Tale

Prescription drugs aren't completely legal. They're only legal if prescribed to you. Selling your prescription drugs is not legal. Additionally, drugs like Ritalin and Adderoll (and I presume Concerta, but have no experience), do not behave like speed in those they are intended for. I'm on Adderoll myself. actually they operate on the same basics as speed they are just moderated somewhat for a more theraputical effect rather than a high (you realize that if you don't take your adderoll correctly your basically feeling the effects of dropping off a speed high right?) But my point was mainly to prove that again, alot of drug money goes to somebody other than the drug lords. You realize that a Dopamine deficiency can cause particular drugs to have a different effect, right? It is an amphetamine, which is what speed is. But on the genuinely ADHD, it's operating for a different effect. If your point is that illicit drug money goes to people who abuse prescriptions and unethical doctors, then I can see that point.

Jodie Foster was a breaking point for Hinckley, who tried to assassinate Reagan.

Battlefield 2142 is awesome. Anyone who disagrees is a communist. As is Command & Conquer 3. Except communists should also agree.

I think the problem is you, Nick. It's all your fault. We should make you drink poison.

Read up more on violence linked to the media. There have been crimes linked to everything from Schwarzenager, nightly news, comic books, about every form of media that features action, violence, or even real world events. Some of it erroneous, some of it plausible. The problem isn't Manhunt.

And I'm not saying they're wrong for banning Manhunt. I'm saying the reasoning is subjective and the belief that censorship is necessary is idiotic. The "a line must be drawn" thing is nonsense and applies more against censorship than it ever did in favor of it. There were suicides supposedly linked to the news reports of Marilyn Munroe's suicide. The problem isn't Manhunt 2.

Ahh, I had some caffiene pills once. Mixed with Mountain Dew and (pre-sugared, oops) Kool-Aid mix. We call it Go Juice. I think that was the time I was up for 3 days straight. I was popping caffienated chocolates on that third one.

With GI Joes. That's my inspiration too.

Jesus Ted Theodore Logan Christ that is a gay line.

I'd rather play alternate history WWII shooters than alternate history WWII rts games. Like a WWII shooter with Transformers where you don't play as a Transformer, but fight alongside them. It would piss soooo many people off, but it could be so awesome shooting at a prop plane Starscream with a bazooka.

No. Because education is never analogue to censorship. They are complete opposites. Censorship does not actually encourage anything, it just tries to hide. If the fear is that a game is enough to make a person act anti-social on a societally unacceptable level, then obviously steps need to be made to reduce or offset that risk. Because it's not just Manhunt 2 that causes that risk. You're confusing the event with the topic. I'm talking about censorship. If you can't see what's defensible about Manhunt 2 can you tell me what's defensible about Saw? Kill Bill? The nightly news? Great Expectations? The works of Socrates? Some of these you may be able to answer. Some of them you won't be able to without an argument that could defend Manhunt 2. Putting quote tags around education does not change it from being education. If encouraging anti-social behavior is not defensible, then obviously encouraging pro-social behavior must be.

"Anti-social" elements and media are already acceptable. American Psycho, the works of Eli Roth, heck Tarantino may be "artsy" but it's still violent enough to be considered anti-social, half the movies from David Fincher. Even Great Expectations can be considered anti-social yet is acceptable. Hell, the nightly news. Teaching pro-social skills and knowledge is an attempt to teach people how to deal appropriately with anti-social messages and to make educated choices about their actions along that spectrum. It's fully applicable, especially in today's society. And a heck of a lot better than trying to censor media just because it has a chance of encouraging people to act contrary to what those in power in society believe to be in society's best interests.

By this reasoning, Vegas gambling is thrust towards young consumers. Because that's just play. However, there's a distinction between young play and adult play. Just as their's a distinction between children websites and adult websites, children magazines and adult magazines, childrens books and adult books, children's movies and adult movies. It must be mighty progressive to think of entertainment, in general, as beyond mainly for children, then. What good do math, english, and science classes do? If we're terrified that games, books, TVs, and movies will teach anti-social behaviors to the point that just banning them is considered a viable option, then it behooves society to attempt to teach the pro-social ones.

Would it be rude of me to troll this thread repeatedly with comments of how much I hate Dungeon Siege and have no pleasant expectations for this one?

I'm buying a jump rope after work. Been planning on getting one for a while, thanks for the reminder slug.

Weren't comics self-regulated a while back because of a supposed threat to society until Marvel dropped it?

40 minutes of running is more than I can generally do. I go for about 1.2 miles (.6 miles each way) every day which takes me about 12-15 minutes. I'm building up towards 1.5 miles currently. I do 25 elevated push ups and 30 situps. I used to do 100 situps just 7 years ago, so I'm hoping to make quick progress on that one. I also do leg squats every now and then when I don't go running (because it's raining or there's a really good show on) and I usually do that to exhaustion. I don't weigh myself.

Prescription drugs aren't completely legal. They're only legal if prescribed to you. Selling your prescription drugs is not legal. Additionally, drugs like Ritalin and Adderoll (and I presume Concerta, but have no experience), do not behave like speed in those they are intended for. I'm on Adderoll myself.

All of the above at the same time.

This is why we can't have nice things.

@Tale, I have this self destructive behaviour problem. Sand, being proven wrong about something does not necassarily mean you lied about it to begin with. If you were absolutely certain I was harboring space aliens in my garage because some educated people presented good evidence of it. And I added fuel to the fire by refusing to let you see inside, then if you kicked down my door and barged in, if I did not have them would that make you a liar? Or just wrong? Oh come on, man. They new Iraq didn't have WMDs. The intelligence office altered the raw data and presented it so that we would go to war. Even I knew Iraq didn't have WMDs at the time of invasion. It was blatantly obvious that Saddam was simply posturing. Either Bush and his administration was lying or they were incompetent. @Tale: Whoops, okay. I was wrong. how do you know that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction? Also Have you ever thought about their connection to Syria? And Also how to cover a paper tales? Maybe there were other reasons than just WMDs in why we are in and staying Iraq. Plural? Are you calling me fat? What do I have to do with this anyway?

I still have fond memories of combining the tufts of sasquatch hair with the collected tar, the suit, and my partner.

Whaaaa? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peopl..._George_W._Bush Those people are not Bush's friends and family. Bush did pardon people before "one of his own was in trouble."

Such as? WHY did you ask that question? WHY DO YOU HATE THIS FORUM?!

I don't think its bias. Clinton didn't get the requisite number of votes for removal from office. Libby isn't President. If you're trying to expose bias, is your ultimate point that everyone who perjures, obstructs justice, and lies to the investigators should get away without a jail sentence or that both Libby and Clinton should have gone to jail for it? And I don't think people thinking the spirit of the offense being applicable even if the law disagrees is a bias, either. Which is what Walsh and Pop are talking about. I think people saying this should be used as evidence for Bush's impeachment might be a bit biased, however.