'd use a law like this to ban every bit of those things with no second thought. Anything that THEY personally didn't like regardless of how many people disagreed.
In the end, we will have nothing. You say it's to protect the children. Well originally, children were a part of everything, even the childbirthing process. Before the concept of "childhood" was invented, children were used to help around the house as soon as they were physically able to. People would have children JUST to have helpers with the work. Families slept in the same bed and even had sex with there children RIGHT THERE sleeping beside them. No lies were created to shield them from how the world was, and you know what... there were fewer mentally unstable people back then.
SOO... "Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile"
"Benjamin Franklin" He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
AND ONE THE BEST... "Pastor Martin Niemöller" { They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up. } http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came
Fight for the freedoms we have now, before we don't have any at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 7:03 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:43 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:48 pm
|
|
|
|
Wow, a debate. I'm shocked. /sarcasm xd
First, thank you, dude, for restraining your usual..."exuberance" a little. Although, "braindead abominations on the crap pile that makes up this rotting cesspool of degenerating filth" may have been a bit overly colorful. I do applaud your use of metaphor but deride your overuse of it. xd At least you're learning to use a bigger vocab.
Second, just to play devil's advocate here for a sec (and only slightly off-topic), regarding your statement "I agree that there needs to be a set of standard rules for all to follow, but they should never step on the rights and freedoms of anyone," what rule do you think could be created that wouldn't in any way step on anyone's rights or freedoms?
Third, Iakun, I've actually never thought about the modern concept of childhood as being an entirely good thing. I admit we do need a proper childhood, but I think people take it too far and, like dude says, spend too much time trying to "protect" the "innocent children." Especially when the definition of "children" is extended to people who are old enough to hold jobs and drive cars. The true children do need a bit of protecting, but I think that should rest mostly on the parents. Corporations have been marketing stuff to kids that they shouldn't since the Marlboro Man, maybe before that. They do take it too far, but there must be a better way to deal with that.
Hey, look, I agreed and disagreed with everybody. surprised
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:46 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:54 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:23 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:54 pm
|
|
|
|
Lol, have we gotten to the point where we know what everybody else's responses are going to be? Not much point in debating then. xd
Dude: I said that about assholes because it was a vague morality kind of thing. I can't make laws; I'm not a judge or politician. Legally, the courts can't convict you of assholery. And to continue playing DA (devil's advocate, for those of you who can't keep up), making a law against physical harm would eliminate a lot of things, like sports, for instance. What sports player hasn't accidentally harmed another during a game? And a homeowner would argue that he has the right to attack a burglar and defend his home. And not too long ago in the scheme of history, a man legally had a right to beat his wife and children. And do you include parental punishments like spanking in "physical harm?" As for mental harm, what about kids who go to school just to hear all their classmates say mean things to them every single day until they just want to take a gun and end it all? Shouldn't something be done about that? There's more grey here than you might think.
Iakun: I think those of us who talk about taking control of ourselves and such probably do. I know I make the effort. The problem is that most people don't think about or discuss such things, and most people just assume that "somebody else" will take care of it, whatever "it" is. It's like the problem with the population. Those who advocate zero or negative population growth have less or no children at all. That means fewer people to pass on their ideals to. Meanwhile, the people who think it's okay to have 16 kids simply do, passing on their ideals to 16 new people, who go on to have 16 kids of their own, each.
But this: "It's just that rules will always step on certain peoples' freedom." I could not agree more. Finding the balance is the key to making this the best world possible. In 10,000 years, when we're all telepathic, we may achieve it. Maybe.
As for the concept of childhood, part of the problem may be that it's different for everyone. Some of us simply grow up faster. But other people don't know how to quantify that.
Dude, it was a small village in South America, and it had nothing to do with the youngest parents in the world. In that village, people didn't start having kids until 20.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|