Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:
Racist.

Try again. The word racist is a beat-stick which is a fantastic thing to use when bating people. My usage of that word given such an intent has no bearing on what I believe it means.

biccat wrote:
Also, the quoted segment actually is a complete sentence. Let me know if you need some help recognizing sentence structure. I had assumed that this was basic knowledge for someone of your supposed education, but I could be wrong in that assumption. I'm here to help.

No, you're wrong, as usual. There are 2 independent clauses, "I got kicked out 10 minutes later." and "I tracked down the owner..". Neither of these is dependent, and so the single sentence usage is not formally acceptable.

If you got through law school without knowing this, then I'm honestly shocked.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Racist.

Try again. The word racist is a beat-stick which is a fantastic thing to use when bating people. My usage of that word given such an intent has no bearing on what I believe it means.

So you were deliberately misusing a word in order to bait people.

A curious admission.

edit: Remainder of response snipped. I defer to your self assessment of your own poor writing style. Let it be known: Dogma has difficulty writing complete sentences, but has no problem recognizing what is (or is not) a complete sentence.

I seriously wish you two would just feth and get it over with.

KingCracker wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:This means that the government is not allowed to pass a law controlling distribution of video games by age, however it does not fetter parents, shopkeepers and ELSPA from denying 18+ titles to children.

I honestly think thats how it should be anyways. I laugh when parents get outraged when they find their kids playing a horribly graphic video game. 9 times out of 10, it was the parents themselves that paid for the damn thing. Maybe pay attention to your kid a bit more then, yayayayaya Im on the phone just put it in there.

In the UK it is illegal for a retailer to supply a BBFC rated title to an underage buyer, but parents still buy Grand Theft Auto (18+) for little Timmy aged nine.

daedalus wrote:

Hordini wrote:

lord commissar klimino wrote:

daedalus wrote:Hey guys! You remember that time OT had unnecessary snark?

yup. ahhh...annoying times.....

on topic i do think we need a rating system,and i dont trust all companies to do that.but i also do agree that the government needed to back off a little.

You know there already is a rating system in place, right? The ESRB has been around since like 1994.

And it's self regulated. The problem is the Tipper Gore types who don't think that's good enough.

you miss interpret me. i mean that if we let the companies have any freedom like that,some would try to not have a rating. the government giving them this freedom could end badly.

biccat wrote:
So you were deliberately misusing a word in order to bait people.

No, I was deliberately relaying a story regarding my life in college, and my proximal usage of a word for the purposes of bating.

You clearly didn't read my post.

biccat wrote:
edit: Remainder of response snipped. I defer to your self assessment of your own poor writing style. Let it be known: Dogma has difficulty writing complete sentences, but has no problem recognizing what is (or is not) a complete sentence.

I can choose to use an incomplete sentence if I believe doing so is worthwhile.

Read anything by Hemingway and you'll see the same thing.

If you went to law school, then your professors failed you.

Edit: Also, your deflection is weak. Including the word "poor" in a a supposed refutation?

Son, you need help with your debate skills, because even your sarcasm is terrible.

daedalus wrote:I seriously wish you two would just feth and get it over with.

or alternatively and more enjoyably, meet at dawn on a fog drenched meadow in New Orleans with whippy sticks at high salute.

Old school!

Porn, movies, and videogames are all legal to sell and they all have age restrictions on them. Retailers voluntarily enforce the age restriction to avoid disgruntled parents, in my store we don't sell rated M games to those under 17 and if they are under 17 we don't accept payment directly from them, it helps make sure that the parents were the responsible party in this purchase.

Children can't see a rated R movie without parents and of course children under 18 aren't allowed to view or purchase porn(same with rated R movies). But if you click on the 'yes I am over 18' button on the website it doesn't matter if you're twelve or 30, it's not like the porn police come to arrest you.

Music also comes with a 'parental discretion' label and again retailers try to put responsibility onto the parents for the innapropriate things their kids watch and play by making sure parents know if their children are buying a higher rated item.

lord commissar klimino wrote:

you miss interpret me. i mean that if we let the companies have any freedom like that,some would try to not have a rating. the government giving them this freedom could end badly.

Question mark. I do not think I've misinterpreted you. I fear you might not properly understand how this works. Probably my mistake for calling it 'self-regulated'. By that I didn't mean that the companies assign their own individual rating to each game. That's not the case. It's not real 'self-regulation' as it is 'industry-regulation'. The ESRB is a board established by the industry. It's made up of, and regulated by, all of the game companies. You send footage of the worst parts of gameplay to the ESRB (along with payment) and they have a panel review the game and assign rating based upon that. It's not a matter of Rockstar assigning whatever rating they prefer to GTA 16: Go-Kart Madness (or whatever they're up to now). It's a matter of an independent organization originally set up by their peers doing the evaluation. Big difference.

If we had a government body designed to regulate games, then we'd have Jack Thompson and Tipper Gore types scrambling to fill the ranks, screaming at us to "Think of the Children".

Also, the government not giving them this freedom could end just as badly. At the end of the day, I'd prefer for my world and the world of my hypothetical future children to not be obscured by bubblewrap.

halonachos wrote:Porn, movies, and videogames are all legal to sell and they all have age restrictions on them.

Porn is subject to state law.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
So you were deliberately misusing a word in order to bait people.

No, I was deliberately relaying a story regarding my life in college, and my proximal usage of a word for the purposes of bating.

I'm sorry, when you related the story, I had assumed that it was a true account. Did you actually misuse a word in order to bait someone, or was the story mere puffery?

dogma wrote:I can choose to use an incomplete sentence if I believe doing so is worthwhile.

Read anything by Hemingway and you'll see the same thing.

Like I said, I'm deferring to your self-assessment of your own poor writing style. Comparisons to Hemmingway is either deliberate self-aggrandizement or self-parody.

I would also note that most authors are not known for their grammatical ability. In fact, when is the last time you read a book that was really enjoyable because the author used proper grammar?

dogma wrote:If you went to law school, then your professors failed you.

You clearly don't know anything about legal curriculum. I'm not surprised as this generally comports with your knowledge in other areas.

dogma wrote:Edit: Also, your deflection is weak. Including the word "poor" in a a supposed refutation?

"Refutation"? What? I didn't refute anything, I deferred. Don't you teach others about the proper use of language? Admittedly, I understand that ability isn't necessary for a college teacher, but I had assumed that it was at least relevant.

dogma wrote:Son, you need help with your debate skills, because even your sarcasm is terrible.

I'm unclear. Are you sincerely but mistakenly accusing me of using sarcasm, or are you deliberately misusing a word in order to troll?

Given your previous post, it's becoming more and more difficult to understand when you're articulating a sincere point and when you're simply trolling.

I think I get this:

Dogma intentionally misused a word to provoke a reaction. He correctly related this misuse.

As for what is an isn't a complete sentence, that wasn't on the bar exam. I saw enough nouns and verbs to build several complete sentences as well as enough of a thought to qualify, but what do I know? I just write for a living.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:Porn, movies, and videogames are all legal to sell and they all have age restrictions on them.

Porn is subject to state law.

Sort of.

Obscenity is a matter of state law, but the limits of what isn't state law are up to SCOTUS and a ton of federal laws also regulate obscenity (mails in particular).

Pornography, as a legal category, ris really only useful with regards to "time, place, and manner" restrictions. A video of two people engaging in anal sex is pretty clearly pornography, but isn't obscenity, so it can't be banned outright. You could pass a law forbidding it's sale in supermarkets, or to children, but that's about it.

Just like child pornography is illegal, unless its fake children being used. One hell of a loophole that they should probably look at, actually I think they did and cited the first amendment. Stupid first amendment allowing perverts to get their kicks.

God I hate certain censorship laws.

biccat wrote:
I'm sorry, when you related the story, I had assumed that it was a true account. Did you actually misuse a word in order to bait someone, or was the story mere puffery?

This is terrible form. I never alluded to the story being a fabrication. I suppose you could claim it as such, but that would reneging on your claim of "poor use of the word racism". Again, using a word in order to produce a response is not the same as using a word in order to delineate its meaning.

The truth of the account has nothing to do with any criticism you have thus far levied. You're reaching, an you're doing it badly.

biccat wrote:
Like I said, I'm deferring to your self-assessment of your own poor writing style. Comparisons to Hemmingway is either deliberate self-aggrandizement or self-parody.

Or accurate. People use incomplete sentences all the time, especially on the internet where writing is an expression of speaking.

Hell, the second of your two sentences phrased here is not complete.

biccat wrote:
I would also note that most authors are not known for their grammatical ability. In fact, when is the last time you read a book that was really enjoyable because the author used proper grammar?

Says the man obsessed with common definitions.

If you want an answer to your question, then yuo must specify what you consider proper grammar to be. I suspect its something like "What I like." but you might surprise me.

biccat wrote:
You clearly don't know anything about legal curriculum. I'm not surprised as this generally comports with your knowledge in other areas.

If you cannot recognize basic sentence structure, then any knowledge you purport to have regarding a discipline based on sentence structure is subject to criticism. I would go further than this in most cases, as you have demonstrated that you are ignorant of nearly everything political.

biccat wrote:
"Refutation"? What? I didn't refute anything, I deferred. Don't you teach others about the proper use of language? Admittedly, I understand that ability isn't necessary for a college teacher, but I had assumed that it was at least relevant.

To refute a thing is to dispute a thing. You can claim technical deference by way of your words in exactly the same way that I can defer to your experience with the incompetent.

biccat wrote:
I'm unclear. Are you sincerely but mistakenly accusing me of using sarcasm, or are you deliberately misusing a word in order to troll?

Given your previous post, it's becoming more and more difficult to understand when you're articulating a sincere point and when you're simply trolling.

You trolled me, son. Also, I don't like you because you say things which lack sense. As a result, I tend to mock you in subtle, and not so subtle. ways.

Either way, no, I used the word "sarcam" correctly. You really need to pay more attention to language. You stated a thing which was intended to be satirical, and cutting, that means it was sarcastic.

Try again.

halonachos wrote:Just like child pornography is illegal, unless its fake children being used. One hell of a loophole that they should probably look at, actually I think they did and cited the first amendment. Stupid first amendment allowing perverts to get their kicks.

God I hate certain censorship laws.

Child porn isn't prohibited under obscenity, for fairly obvious yet creepy reasons: most people find sexually mature minors to be sexually appealing. laws governing pre-pubescents might be ok under obscenity, but there's nothing really purient in looking at a naked 15 year old, at least biologically.

Child porn is prohibited based on the idea that it's production inherently involves abuse of children, and thus it's all essentially the product of a crime. And given that demand for that product increases the abuse, it's a pretty defensible legal argument.

Allowing bans of fake children would be banning something, not based on the known exact method of production, but on content. And it's hard to ban content.

<monitoring engaged; broadcast mode active: enough with the off-topic bickering and sniping at other users>

Kilkrazy wrote:This means that the government is not allowed to pass a law controlling distribution of video games by age, however it does not fetter parents, shopkeepers and ELSPA from denying 18+ titles to children.

It makes it much harder for parents to control what games their kids play. If a kid needs a parent present to buy a game in the store, then the parent is able to offer his consent or non-consent to buying that game. If the kid can just go in and buy it himself, it becomes much harder to oversee what a kid buys.

That's really the point of age restrictions. It basically gives parents the ability to control what games their kids are buying.

Which is basically what you guys have over there now. It's just weird that you okay companies to decide the line, and ban governments from deciding it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:Just like child pornography is illegal, unless its fake children being used. One hell of a loophole that they should probably look at, actually I think they did and cited the first amendment.

It's something you have to be careful with. Here in Australia there was a big contraversy with Ken Park, a film by Larry Clark. It had sex scenes with adult actors who were playing kids in the movie. By Australian law sex scenes with actors who are playing minors are illegal, and so the film was banned from being shown in Australia.

I don't want to see Ken Park, as I saw the director's previous effort, Bully, and thought that was pretty skeevy and exploitative, but I think that's up to me and not government. ULtimately, sex and underage sex are important issues and ones that should be explored in film, and it may be necessary to show sex in order to set the tone properly. The law we have, and the law you're suggesting, risks having genuine art banned.

Meh, Belgium is the game country of the world.... The age limits are only used as guidelines...(so...no-one looks at it.)

Games are never censored or 'gored down'....But then again almost never translated in dutch.

Exeptions are their ofcourse for "explicite games".... But if your a teenager, you can buy it.

I remember buying my first 18+ game at the age of twelve for the old ps1.

I honestly don't see the fuzz of restricting it like America did. But this may be because i grew up with an 'open' game market.

According to the result of this case...

http://www.animenewsnetwork.co.uk/news/2009-05-20/christopher-handley-pleads-guilty-to-possession-charges

cartoon "child porn" is banned under obscenity laws while being allowed by freedom of speech.

It is a very confusing situation which probably arises from the general public unease surrounding the topic of adolescent sexuality.

The difference between games and porn is that the Game industry has taken the action of policing itself. There isn't much of a point in a law to do what the industry already does willingly.

I'll also point out that the California law, was hyper-redundant. The games that it sought to ban are for the most part already banned (Postal for example is one of the few games I think meets its standard but that game isn't sold in stores as it has an AO rating, the VG death sentence). Very few games are actually that violent. Worse can be seen in some PG-13 movies.

I'll also point out (again) no one observes restrictions against porn. That went out the window with the advent of the internet. Restricting media in the manner that we used to be able to do, is no longer possible. Laws to do such are almost as pointless as laws against drug use now.

Kilkrazy wrote:According to the result of this case...

http://www.animenewsnetwork.co.uk/news/2009-05-20/christopher-handley-pleads-guilty-to-possession-charges

cartoon "child porn" is banned under obscenity laws while being allowed by freedom of speech.

It is a very confusing situation which probably arises from the general public unease surrounding the topic of adolescent sexuality.

Yeah, it could still be obscene. Not all child porn is obscene, and not all obscenity would qualify under the child porn exception to the 1st Amendment.

Now, I'd bet lunch that this guy plead out to a very light sentence. Nobody wants this thing to go to trial. The guy will spend a fortune in legal fees to eventually win at the SCOTUS level. Meanwhile, the government will have a law struck down, or at least heavily modified.

the best thing to do here is to give a plea deal for a light sentence, and call it a win.

Well, the actual best thing would be to not spend time and resources prosecuting guys with dirty cartoons, but given the policies of the last president, that wasn't likely.

So CP is legal as long as its not obscene? Great, personally shouldn't all depictions of sexual acts with minors count as CP?

I guess they have to draw the line somewhere or every parent who's ever taken a picture of their baby while getting a bath would be labeled as CP.(Example, the stereotype of the mother showing a son's girlfriend a picture of his rear when he was a baby).

I don't know though, its a thin line from obscene and family photo I guess.

halonachos wrote:So CP is legal as long as its not obscene? Great, personally shouldn't all depictions of sexual acts with minors count as CP?

I guess they have to draw the line somewhere or every parent who's ever taken a picture of their baby while getting a bath would be labeled as CP.(Example, the stereotype of the mother showing a son's girlfriend a picture of his rear when he was a baby).

I don't know though, its a thin line from obscene and family photo I guess.

Now, CP is illegal regarless of if it is obscene.

the two exclusions are seperate, meaning that even non-obscene CP is illegal, but, as seen in the referenced case, artificial depictions of minors that are not CP can still be found obscene.

And yes, the line between family phot and CP is one argued by a lot. I'm not an expert, but IIRC the law usually requires some sexual content or intent. But certainly don't quote me on that. For example, medical texts can include pictures of pre-pubsecent genetalia.

Yes? No?

The law was silly, and would have been embarrassing if it would have been passed.

of course this couldnt have been passed when i was 14... now im 19 and its useless!

dajobe wrote:of course this couldnt have been passed when i was 14... now im 19 and its useless!

It wouldn't have had any effect on you, anyway - this was a California law, and it's been "on hold" since it passed, owing to the significant chance of the law being unconstitutional...as it has proven to be.

i guess that is true, even if i was 14...i just got lawyered...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
which is a How I met Your mother term for oursmarted

dajobe wrote:i guess that is true, even if i was 14...i just got lawyered...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
which is a How I met Your mother term for oursmarted

Even still its a voluntary thing for most places.


So its just the imaginary CP stuff that depends on whether or not its obscene then. The definition of obscene is fuzzy though isn't it? I don't know but I can imagine that some people have argued out of some fake PC charges.

In the USA, the definition of obscene isn't clear, legally.

Kilkrazy wrote:In the USA, the definition of obscene isn't clear, legally.

I vote we do some experimentation; you grease up the ferrets and I'll prod the badger...