Democrats are really starting to bug me...

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 29, 2005, 4:50 pm

WTF is with things like this:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/entertai ... arp26.html

Al Shapton telling the FCC to crack down on violent lyrics...

and this:

http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=7660

Hillary also joins right wing politicians in crying over violent video games such as GTA.

Is this some sort of new strategy to try to make them seem like they have morals? I can tell you it's pissing me off at least...

I'm not mentioning Jesse Jackson and Terri Shiavo because perhaps that transcends politics so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt before calling him a sellout.

Hillary and Al can go to hell for wanting to impinge on our first ammendment rights.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 29, 2005, 4:58 pm

Yes. It's downright awful how they would want to keep filthy lyrics glorifying violence, rape, crime and profanity away from young children.

It's just downright awful how they would want to keep away games like GTA which glorifies violence and crime, from young children.

Those assholes!

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 29, 2005, 4:59 pm

That's not their job, it's MY job. I can say that as a parent...

She wants a $90 million investigation to be launched into the impact of games and other electronic media on the "cognitive, social, emotional and physical development" of children, according to a Sunday Times report.

This might be a good thing, but I don't see why the government should pay for it. I believe each child is different and we should not be all parenting from the same book each time. I'm also sure this study would not be impartial. =P

Parents should be using their own best judgement, not Congress/Senate's.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » March 29, 2005, 5:02 pm

I'm pretty liberal, I think people should have the right to choose what they want to watch, listen too, purchase etc...

I also think parents need to be better informed and that SHOULD start with the parents. I don't buy into all the "we didn't know" crap...

That being said however I don't see what the harm is with lables or ratings. Maybe I'm wrong but we have ratings on movies? It helps people gague what and what not to watch. As long as that is what it's being used for I'm ok... and for the artist sometimes it actually increases sales. I don't think they should be banned though, artist need their creative freedom. If people don't want it, they can speak with the wallets.

Marb

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 29, 2005, 5:02 pm

Lohrno wrote:That's not their job, it's MY job. I can say that as a parent...

As a parent, if my child is not allowed to purchase, on his own, a violent game or CD until the age of 18...I am fine with that. How does that hurt you? How does that damage your ability to parent? If I decide to buy my child those CD's or games, then you are right it is MY CHOICE, not my childs.....got it? See there are two sides to every position.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 29, 2005, 5:06 pm

its normal to have movies *Restricted* to certain age ranges. what is different about music and games? the reason legislation has not existed for them is because they represent relatively recent phenomena.

If you want your kid to have GTA at age 10, get off your ass and buy it for him, or order it online. its not hard.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 29, 2005, 5:08 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Lohrno wrote:That's not their job, it's MY job. I can say that as a parent...
As a parent, if my child is not allowed to purchase, on his own, a violent game or CD until the age of 18...I am fine with that. How does that hurt you? How does that damage your ability to parent? If I decide to buy my child those CD's or games, then you are right it is MY CHOICE, not my childs.....got it? See there are two sides to every position.

Well, then perhaps if you want to regulate that you shouldn't be letting them loose with cash in the mall...

If however I am okay with whatever they should purchase, I don't see why I should always have to hold their hand while they access content on their own.

This can only lead to regulation of video games...Which would lead later to more regulation...etc. Especially with the current political environment, I am very worried.

If even ratings are enforced, it could lead to a decline in sales, and self-censorship just for the sake of ratings. I think this is bad.

Marbus: Currently there is an ESRB (Entertainment Software Ratings Board I think). Stores already willingly regulate who they sell certain games to. (A practice with which I don't totally agree.)

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 29, 2005, 5:09 pm

Voronwë wrote:its normal to have movies *Restricted* to certain age ranges. what is different about music and games? the reason legislation has not existed for them is because they represent relatively recent phenomena.

Yes I disagree with that too. If I want to let a 14 year old son of go watch Texas Chainsaw Massacre because I know he's mature enough, I don't see why I should be told I can't and have to be there with him.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » March 29, 2005, 5:58 pm

Should we lower the drinking age to 14 as well?

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 29, 2005, 5:59 pm

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but no. 19 maybe...There is a lot of evidence that drinking as a kid can inhibit development.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » March 29, 2005, 6:05 pm

Personally I don't think there should be a drinking age at all. Given it would suck for the first generation of kids because the stigmatism would still be there but if we made it less of a "big deal" like it is now I think much of the problem would eventually correct itself.

How many people do you know drink a case of cokes or even a 12 pack in one sitting? No many. If we treated alcohol like they do in europe where it wasn't such a big deal I think things would be better.

And yes I know about the ratings and I'm good with that. If they want to see what it violent games do let someone ask for a grant, there should be more than enough money for Psych research unless Bushie and his cronies cut it all to fund Iraq. I'm not sure I agree with creating new grants though unless that is actually what he is done... which may very well be the case.

Marb

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » March 29, 2005, 6:21 pm

Lohrno wrote:
Voronwë wrote:its normal to have movies *Restricted* to certain age ranges. what is different about music and games? the reason legislation has not existed for them is because they represent relatively recent phenomena.
Yes I disagree with that too. If I want to let a 14 year old son of go watch Texas Chainsaw Massacre because I know he's mature enough, I don't see why I should be told I can't and have to be there with him.

Personally i think that letting anyone see the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, no matter what age, are borderline physical torture and should be punished by sweeping streets for a month.

But yes, i dont mind a rating system on games, like they got on movies. That make it up to the parents (oh gosh, something called responsibility, not only letting the school raise your kids, horrible thought) to decide what they want their kids to see/listen to. Of course you cant avoid everything, but there are really no reason to let a 5 year old play XXXX (what was the name, game with a killer having to kill people for some nutjobs snuff movies, boring and only made for the violence).
On the other hand, since the 40'es, every conventient media have been accused of making young people go nuts. I wonder if its not more something about generations, kids not being like their parents.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 29, 2005, 6:23 pm

I think you're referring to Manhunt....

This all really bugs me mostly because it's a step in the wrong direction. We are stepping away from a society that allows the free exchange of ideas. How long will it be if they conclude that games do have that they decide that certain games can not be sold at all?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 29, 2005, 6:59 pm

Lohrno wrote:I think you're referring to Manhunt....

This all really bugs me mostly because it's a step in the wrong direction. We are stepping away from a society that allows the free exchange of ideas. How long will it be if they conclude that games do have that they decide that certain games can not be sold at all?

/sigh

FIRE !!!!! FIRE !!!!!!! FIRE !!!!!

Overexageration is annoying.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 29, 2005, 7:03 pm

I don't think it's unwarranted at this point. Some of the top Democrats are SUPPORTING these ideas. Who should I turn to now to protect my rights?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 29, 2005, 7:08 pm

Lohrno wrote:I don't think it's unwarranted at this point. Some of the top Democrats are SUPPORTING these ideas. Who should I turn to now to protect my rights?

What rights have you lost retard? See I try to be fucking nice to you but you ask such dumb questions and take such moronic stances, I can't fucking take it.

What right have you lost or will lose by making it harder for children to purchase violent games and music? Heres a hint for you....NONE.

Save your fucking energy for when/if it ever happens they are actually considerign legislation that will affect your rights. Stop screaming FIRE!!! in a theater, it's annoying and fucking stupid.

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » March 29, 2005, 7:08 pm

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD= ... =461&rfi=9

I have no idea how reputable that publication is, and it is an opinion piece.

Having said that, the article throws out some interesting statistics. Yes, I know, a good number cruncher can make the numbers say whatever they want. But if the statistics mentioned are more or less accurate, I have to wonder if legislation is really necessary.

From the article:

The video-game industry voluntarily set up a rating system to guide parents and young consumers. Vendors are supposed to require proof of age before selling M-rated games to anyone under 17. Some of the largest retailers don't even carry adult-only games. And, according to an industry survey, the average age of a video-game player is 30 and the average age of a buyer is 36. When the buyer is a minor, parents are involved in the purchase 83% of the time.

It seems the me the industry is already doing a fairly good job of regulating itself. As long as they continue with their own rating system, and that system is accurate, I don't think the government needs to be involved.

To the parents. Be involved in your kids life. Know what they are doing, what games they are playing. Pay attention to what games they want you to buy them. If there is a certain type of game you don't want them playing don't let them get them. Talk to their friends parents, make sure they are aware that you don't want your child playing violent games. This really isn't a difficult issue, and it has gotten far more attention from the press than it deserves.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 29, 2005, 7:11 pm

Kargyle wrote:To the parents. Be involved in your kids life. Know what they are doing, what games they are playing. Pay attention to what games they want you to buy them. If there is a certain type of game you don't want them playing don't let them get them. Talk to their friends parents, make sure they are aware that you don't want your child playing violent games. This really isn't a difficult issue, and it has gotten far more attention from the press than it deserves.

Exactly. This is a waste of time and money as well as a step in the wrong direction...

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » March 29, 2005, 7:27 pm

Umm their previous presidential pick was named Gore, as in Tipper Gore, head of the PMRC, as in the tribunal that harassed Rock and Roll in the 80's.

Thank God for John Denver, Frank Zappa and Dee Schneider! What a fucked up superhero team that was!

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » March 29, 2005, 7:56 pm

Kylere wrote:Thank God for John Denver, Frank Zappa and Dee Schneider! What a fucked up superhero team that was!

Despite appearances, all of them are\were very intelligent and not at all what Tipper was expecting.

She wants a $90 million investigation to be launched into the impact of games and other electronic media on the "cognitive, social, emotional and physical development" of children, according to a Sunday Times report.

What does this have to do with your rights?

Yes it's your job as a parent to select this sort of thing. Decently implemented ratings are a guide for parents when selecting things they have no clue about. I think they're even more approriate for games and music than they are for a movies myself.

Lowering the age for the purchase of alchohol to 18 would be a decent idea. Removing the limits for consumption completely would likely solve more problems than it causes in the long term.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » March 29, 2005, 10:14 pm

Aabidano wrote:
Kylere wrote:Thank God for John Denver, Frank Zappa and Dee Schneider! What a fucked up superhero team that was!
Despite appearances, all of them are\were very intelligent and not at all what Tipper was expecting.

Exactly!

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » March 29, 2005, 10:27 pm

Kylere wrote:Umm their previous presidential pick was named Gore, as in Tipper Gore, head of the PMRC, as in the tribunal that harassed Rock and Roll in the 80's.

Thank God for John Denver, Frank Zappa and Dee Schneider! What a fucked up superhero team that was!

Frank Zappa fucking SMOKED the Senate committee that Tipper headed up, then wrote an album about it...Frank Zappa Meets The Mothers Of Prevention

nobody · Post by **nobody** » March 29, 2005, 10:41 pm

my guitar wants to kill your mama! my guitar wants to burn your dad!

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » March 30, 2005, 1:58 am

hmm, supporting reaserch for this is okay, as long as they dont try to take away our 1st amendment rights to view/listen to whatever we want...im very dissapointed in Al Sharpton, but with Jackson i can somewhat understand, Terri Shiavo debate isnt really an issue of freedom, but an issue of custody,
god forbid that anything like that were to happent o my parents or future kids i would fight or do whatever is necessary to pull the cord and end that torture of a miserable exsistence, of course i would prefer a lethal injection then watching them starve to death, guess we can thank once again the conservative religious fanatics for that one,

and for the record, tom delay is a fucking douchebag...pray every night that hipocritical asshole never becomes president

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 30, 2005, 2:01 am

Xzion wrote:hmm, supporting reaserch for this is okay, as long as they dont try to take away our 1st amendment rights to view/listen to whatever we want...

The first step in doing that would be creating compelling research to back up your claim. I can't see this going anywhere good.

im very dissapointed in Al Sharpton, but with Jackson i can somewhat understand, Terri Shiavo debate isnt really an issue of freedom, but an issue of custody,

Yeah I'm pretty sure that that lands out of the realm of politics and into that of philosophy.

and for the record, tom delay is a fucking douchebag...pray every night that hipocritical asshole never becomes president

Yes, yes he is.

Mak · Post by **Mak** » March 30, 2005, 4:19 am

Lohrno wrote:If however I am okay with whatever they should purchase, I don't see why I should always have to hold their hand while they access content on their own.

Lohrno wrote:If I want to let a 14 year old son of go watch Texas Chainsaw Massacre because I know he's mature enough, I don't see why I should be told I can't and have to be there with him.

Feel free to put some effort into being a parent. By all means, disguise your lazy parenting skills as something desirable and progressive.

There's nothing wrong with needing and wanting help as a parent. It's so very easy to say something inane like, "Just pay attention to what they watch/play/listen to." Well, it's not that easy. To do that you'd have to hound your child 24/7, give them absolutely ZERO privacy, and essentially turn into one of those "jesus crispies" Jice likes to masturbate over. There's a fine line between "letting your kids do as they please" (obviously the method you subscribe to), having an interest in what kids are exposed to and setting limits, and dogging them into an early psychotic state. Most people choose the middle option- and for them a little help, from some regulation as simple and benign as a warning label, is a huge help.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 30, 2005, 10:04 am

Mak wrote: There's nothing wrong with needing and wanting help as a parent. It's so very easy to say something inane like, "Just pay attention to what they watch/play/listen to." Well, it's not that easy. To do that you'd have to hound your child 24/7, give them absolutely ZERO privacy, and essentially turn into one of those "jesus crispies" Jice likes to masturbate over. There's a fine line between "letting your kids do as they please" (obviously the method you subscribe to), having an interest in what kids are exposed to and setting limits, and dogging them into an early psychotic state. Most people choose the middle option- and for them a little help, from some regulation as simple and benign as a warning label, is a huge help.

You are missing the point. Like I said, it is ia move away from a freeer more mature society. I just was trying to give an example but have failed miserably. This isn't really about the kids.

Hillary is suggesting that some more action needs to be taken. I can't think of any more action that would not impact sales or cancel projects. We already have the ESRB and I don't know of any stores that do sell M games to minors.

"Something more needs to be done" I fear will lead to more censorship.

PS: Letting them do what they please is not the method I subscribe to. I subscribe to paying attention to the personality of said kid to find an optimal solution. Perhaps some need more strict supervision and some less. I don't think there is one book for all kids.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » March 30, 2005, 10:58 am

when im a parent il try to expose my child to the world at a young age and not shelter him in some artificial "jesus crispy world"...as hes exposed to certain things il be there to expain it to him/her and put it in the right context, obviously at a young age theres some material il want him/her to stay away from all togeather, and il let him her know that...

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 30, 2005, 11:00 am

Exactly. I don't need congress to make it an effort for me to do this. (expose my kid to certain ideas/media) But more importantly, anything more will have an impact on what media >I< am allowed to consume.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » March 30, 2005, 11:23 am

Voronwë wrote:its normal to have movies *Restricted* to certain age ranges. what is different about music and games? the reason legislation has not existed for them is because they represent relatively recent phenomena.

If you want your kid to have GTA at age 10, get off your ass and buy it for him, or order it online. its not hard.

Agree, fortunately our society still recognizes the need to have a baseline age for exposure to certain material. I see nothing wrong with this. Further if you want to have any input into the things your child is doing this would be a step in facilitating that. Kids would need parents to purchase the CD, Game etc thereby need parental consent.

Until they restrict people like Lohrno from parenting at all; society is at risk.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 30, 2005, 11:25 am

Atokal wrote: Agree, fortunately our society still recognizes the need to have a baseline age for exposure to certain material. I see nothing wrong with this.

The problem with this is that these things are always geared at the lowest common denominator. IE: My kids are probably better than your kids, so why should my kids suffer for your kids' retardation or your unwillingness to parent?

PS: A big hearty Fuck You for questioning my parenting skills. At least I don't fuck my kids.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » March 30, 2005, 11:44 am

Lohrno wrote:
Atokal wrote: Agree, fortunately our society still recognizes the need to have a baseline age for exposure to certain material. I see nothing wrong with this.
The problem with this is that these things are always geared at the lowest common denominator. IE: My kids are probably better than your kids, so why should my kids suffer for your kids' retardation or your unwillingness to parent?

PS: A big hearty Fuck You for questioning my parenting skills. At least I don't fuck my kids.

You know I have sat through this horse shit from punk ass bitches like yourself for far too long. The very fact that you would write an accusation like that speaks to your ability to parent.

To your other argument about the lowest common denominator I would say you are a fucking idiot to think that it could/should be otherwise.

New warning label.

Not suitable for kids under 14 unless they are parented by Lohrno. Fucking moron.

You should not be permitted to breed, let alone have an opinion.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » March 30, 2005, 12:30 pm

Kylere wrote:Umm their previous presidential pick was named Gore, as in Tipper Gore, head of the PMRC, as in the tribunal that harassed Rock and Roll in the 80's.

Thank God for John Denver, Frank Zappa and Dee Schneider! What a fucked up superhero team that was!

It really was the main reason I couldn't vote for that wooden prick. I think I wrote in Jack Mehoff or something

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » March 30, 2005, 12:34 pm

Lohrno wrote:This isn't really about the kids.

Looks to me like it is.

Lohrno wrote:I don't know of any stores that do sell M games to minors.

I'm not aware of any that won't, how old are your kids? Have you any first hand experience? I do, mine are 18 and 19 now. It's not at all like the movie theaters, that's for certain.

To varying degrees, kids will do sneaky stuff they feel can get away with. Regardless of whether you approve of it.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 30, 2005, 12:35 pm

Well now that this thread has totally been derailed by this cockgobbler...

No really, how dare you fucking question my ability to parent? It speaks volumes to your trollness, and lack of respect for those around you as well as yourself.

Not only that but you put on some kind of air of authority. My guess woud be that you are trying to validate your own existence in some way.

About you Atokal:

1. No one or almost no one likes you here. It has even been suggested that your family doesn't even like you.

2. You are truly worthless to the community. Not once have I seen anything remotely worthwhile. You try to goud people into responding to your inane bullshit. You accuse me of being a bad parent because I am flaming you? How about you buy a fucking clue. Even if that were a metric for measuring parental ability, you would be pretty fucking far below me on that list, Mr. "Har Har Drolgin is fat."

Not only that but you try to assume an air of authority where there obviously is none. My guess is that is your personal compensation for realizing just how worthless you are.

3. Did I hit a nerve with the paedophilia thing? You'd better believe it. It's no coincidence that everyone here thinks you are a sick fuck. My advice would be to stop posting and go see a therapist before rape more children. No I don't think it's funny. I think it's fucking disgusting of you. I did think it was funny that you changed your avatar to some girl to compensate for your sick image.

4. Your lack of ability to even discuss anything without resorting to trolling or flaming show me not only your worthlessness, but your lack of intelligence. Now I'm not claiming to be a bastion of genius here, but anyone compared to you would look like one.

Please do us a favor Atokal, drown yourself in the sludge thickening tank of your local sewage treatment plant. That's where all the shit belongs.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 30, 2005, 12:39 pm

Aabidano wrote:
Lohrno wrote:This isn't really about the kids.
Looks to me like it is.

It is somewhat. It's more about the general air of censorship that is growing. I really don't like this. It may be a slight overreaction on my part but with Al Sharpton also voicing his opinion on violent lyrics, it is worrying me that the democrats are doing this too.

Lohrno wrote:I don't know of any stores that do sell M games to minors.
I'm not aware of any that won't, how old are your kids? Have you any first hand experience? I do, mine are 18 and 19 now. It's not at all like the movie theaters, that's for certain.

I only have one and she is 3. There is a gamestop, a toys R us, a software etc., and an EB by us as well as Best Buy, and Wal-Mart. I've seen all of them sporting a "we won't sell games to minors" sign and I've seen them card.

To varying degrees, kids will do sneaky stuff they feel can get away with. Regardless of whether you approve of it.

True, but I think that more restrictions on this kind of thing are the greater evil.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 30, 2005, 12:40 pm

Geez Lohrno. Get defense much when someone disagrees with you?

How dare we question your ability to parent? Look at the shit that has spewed out of your mouth displayign your laizze-faire(sp?) attitude toward your children and maybe you might understand (i doubt it) why people are disagreeing with you.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 30, 2005, 12:41 pm

Discussing philosophy about parenting is okay, but I take offense to "you are a bad parent." or "You should not be a parent." That is a personal attack and one of the most serious. I will not have such disrespect. Especially from Atokal.

PS: Who says I have such a lassai faire (sp?) attitude? I was more discussing hypothetical situations. I should have probably made that more clear...

Mak · Post by **Mak** » March 30, 2005, 1:35 pm

Lohrno wrote:I only have one and she is 3.

God bless you, man, and you have my sincere wish for good luck, but I'd be very interested to hear your opinions when she's 13. This is not an attack- but you have so much more to learn and worry about. My guess is you will find a philosophical stand on theoretical censorship will take a very large backseat to actually helping her make it through her teen years.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 30, 2005, 1:36 pm

I have no problem with parental censorship, and will likely do it. I just don't want the government to do it for me.

I'll let you know in 10 years if you like how things go.

I think there are no set rules for all kids but kids require different upbringings...It's better to use your best judgement on each kid.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 30, 2005, 1:43 pm

Lohrno wrote:I have no problem with parental censorship, and will likely do it. I just don't want the government to do it for me. I'll let you know in 10 years if you like how things go. I think there are no set rules for all kids but kids require different upbringings...It's better to use your best judgement on each kid.

That would be great if you had to pass a test to ensure you will be a great parent who cares enough to watch over, protect and guide your offspring.

Problem is anyone can have kids. Absolutely anyone. So, protecting the kids despite the parents is what is important. Please try and think beyond your little world.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 30, 2005, 1:50 pm

Kids with bad parents are a bad combination no matter what the government does. Should the government step in and raise all kids itself? I don't see why we should be catering to the LCD here.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » March 30, 2005, 1:54 pm

I would agree Midnyte and I would agree with Lohrno as well. I have a 2 yr old and a 6 mo. old both of which mean the world to me. As I stated above I'm ok for giving parents warning to help them make better decisions but I also see Lohrno's point about how it can be taken too far.

Midnyte's point about parents is a very sad and true statement. The point that has to be decided though is how far do you want the Government to go? There are some pretty shitty parents out there, hell I saw a couple this morning when I dropped my son off a daycare. I think he is the smartest kid ever, he is 27 mo. and already knows his ABCs, numbers to 7 or 8 and his colors as well. They moved him up to the 3 yr old room because he is "advanced" but what I have to remind the teachers is that psychosocially he is still 9 mo. behind most of those kids so cut him some slack, heh.

But the point is that there are 3 year olds in there, some over 3 who don't know half of what he knows. This is a bragging session this about parenting. Not all kids are going to pickup on things as fast as other but by 3 if you spend any time with your kids they should know most of what my son knows at 27 months... of course these are the same parents that dope their kids up with drugs and drop them off early at day care so they can work then don't answer the cell phone when the Day Care calls and the kid has a 100+ feaver...

What is the govenment suppose to do about those people? They provide them food, shelter, clothes and I'm sure they love them... they just don't spend any time with them.... No country has the resources to fix every bad parent so how far do you take it? I don't have that answer, maybe I will before I run for office some day though, heh.

Marb

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 30, 2005, 2:10 pm

I think anything more than what we have now is taking it way too far. The government would saying that they know more about parenting than you...Not only that but it would be an indirect censorship as is happening with movies. Movies tone themselves down sometimes just to get a PG-13 rating. I'm not sure I believe totally in the ratings either. Perhaps your child is mature about sexual subjects but not about violence or mature about violence but not about sexual subjects. Detailed ratings would be better. Ideally you would have already seen the movie, and know how your child will react or will react and are ready for a discussion with them.

But anyways bout the indirect censorship, it affects you too as movies may not have put better content in..

PS: My 3 year old plays computer games.

IE uses the mouse and plays flash games.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » March 30, 2005, 2:55 pm

I think the industry is doing enough to police themselves and I don't believe that there should be a $90 m research project on it. There are far more better things to be spending our money on than this like feeding the poor, sheltering the homeless, and basically things that are more demanding of immediate attention.

The tricky thing about being a parent is that you can do everything right and your kid can still turn out different than you expect. They are the true X factor.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » March 30, 2005, 2:58 pm

For the love of god, america!!! Isn't today's music soulless ENOUGH?!

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » March 30, 2005, 3:00 pm

Lohrno wrote:Well now that this thread has totally been derailed by this cockgobbler...

No really, how dare you fucking question my ability to parent? It speaks volumes to your trollness, and lack of respect for those around you as well as yourself.

Not only that but you put on some kind of air of authority. My guess woud be that you are trying to validate your own existence in some way.

About you Atokal:

1. No one or almost no one likes you here. It has even been suggested that your family doesn't even like you.

2. You are truly worthless to the community. Not once have I seen anything remotely worthwhile. You try to goud people into responding to your inane bullshit. You accuse me of being a bad parent because I am flaming you? How about you buy a fucking clue. Even if that were a metric for measuring parental ability, you would be pretty fucking far below me on that list, Mr. "Har Har Drolgin is fat."

Not only that but you try to assume an air of authority where there obviously is none. My guess is that is your personal compensation for realizing just how worthless you are.

3. Did I hit a nerve with the paedophilia thing? You'd better believe it. It's no coincidence that everyone here thinks you are a sick fuck. My advice would be to stop posting and go see a therapist before rape more children. No I don't think it's funny. I think it's fucking disgusting of you. I did think it was funny that you changed your avatar to some girl to compensate for your sick image.

4. Your lack of ability to even discuss anything without resorting to trolling or flaming show me not only your worthlessness, but your lack of intelligence. Now I'm not claiming to be a bastion of genius here, but anyone compared to you would look like one.

Please do us a favor Atokal, drown yourself in the sludge thickening tank of your local sewage treatment plant. That's where all the shit belongs.

Lets see I question your ability to parent and you respond with the pedo crap. Hrmm what is more serious. Your inability to distinguish between character assassination and someone questioning your skills as a father proves my claim.

Your classless, ignorant, accusations about a very serious criminal and reprehensible act also speaks to your maturity level.

It is for parents like you that the government has to step in and make rules

You see you need a license to drive, fish, hunt etc you even need a license for your dog. But fortunately for people like you any assmaster can become a parent if they find a partner willing to overlook all of your obvious short comings.

The next time you sit down to type and find pedophilia is a funny thing or some kind of insult in the same league as calling someone fat or questioning their ability to parent think how you would respond if someone walked up to you and said you fuck your kids.

You want to insult me, fine. Leave the pedo shit out. Not true, Not fucking funny, tired, old and thought up but the twisted imaginations of the fat kid.

PS here is a clue for you, my original comments were on topic. They were far less trolling in nature than virtually everyone of your posts directed at me.

noel · Post by **noel** » March 30, 2005, 3:03 pm

I'm certainly not saying that falsely accusing you of being a pedophile is a good thing, but more and more lately, it seems like maybe people here just don't like you or want to converse with you, Atokal.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 30, 2005, 3:08 pm

Atokal wrote: PS here is a clue for you, my original comments were on topic. They were far less trolling in nature than virtually everyone of your posts directed at me.

Perhaps you are not really a paedophile (but I strongly suspect you might be), but you still are a sick fuck who has no respect for himself or others.

While your original post was slightly on topic, it was possibly one of the most offensive things you could tell someone. If you don't realize that you are even more retarded that I thought.

(And my guess is that would make many Special Olympics retards your superior. Actually Bullshit, I know they all are.)

In closing, please die.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » March 30, 2005, 3:11 pm

noel wrote:It seems like maybe people here just don't like you anymore, Atokal.

Yikes I forgot this was a popularity contest. I should take a page out of your book. Change my opinions to more closely reflect those of the popular posters here, attack newbies cause we all know they haven't got the support base in VV to withstand a Noel flame and perhaps make some innocuous posts in the culinary section and the gaming section. Oh yeah forgot another favorite, do not stand up for your friends cause friendship means nothing.

Thanks for the insight