~Di

I've been looking forward to this game for years. Unfortunately, I just saw the game specs. My computer will not play this game... and apparently neither will I. *cries*

Being seduced/coerced into a sexual relationship with an adult, especially an authority figure, will scar a child's psychological development permanently. Period. It will affect every aspect of that child's life, and steals their childhood. It is child abuse. Gender doesn't matter. If that 11 year old had been raped by a male teacher, nobody would be going "woo-woo, answer to a horny kid's dream!" If an 11 year old girl had been raped by a male teacher (or a female teacher for that matter), nobody would be cheering it on. But because this particular raped 11 year old was a boy, and his rapist was a "hot blonde", then it's not only okay, it's chants of "lucky kid!" No child is lucky to be raped. The only thing more appalling than the act itself is reading some of the reactions to it.

And yet another way to prove to the world that Islam is not a religion of violence and intolerance. After the global cartoon riots, which are still going on, now one group of muslims blows up a revered Muslim mosque, and another group of muslims go into a wild riot of burning, shrieking and killing in protest. Where have we seen that kind of thing before? I wonder if they'll start burning down their own embassies now. Jeez, the vast majority of peaceful, moderate Muslims on this planet must be absolutely horrified at how some of their brethern are portraying them to the world. BTW, I suspect the mosque bombing was Al Qaeda's doing. Civil War has been one of their main goals in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and they're doing a bang-up job of achieving those goals. Unfortunately.

Hmmm, the board spam sniffers must have overslept this morning!

*passes out tinfoil beanies while humming the theme from Twilight Zone*

Not to downplay the horror of the slave trade over the centuries, but frankly the above could be said about a heck of a lot of folks throughout history, including the ancestors of most white Australians. What their decendants then did to the native Aboriginals after their unwilling arrival at the "new world" is yet another exercise in racism. Racism and bigotry is hardly an American institution, please. It's a human institution. Edit: Now that I've finished reading the thread I must give a massive to those who imply that Americans were not taught their own history in school. I certainly was. My children certainly were. Which is more than the children in many parts of the world, including such enlightened places as Japan and places in Europe can say ( I won't specify which countries in Europe, since folks around here are indignantly huffy about the slightest criticism of their own sacred country even as they hurl their daily "ain't America awful" invectives.)

Thanks, I haven't been to the news sites yet today. Just more of the same from two years ago. Interesting timing on releasing the "new" stuff, actually. I'm sure the fact that it diverts attention away from this week's provocative video of British troops kicking children in the genitals is merely coincidental.

What? I haven't heard of any videos of Abu Ghraib. You say some were released today? Do you have a link to that information, please? This is the first I've heard of this...

I understand your point, meta, but the fact remains that if we as a global populace do not get a handle on AIDS, worrying about cancer, heart disease and other such killers of humanity might just become moot. If you get my drift...

I can't speak to UK law, but here in the USA there are always limits to our constitutionally-protected freedoms. I won't bore y'all by delineating them all, but basically one person's freedom ends when exercising it will infringe upon the freedom of another. In the USA, convicted felons and other prisoners basically lose most of their constitutional freedoms. They lose their freedom of movement, their ability to vote, their ability to profit from their crimes, etc. Their protection from physical abuse and harm, however, is still in tact. Prisoners are treated much as are children in many respects, with the state taking the role of parent. I don't believe that any law or freedom can be applied consistently without regard to the overall context of individuals involved, nor do I believe it should be. Clearly children cannot be given the freedom to make decisions for themselves that they are not old enough to make, so said freedoms cannot be consistently applied to them. Prisoners have, under most legal interpretations globally, lost the right to exercise their own freedoms when they infringed on the freedoms of others with their crimes. There are probably more examples, but y'all get the gist.

Yrkoon is, and has been for years, the unofficial apologist for all things Muslim. Pissing people off is his joy and his passion. That said, I know Tarna would love to have you sign up at his new forum, not merely to flame, but to share your views. Consider joining us!

Hehe... pun recognized and appreciated! :D

Sorry, but I don't think I can personally justify worldwide groups of burning, looting, murdering mobs, which are spurred on in their violence by their own religious leaders. Lots of people are poor, oppressed, unhappy. The vast majority of them do not loot, burn, and murder in their name of their god. And no, I don't wanna go back decades or even centuries to find similar violence in the name of some other religion's god. If they did it, it was wrong of them too and I don't give a fig what excuse they and their apologists gave at the time. I do not see why it is so damned difficult to simply acknowledge that the violence going on nearly world-wide by a violent, and extremist sect of Islam is just... plain... wrong. No excuses. Just wrong.

Haven't read this thread yet, but my favorites as far as well-drawn and fascinating characters, in no real order: Ravel (PS:T) Morte(PS:T) Jolee Bindo (KoTOR) HK 47 (KoTOR) ... just for the fun factor, actually, since he wasn't terribly complex! Kreia (KoTOR2) Sly (Anachronox) Irenicus (BG2) ...best damned villain evar, lol

Eh, can't let this go. I'm weak. Copyright infringement is, at its core, stealing. Calling it a fallacy does not make it so. Taking what belongs to someone else without paying the price they have asked for its use is... stealing. Your argument is basically this: It's okay to pirate music, movies or video games because since you did not take a hard copy off the shelves, you did not deprive anyone of that hard copy. But you did, of course, deprive the owners of that music, movie or video game of their rightful fee for its use. In doing so, you also violated the Terms of Use that the owners of these products have established for your enjoyment of them. The Terms of Use usually include the annoying little caveat that you must pay for using the product, and if you don't wish to pay you are cheerfully invited to go elsewhere for your entertainment. You are not invited to steal it anyway with the promise that if you actually like it, you might pay later. Downplaying the importance of such theft by comparing it to wearing a duck on one's head might go over well with those who have a disk full of pirated music, games and movies, but I doubt it would be amusing to those who have seen their annual incomes dissipate to the point that they can no longer afford to produce the creative endeavors they loved. Just keep in mind that there are not just faceless entities behind those products you enjoy so much that you are willing to steal them rather than go without. Those are real, flesh-and-blood humans whose pockets you are picking. Think about it.

Hehe, no, you haven't. But when you figure out how to feed your family based upon spending 3000 hours a year producing free "passion" for the masses, you do let me know, m'kay? Also, smuggling is a crime. "The government taxes made me do it" isn't normally considered a legitimate defense for smuggling. Copyright theft and infringement is also a crime. You wouldn't sneer at it if, as I've pointed out, your earned your entire living from the fruits of your copyrighted work. But I've enjoyed the discussion, and shall move on to let others discuss their thoughts.

At one time, record sales generated the artists' primary source of income. If it currently doesn't, that rather supports the RIAA contention (and the contention of the vast majority of artists themselves) that pirated downloads of their music has stolen billions out of their pockets! As to your assertion that it's okay to steal stuff if that stuff costs too much, I must protest. For one thing, prices will continue to escalate to cover the cost of... you guessed it... theft! For another, since when do folks have the option of stealing anything they think is overpriced? If you believe paperback books cost too much, does that give you the right to simply steal the book? If you believe that authors get practically no money for the sale of their books (which we don't, actually, but it's nonetheless the only money we get for our work, whether it's considered substantial by the consumer or not), does it then make it okay to take even that piddling amount away from authors by stealing the work? Authors, for example, depend upon small amounts per unit, with hundreds of thousands of units being sold; music artists too, I'd wager. So yeah, one theft may only equal a pittance; multiply that times tens or hundreds of thousands of thefts, and an author's entire year's income can dwindle to near nothing, despite hundreds of thousands of readers voraciously enjoying his/her work. Meanwhile, careers are destroyed and hundreds of thousands of theives continue to justify themselves while moving on to steal what they want from others. As for the cost issue, I think lots of things are overpriced. That does not give me license to steal them. It does, however, give me the option not to use and enjoy products that I think cost too much. I'm sorry, but I've heard every argument known to human-kind as to why it is okay, justifiable, or even one's god-given duty to steal music, video games, books, movies, or anything else one wishes to have without payment. It all boils down to the same thing: People want free stuff, and if they can steal it with a fair degree of certainty that they will not get caught, they will do so and turn themselves into a pretzel rationalizing their theft. BTW, I doubt I'll change anyone's mind, since the lure of taking whatever we want for free is quite powerful. But if I make one person think, and realize that when they steal even a pack of gum, the value of that pack of gum comes out of somebody's pocket, somebody who counted on the profit from that gum to help support his/her family. When a million people steal a pack of gum... well... I doubt any of y'all could afford such a loss from your own bank account. So my lot in life is to offer another perspective on this topic in the off-chance that someone, somewhere will eventually "get it." Tough job, but somebody has to do it!

Just because something isn't criminal and doesn't carry a 10-20 year sentence in San Quentin does not mean it is not illegal. Copyright infringement is illegal. Civil law is just as, well, legal as is criminal law. RIAA has brought several lawsuits, and has either won or negotiated settlements in all of them. Those settlements involve paying certain fees to a fund set up for artists on a per-download basis. This is a good thing. Except, of course, to those who believe they are entitled to anything they wish for free. RIAA has also gone beyond the internet distributors, and has brought lawsuits against selected individual users simply to prove that whether you steal little or you steal big, you still run the risk of being caught and being sued. This whole topic amazes me, actually. Most people who wouldn't dream of stealing a CD, video game or a book from the local mall seem to think it's their god-given right to take music, video games and books directly from the internet when frankly it's the same damned thing...stealing. Mock the word if you wish, that is still exactly what it is, stealing the work of others without paying for it. As one who supported herself solely from royalties for well over a decade, I find the all-too-prevalent attitude of entitlement as depressing, to say the least.

"Sharing things with friends" implies loaning a book, a video game, or a music CD one has legitimately purchased with a few personal friends. That is fine and legal (well, legal in the USA). However, if you take that book, video game and music CD, plop it out on the web and invite millions of people to share it, you are damaging those who own the rights to those items and who depend upon the legitimate sales of those items to make a living. That is not legal, and it's not okay.

I actually don't think there should have been an apology. Face it, just because insulting a prophet is against the law of a specific religion does not mean that said religion has a right to enforce its own laws upon those who are not of that religion. Which is, at its core, exactly what's going on here. As to the embassy burnings, I am so not surprised. At least they haven't kidnapped a few dozen ambassadors, planning to torture them for the next year and a half, as Iran did to ours. Still, I can empathize with the anger and indignation the people of Denmark, Norway and Sweden feel. Americans have seen all too many of their own embassies burned and bombed over the past few decades. I do not believe there is ever a legitimate reason for that kind of violence; however, my opinion on that has been in the minority in the past.

Yes, you are wrong. I am trying to decipher exactly what you are proposing within the small box of this particular topic, which in a nutshell is: Is it okay for people to riot, advocate violence and issue death threats when they feel insulted? Excellent. This still does not tell me the following: (1.) Do you believe any newspaper has the right to publish material that some segment of society may deem offensive? (2.) If some segment of society deems something printed by a newspaper offensive, does it have the right to riot, advocate violence, issue death threats, etc.? Not once have you given a straight answer to a direct question, not once in this thread. I simply do not know how to make myself any clearer than to ask the two questions above, which can each be answered either yes or no. An "anti-Muslim mob." You give yourself away with that comment, actually. Do you sincerely believe that anyone who either believes in freedom of the press is anti-Muslim? To you sincerely believe that anyone who does not support the advocation of violence and issuance of death threats is "anti-Muslim"? If you answer yes to both those questions, then the discussion is quite obviously over, since there clearly is not now nor will there ever be any common ground for which we could ever strive.

Colrom, I don't even know what you're rambling on about any more. The more you write, the less sense you make... (I've been accused of that myself!). The near universal agreement from this forum that expressing indignation and insult is okey, but advocating violence, kidnapping, even death, rioting, storming property and sticking guns in people's faces because one is insulted is not okay. In response, you print a whole bunch of insulting statements made by various political whack jobs... statements which, by the way, did not result in rioting, mass advocation of violence and death threat, storming property or sticking guns in people's faces. So the point of reprinting those silly statements was... what? I say again, you cannot convince me nor (in all probability) anyone else in this forum that it's perfectly okay for the Muslim community to response to their perceived insult by advocating violence, making death threats, rioting and sticking guns in people's faces. Nor can you take your religious tenants and force others to abide by them. Now if you can actually stick to why you feel you have the right to impose your religious laws upon others, and why the violence and death threats currently rampaging through various Muslim communities (although certainly not all) around the globe is okay, then please enlighen us as to your views. Otherwise, a post full of cliched sayings and silly quotes having nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand adds nothing to the discussion.

Really? You have studied these publications scrupulously, and know for a fact that they have never, ever printed any cartoons that ridiculed their Queen, Jews, or any other country, religion or group? More than likely they chose to mock and taunt Muslims in addition to all the other folks they have mocked and taunted with their prior political cartoons. But lemme ask you this: If you see cartoons caricaturing America, Americans, or America's president (as you no doubt see in just about every newspaper around the globe, including Muslim media), or see film of a group of Muslims burning American flags, burning mocking effigy's of American presidents, carrying signs screaming "Death to America" and other obvious insults, do you believe that Americans, having clearly been "mocked and taunted", now have the right to universally advocate violence against all Muslims in retaliation for the insult? Does American have the right to demand no nation, no group, no individual has a right to insult it, lest it suffer the wrath of violence and death? Or is such protection from insult reserved only for Muslims, hmm? You can see where I'm going with this, can you not? The double-standard is a trap all too many of us stumble into, particularly when we are personally offended. So, how are the death threats going? The storming of embassies, the militant groups threatening Danes (and Europeans in general if Danes can't be found) at gunpoint around the globe? Doing well, are they? Showing those folks the disregard they deserve, are they? So what kind of disregard do those who celebrate the misfortune of others, who mock, ricidule, protest and call for death of nations deserve? In America, we also realize that to assure our own freedoms we must protect the freedom of others, including our enemies. When the consequence of free speech is death, ala Salmon Rushie and the current screams for violence and death, then the speech is no longer free, is it? If you want to boycott Danish cheese, fine with me. If you want to advocate violence against anyone who buys Danish cheese, or who make Danish cheese, they you are no longer the protector of freedom, you are the destroyer of it. I've tried to express myself clearly and respectfully, with examples we might both we able to identify with. If I failed, eh, not the first time.

Sure!

An interesting one-sided blog (read, "commentary") on a site that admits being anti-RIAA, lest anyone confuse the link for actual news. Oddly enough, I cannot find a single news story on the web about this particular person's terrible abuse at the hands of RIAA. Perhaps someone mores skilled in the art of Googling can come up with something more factual, and less inflammatory. Me, I happen to think that people who break the law by stealing stuff that they are not entitled to should reap the consequence. If they are unjusticely accused, of course, then they should naturally pursue their own legal options. I also happen to think that those who rely on their own intellectual properties to earn a living have a right to be paid for those properties, even if a whole bunch of people think they personally have a right to enjoy them for free. *shrug* But then most folks know that about me.