Dudde

Yes, darn them all it's so easy to go to walgreens and get condoms. I would use CVS personally, but I'm not sure if they've made branches in Africa yet.

Please don't assume this. It certainly helps but is not required nor necessary. I just wanted to step in here with a game developers view to let you know that had a game animator the inclination in the first place, they would require no real children in which to model or animate CP ever.

I think the point was that the democrats are trying to help those people dying, whereas the republicans are yelling at the top of their lungs. No need to count numbers in regions where they're trying to do something if you've got several people not willing to move forward with no good reasoning

You mean video game CP right? Video game CP vs. video game violence, it's important to keep that in context. You bring a good point, but you can hardly say this is 100%. While being a large percentage, there are several other reasons to like violence in games besides just the adrenaline. I would like to see some sort of references that can back that up, and it seems a bit off topic, but I'll press the point seeing as this viewpoint is directly correlated with peoples' mindset and the reasons for censoring games - Australia or elsewhere. Psychcentral.com and Crime-Research.org have a few dated articles that I could find - I wasn't able to find anything in the past few years, so if anybody has any breakthroughs that have happened, please tell me - from these articles: and so back to your post Padren sir, can you back this assertion sir? No certainly not. The one reservation I had was in regards to the parents of children - but most of the time, I would expect them to misdiagnose and treat the problems wrong anyway, simply for not being trained professionals. Thus, I stand by it being released only to doctors, who can further show the parents with a guided eye. There's no reason I believe I'm defending lewd acts against children, it's very important to keep this in mind - what I don't want, is extreme personal bias to overtake something that should be kept a rational decision, lest we get wrong impressions and take things much further than actually needed.

Not necessarily the same case sir. If a consumer were to pay directly to see CP of a certain child, then perhaps. But this isn't the normal case. I agree with demand fueling supply for the most part, however, I also agree that sometimes the producers are really the ones who want to see it the most, in regards to this particular topic. A lot of them will probably make it anyway, whether we're watching or not

Actually Tripolation sir, it's me that works for Dell> Although I only work with enterprise stuff, so I can't say about the consumer stuff =\ Personally I would suggest doing some studying online if you were going for a desktop, I may work for Dell, but for personal references I still encourage people to build their own! Although if you don't have the patience to learn and troubleshoot the system, you would definitely end up going OEM, simply so you could in the least call and get a little troubleshooting over the phone. That link is fantastic

Indeed, I thought I'd made myself explicitly clear on this point. To be quite honest, I'd hope that were I to happen across CP in person that I could react like an educated person and think clearly. In all reality, I would probably physically harm someone if the situation allowed. And I don't think that it should be okay in any form of media. However, in video games, there is no actual child involved, you could replace that model with a dog, bird, dracula, with a simple change in the image file itself. Movies, internet videos, pictures, all deal with real children - that's bad. I think it's important to keep the context of the media you're talking about when referencing something and I restate: most media stays away from depicting horrible acts on children because society as a whole rejects these. I don't encourage them to take it up, but it wouldn't be legally fair to attack them for it if there weren't actually any children involved. If the games weren't censored, maybe I'd be less inclined to point out the failures of the parents. The games people say are bringing out violence in kids are usually rated much higher than the child is in the first place. If you look through a 12-year old's game collection and find Manhunt, which is definitely rated mature, who bought the game? The industry does try censoring games, and then we bypass that by buying the games for them and getting mad that they're inappropriate. Sure. If one person plays a game, goes to work and jokes with all their friends and lives happily ever after, and then another does it, and we have all these thousands of people doing that, and suddenly you get one person who plays it and starts butchering his neighborhood, why should we automatically assume the game is the fault? Even if he did this after watching a movie, why is there any reason that isn't ludicrously over the edge that we should start to presume the media is at fault. For one single example, I'll use myself. I watched Poltergeist when I was 4, saw most of the 80's slashers like Jason and Freddy before I was 8, and grew up watching them as they released - once violent video games became available, I also played those. I've also never killed anyone, really have a strong distaste for hurting anyone and am pretty damn good with kids. What kind of special circumstances do I have to be in where blaming something else for my own actions is justifiable?

On the first note: that still doesn't hold unless you agree that 13 year olds running old women over on the streets of san andreas is really just feeding their habit to run down old women in their real towns. I personally know several children who are far worse than I am in games, but can all seem to connect the dots and don't actually think they want to really try running people over. I think we've merely been exposed to violence and killing too much in today's world, we think nothing of it to do those things. Not that I want to see more CP or anything negatively happening to kids in movies or games, but if we'd seen that like we see murder, I doubt anybody would have a problem On your last part in regards to a child anatomy game, I personally would say yes to release only to the doctors, but there's plenty of anatomy stuff online that I'm sure they could use if medical were their taste =\ So it may not be necessary

I didn't see myself quoted anywhere, did you have a specific question for me? My position has been stated by iNow a good 7 or 8 times with the exception that there are some things that I, personally would feel compelled to punish people for. Watching someone else be killed is one thing, paying to watch it happen to a real person should be severely punishable however, that's completely irrelevant to this thread, which is about video game censorship (in Australia) In video games, I would find it extremely distasteful to have a game involving CP, however, couldn't legally fight that game, as no children are actually being harmed in any way. which shows in this respect, that you're in the camp that says that adults are irresponsible enough to depict between game and reality? Because there have been huge crapfests over stupid things like some games causing violence in children. Do you agree that people playing games where they kill people make them want to go out and kill real people? for the record, I hope nobody brings up "violence in children" - it's time to blame the parents, those games are never meant to be in kids' hands. secondly, if there are adults who succumb to this behavior after playing games, maybe there was something not quite right to begin with?

I like the argument, and in that certain situation it would be quite difficult to choose the correct action, obviously I doubt such a site would post their credentials right on the site for any authorities looking for 'questioning' - especially if you could upload videos with an account. Personally I would blame the watchers for creating the market, and the producers for feeding it. The heavier punishment should go to the producers, but I would hardly see room to let anyone feeding such a market get away with just disappointment. I would like to point out, though, that it's not exactly the same as a video game in which one watches or commits the actual crime, seeing as in a game the only family you're hurting is made of pixels and will quite happily reset once the power is cycled. On a real website, there would be real people being affected -

...are you serious? Thanks. I was kinda hoping the context of the thread would have guided that home. Please, my mistake, let me clarify: insert: why should we allow killing people or beheading families in games, but then disallow something where nobody dies. for the record, I'm not really an avid gamer, but at one point was studying to be a game designer for several years - to clarify where my distaste of nonsense censorship comes from.

What a disappointing thread. Normally I see all these other people asking for references, this was a straight simple plow through as if you didn't know how to use google =\ References? Links? When you say harm to someone else, do you mean harm to someone else beside the victim or the producer? What about Shock sites and darwin awards? Causes harm to someone else, no? As someone who's spent considerable amounts of time invested into fighting the US legal system for video games, I don't disagree, but why should we allow killing people or beheading families and then disallow something where nobody dies?

currently residing in Oklahoma, I was slightly dismayed to hear this state's name founding the majority of the deaths counted. However, I'm not from here, so I have no problem in agreeing wholeheartedly that we definitely need it. thanks for posting that video, interesting

aaww my post earlier wasn't posted, guess I forgot to hit submit anywho I really do agree with you guys, and I agree with everything that's been said - Jill and Padren bring some good points up. I may not be familiar enough with our Healthcare system to understand my question anyway. So if that happened in America, and he were transported to a hospital for surgery - that family would still be responsible for medical expenses, am I correct? If this is the case, I don't see that as society saving someone's life - I see that as medical professionals doing what they're paid to do, and billing the patient for services rendered. If my original argument wasn't clear, I was coming from the standpoint that the rest of society would assist in paying medical expenses in this situation, if it were our responsibility. and I restate, I hope we make it our responsibility sometime soon

In my frame of mind, I'm in agreement with Bascule - if you're doing something recreational and happen upon a life threatening event, whether it was stupid or just a patch of water on a piece of wood - is it really the rest of society's job to help fix you up? Please elaborate if you disagree I also agree with Phi for all, it isn't really our job, but I personally would be happy to pay a few extra percentage points in taxes if anyone else would be spared something like that. I see society as having come far enough to stop being so damned greedy with what we make, most of the time it goes to something useless anyway.

Not that I'm trying to instigate, I see the bombs being dropped as the lesser of the evils available at the time today in regards to helping to stop the war. After seeing the capabilities of this massive devastation, not many countries would continue a war and risk more bombs being dropped. In this regard, I see the nuclear bomb as being the right call. In personal views, I would rather avoid killing anyone and trying to find alternate means of reconciliation or ending a war, but as I stated earlier, would be naive to think that were possible. To Bascule: What alternatives would you have suggested in the time to help end the war favorably, without resorting to the casualties we saw from the said bombings - whether it would've ended the war as quickly or not?

I agree whole-heartedly with Jill and the others in this sentiment. Of course it's a little dangerous diving off piers, but accidents like this rarely happen (as I've done that exact activity in very similar surroundings). As Padren clarified in regards to the darwin award, I don't this would be considered in the slightest

No, he's not screwing with everyone, if you're squeamish in any way I would definitely suggest not watching.

I don't think he's necessarily done that quite yet - are we taking the predicted debt we're accruing over the next couple of years as already counted against him? I'm with Bascule on this one

Thanks, an interesting read, but doesn't point at the Japanese trying to end the war. Almost on the contrary in fact. Personally I'm against killing civilians in a war, and against the war in the first place, but it would be almost naive to believe that we could protect a country without having to resort to violence when a country openly declares war on you =\ so no, they did not, but neither did the British, or the people staying at Pearl Harbor. I still believe action needed to be taken, but I do feel sorry for the loss of so many Japanese.

It's entirely unwise to have everything on your computer jam packed into a single small space. Admittedly today's towers aren't exactly huge, but what your talking about seems dangerous both in levels of heat and space for components, which they do require. Your hardware would wear out ridiculously faster the next step in making computers smaller should be minimalizing components and making the motherboard smaller, not trying to eliminate the connections

If I remember, both countries knew they pissed the other off and knew something was coming to them. A nuclear warhead might have been a bit extreme Admittedly I was bored out of my mind learning history, but I don't remember the Japanese trying to end the war. Any references on that?

While this is true, it's also not true. By ignoring Fox, we allow them to get these huge rallies together and protest something on false accusations and crazy allegations - many people of whom watching the network for news have no desire to counter with actual research. When these rallies and protests start to become about things that we may actually have interest in, it becomes unwise to ignore Fox

agreed and conceded. any man reaching his goal of making coffee naked would definitely have passed the dream of owning infrared goggles. I can agree to this, but I would have much cooler uses for IR

actually is the part that bugs me. The article stated a bus stop across the street from his house. My assumption was that because they were cutting through the yard, a good chance they weren't in his front yard, thereby decreasing chances he'd have been seen by the kids across the street however, if he continually forgets to close his blinds and walk around naked and the kids across the street DO see, their bad for looking, his bad for walking, that's why I say fine him and do not compensate the "victims" if he keeps doing it, then you can look at further punishment. If not, we should get the heck out of someone's privacy?