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.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Wait so now you're saying Italy, Spain, Germany, and France aren't developed states? The top two strongest members of the EU aren't developed?

What armed revolution happened in any of those states in the last 50 years? Stop confusing the modern status of these states with their past.

Armed revolution, civil war, coup, and military dictatorship:
Germany: That whole Hitler thing and the horror of Euro disco music.
Italy: 1) Mussolini Fascist dictatorship. 2) Quasi war against internal communists in the 50s and 60s.http://www.nationalcoldwarexhibition.org/explore/country.cfm?country=Italy
Greece: Quasi war against internal communists in 50s and 60s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Civil_War
France: attempted coup by the Legion to stop the giving up of colonies. 1961

 Frazzled wrote:
Germany: That whole Hitler thing and the horror of Euro disco music.

Euro disco... Ew. Hitler didn't take over Germany by armed force and no citizens took up arms against him. Hitler seized the government by popular support. And not in the last 50 years.

Italy: 1) Mussolini Fascist dictatorship. 2) Quasi war against internal communists in the 50s and 60s.http://www.nationalcoldwarexhibition.org/explore/country.cfm?country=Italy

No one in their right mind would even suggest Italy was a developed state until at least the late 1970's. Kind of goes along with rampant political, social, and economic insanity.

Greece: Quasi war against internal communists in 50s and 60s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Civil_War

Still not sure why you're bring up Greece. They haven't been developed or first world, or anything comparable to the rest of these states you list since 100 BC and Greece wasn't really a state then either. And lets not even get into how a quasi-war is called a quasi-war instead of a war.

France: attempted coup by the Legion to stop the giving up of colonies. 1961

Oh no, post-World War II France suffered from a rapid decline in world status and military power coupled with a crippled economy and the De Gaul years (shiver) and suffered political instability for it? My god... Its almost unlike their state collapsed. Good job though. You found something in the last 50 years (technically 52 but we'll round down) thus proving me wrong and clearly there's no point in suggesting that France in 1961 may not be the same state it is today in the EU and clearly the Legion could try and take over again at any moment. Lets hope the Parisians have enough guns to stop the impending apocalypse.

So to summarize your statement:
Only Germany appears to be a first world country, and that doesn't count either because WWII is like, a long time ago, like before the first IPAD which is like when dinosaurs were around like you know. .

 Frazzled wrote:
So to summarize your statement:
The political, social, and economic status of a state fluctuates over time and contrary to common belief, much of Europe suffered hard times into the mid-20th century, marked by rampant political and economic uncertainty that the United States hadn't endured since the turn of the century.

Yes. Frazzles. You're completely correct. Isn't history grand?

 LordofHats wrote:

Yes. Frazzles. You're completely correct. Isn't history grand?

Actually, if I parcel it out, I think at UT History is about two grand if you include dorm costs and books. of wait!

To the topic, if it can happen there, it can happen here.

 LordofHats wrote:

Greece: Quasi war against internal communists in 50s and 60s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Civil_War

Still not sure why you're bring up Greece. They haven't been developed or first world, or anything comparable to the rest of these states you list since 100 BC and Greece wasn't really a state then either. And lets not even get into how a quasi-war is called a quasi-war instead of a war.

Actually, according to the UN Greece is a developed nation, more so then Russia. It actually ranked 29th in the world. Guess who ranked 28th? The UK.

Bah, the UN and I have never gotten along . I will never define a country facing the complete and utter political and economic uncertainty of Greece as being developed. The UK endured the events of the 20th century far better than any other European state by leaps and bounds.

 LordofHats wrote:
Bah, the UN and I have never gotten along . I will never define a country facing the complete and utter political and economic uncertainty of Greece as being developed. The UK endured the events of the 20th century far better than any other European state by leaps and bounds.

I'd proffer Switzerland and Norway disagree with that. Curse you Swiss and your awesome rolls!!!

Seaward wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
It's almost like special interests will advance their interests at the expense of all others to the point of contradiction.

What exactly is the pro-gun movement being contradictory about?

The pro-gun movement wants to keep their rights to guns uninhibited for the sake of protecting themselves from a tyrannical government whilst simultaneously suggesting that free speech be limited by that government.

That's what it looks like when you turn the irony up to 11.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
It's almost like special interests will advance their interests at the expense of all others to the point of contradiction.

What exactly is the pro-gun movement being contradictory about?

The pro-gun movement wants to keep their rights to guns uninhibited for the sake of protecting themselves from a tyrannical government whilst simultaneously suggesting that free speech be limited by that government.

That's what it looks like when you turn the irony up to 11.

Who's suggesting free speech be limited by the government, and how?

Well let's look at what they said, huh, I don't see any advocation of a government ban or censorship on free speech in any way. I see a plea aimed towards the entertainment industry to please think of the children when they create products that are violent, but nowhere does it ask for government intervention.

For a movement that is usually proud of its reading comprehension in comparison to its opponents they really dropped the ball in this thread.

 Frazzled wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Bah, the UN and I have never gotten along . I will never define a country facing the complete and utter political and economic uncertainty of Greece as being developed. The UK endured the events of the 20th century far better than any other European state by leaps and bounds.

I'd proffer Switzerland and Norway disagree with that. Curse you Swiss and your awesome rolls!!!

I'll amend my statement to former Imperialist powers then (unless Norway and Switzerland had empires no one ever told me about XD)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Who's suggesting free speech be limited by the government, and how?

The document in the Op suggests censoring violence from media will reduce gun crime. Which is silly on its face but censorship is censorship

So much fail in this thread.

Also thanks for painting me and a feth ton of other 2A advocates with the "blanket" brush d-usa. I guess I'll stop protesting the patriot act, NDAA, and the president's on going and illegal drone war so I can be in step with everyone else. *rolls eyes*

 Ratbarf wrote:
Well let's look at what they said, huh, I don't see any advocation of a government ban or censorship on free speech in any way. I see a plea aimed towards the entertainment industry to please think of the children when they create products that are violent, but nowhere does it ask for government intervention.

For a movement that is usually proud of its reading comprehension in comparison to its opponents they really dropped the ball in this thread.

"Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged."

How exactly do they plan on discouraging it? Ignoring that this is a blatant plea for censorship, either by self choice or law, it's a clear call that they don't think this form of expression is valid on a faulty scientific basis. Which is kind of dumb.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Bah, the UN and I have never gotten along . I will never define a country facing the complete and utter political and economic uncertainty of Greece as being developed. The UK endured the events of the 20th century far better than any other European state by leaps and bounds.

I'd proffer Switzerland and Norway disagree with that. Curse you Swiss and your awesome rolls!!!

I'll amend my statement to former Imperialist powers then (unless Norway and Switzerland had empires no one ever told me about XD)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Who's suggesting free speech be limited by the government, and how?

The document in the Op suggests censoring violence from media will reduce gun crime. Which is silly on its face but censorship is censorship

if the government does it, its censorship. If a public campaign and parents do it, its not.

As for empires - do the Vikings count?

To be fair to Frazzled, it is true that France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece have all suffered militaristic coups, attempted coups or dictatorships in the past 90 years.

Then again, many other European states such as the UK, the Low Countries, and Scandinavia, have not.

It clearly isn't a simple matter of have guns == freedom/have no guns == slavery.

For one thing, if criminals can always get weapons even if illegal, why would they side with the tyrannical government that suppresses them?

As well, logically, a legally or illegally armed populace can split and form sides in support of and against a tyrannical government. See the USA, Mexico, the USA, Libya, Greece, and other examples.

The document in the Op suggests censoring violence from media will reduce gun crime. Which is silly on its face but censorship is censorship

if the government does it, its censorship. If a public campaign and parents do it, its not.

As for empires - do the Vikings count?

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
Well let's look at what they said, huh, I don't see any advocation of a government ban or censorship on free speech in any way. I see a plea aimed towards the entertainment industry to please think of the children when they create products that are violent, but nowhere does it ask for government intervention.

For a movement that is usually proud of its reading comprehension in comparison to its opponents they really dropped the ball in this thread.

"Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged."

How exactly do they plan on discouraging it? Ignoring that this is a blatant plea for censorship, either by self choice or law, it's a clear call that they don't think this form of expression is valid on a faulty scientific basis. Which is kind of dumb.

Since it does not ask for a law or any kind of government action on this it's a plea for self censorship, so it has nothing whatsoever that is against the first amendment unlike what various people have been espousing in this thread.

I agree with you on the dumb part, but the fact that the statement is dumb does not make it anti first amendment.

Self-censorship is how the system works at the moment. There is no legal censorship of films or games. The producers operate a voluntary code to classify them into age groups.

Yet the Special Forces guys are calling for more restrictions on films and games in order to curb the rising tide of violence.

Thus, either the SF guys are ignorant, or they are calling for legal action.

They aren't even calling for restrictions, they call for a discouraging of their being produced. Again, no call for any kind of legal intervention. Y'all are essentially putting words in their mouths.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Thus, either the SF guys are ignorant, or they are calling for legal action.

Or ignorantly calling for legal action without realizing it

But I feel like that entire section was just randomly thrown in there. Even a cursory look at the subject reveals that the issue is very hotly debated, with studies going both ways. Calling it in one direction while ignoring the other side is rather poor form.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratbarf wrote:
Y'all are essentially putting words in their mouths.

Or following the implication to a reasonable conclusion. Of course, we all realize the industry itself will never swear off violence. So the only way that'll ever happen is if a law is made (but of course that's not happening either. Violence makes too much money).

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:



So much fail in this thread.

Also thanks for painting me and a feth ton of other 2A advocates with the "blanket" brush d-usa. I guess I'll stop protesting the patriot act, NDAA, and the president's on going and illegal drone war so I can be in step with everyone else. *rolls eyes*

I did say "a lot", not all, and going by the people I know. Using my scientific Facebook poll I used to have 4 people protesting all that stuff instead of the 25 "protect the bill of rights" folks that show up now. If you do a search in the OT you will find that a lot of the defenders of the bill-o-rights here are okay with the patriot act, NDAA, etc...

Again, that's why I didn't say "everybody".

 LordofHats wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratbarf wrote:
Y'all are essentially putting words in their mouths.

Or following the implication to a reasonable conclusion. Of course, we all realize the industry itself will never swear off violence. So the only way that'll ever happen is if a law is made (but of course that's not happening either. Violence makes too much money).

You see it isn't reasonable conclusion that they are referring to legal action because that would be against the 1st amendment and they are very dedicated to protecting the constitution.

Plus, discouraged in this sense likely means more along the lines of people should be discouraged from buying Apple Products. No stated intention of legal intervention, yet under your paradigm I'm calling for a legal ban on everything Apple.

Legal action actually would be the most likely result of such a call. Nothing says stop what your doing and change your ways like a multi-million dollar law suit

But then we all know that's probably never gonna work either.

So really the vets are just spewing... Whatever it is their spewing.

So every time someone says discourage you immediately jump to a legal ban or legal action of some kind?

See above picture.

 Ratbarf wrote:
So every time someone says discourage you immediately jump to a legal ban or legal action of some kind?

I like living in the real world. Want media to stop producing violent content? Pass a law to the effect. Only way in hell that'll ever happen (of course such a law will never pass, so really they're just blowing out air but the entire thing kind of comes off that way a little bit).

But what do I know. I'm just sitting here typing with one hand and trying to reach 100 with a paddle ball.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
So every time someone says discourage you immediately jump to a legal ban or legal action of some kind?

I like living in the real world. Want media to stop producing violent content? Pass a law to the effect. Only way in hell that'll ever happen (of course such a law will never pass, so really they're just blowing out air but the entire thing kind of comes off that way a little bit).

But what do I know. I'm just sitting here typing with one hand and trying to reach 100 with a paddle ball.

Maybe they were speaking more towards things like parents actually policing what their children are subjected to. Limiting the amount of time on said games, or watching violent tv and movies.

Now, I'm just guessing here, much like you, but given that these people are more then likely of the conservative cut, that's where I'd think they'd be most likely to go thar route. I'm just speaking from my own point of view, since I feel it's the parents responsibility to care for their children, and not the governments.

One of my favorite parts of the thread is that some folks feel:

The 2nd Amendment is outdated/old fashioned/can't work and should be done away with. It is good and proper to limit weapon types and magazine capacity.


AND feel that the 1st Amendment, written to protect POLITICAL speech, obviously covers kids video games which already have a Gov't imposed rating system which is supposed to limit who can buy them.

Just because YOU feel Big Gov't Regulation is The Answer to every problem you shouldn't assume others feel the same way. I suspect the author of that document would love the video game companies to police themselves up without more Federa involvement and would want parents to do their jobs.


Also, want to throw in a plug for a relevant book to the topic, "On Killing" by a (now retired) LTC Grossman, discusses the evolution of training which enables a very high percentage of troops to pull a trigger on another human in combat compared to WW2, and then goes and discusses how modern video games mirror some of the methods but do so without the 'laws of war' and other decision making tools and lessons on ethics/ROE the soldiers are given. It is an interesting read.

Frazzled wrote:if the government does it, its censorship. If a public campaign and parents do it, its not.

No, that's still censorship. It's just not state-sponsored censorship.

djones520 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
So every time someone says discourage you immediately jump to a legal ban or legal action of some kind?

I like living in the real world. Want media to stop producing violent content? Pass a law to the effect. Only way in hell that'll ever happen (of course such a law will never pass, so really they're just blowing out air but the entire thing kind of comes off that way a little bit).

But what do I know. I'm just sitting here typing with one hand and trying to reach 100 with a paddle ball.

Maybe they were speaking more towards things like parents actually policing what their children are subjected to. Limiting the amount of time on said games, or watching violent tv and movies.

Now, I'm just guessing here, much like you, but given that these people are more then likely of the conservative cut, that's where I'd think they'd be most likely to go thar route. I'm just speaking from my own point of view, since I feel it's the parents responsibility to care for their children, and not the governments.

Nope. here's the quote as a refresher:

5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.

They are clearly not saying "limit the consumption of violent media". They are very clearly implying the limitation to its production.

Oh yes, and traditionally, the conservatives in the US do not lean towards parents policing what their children are subjected to... they tend to lean towards themselves policing what all children are subjected to. As demonstrated by virtually every complaint made to the FCC in the last 20 years.

CptJake wrote:
OAND feel that the 1st Amendment, written to protect POLITICAL speech, obviously covers kids video games which already have a Gov't imposed rating system which is supposed to limit who can buy them.

A.) We don't "feel" that way. It's not a matter of opinion. It is a fact that video games are protected art under the first amendment, as evinced by the near-unanimous rulings of nearly every court that has ever ruled on video game related legislation, including of course the court that matters most.

B.) The ratings system is not government imposed. It's wholly voluntary, and created by the industry, just like the MPAA is voluntary and created by their industry. Neither board has even a tenuous link to the government.

Seriously, read a little before you form an opinion.