Banning Violent Games Tops Conservative's To Do List

[dfphetteplace]

Conservatives, getting the government out of our lives so that it can run our lives. Wait, what?

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

The BSA is a private organization, and a faith-based one. It is discriminatory for a good reason. It would be illogical to let an atheist in the Catholic clergy, it wouldn't make sense to have church's baseball team's pitcher be an atheist, and it wouldn't make sense to have atheists in the Boy Scouts. While the BSA do engage in a variety of activities that are not directly religious (ie: camping, fishing), churches do the same thing (picnics, sports). They have been sued over their refusal to let atheists in hundreds of times, and they have never lost a case over it.

Firstly, i hope you're aware of the fact that Scouting, intrinsically, has nothing at all to do with religion. AT ALL. I've been to a couple Jamboree's in my tenure, one of them being the 21st WSJ 2007 in the UK (You're obviously a scout, so i take it that you know what that is.) and all of these Jamborees have multi-faith events where any scout of any religion can learn about any other religion .etc. Picking and choosing specific religions and allowing only them to join seems almost antithetical to the "scout message" of equality and brotherhood inspite of differences. That s my opinion at least.

They occasionally strip Eagle Scouts of their honor if they find out later on that they are atheists, because this is a betrayal of several of the most sacred tenants of the Boy Scouts. To be trustworthy, honest, morally clean, and reverent. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying atheists are not trustworthy, et cetera, but I'm saying that if you lie for your entire time in the Boy Scouts, claiming you're a theist when you are not, that's dishonest.

Yeah...... people don't CHOOSE Atheism at birth. People BECOME Atheists through life experience. They experience certain events that, for whatever reason convinces them that their is no/may or may not be a God. That's what happened to me anyway (watch Movie Bobs latest "big picture" if you haven't already) In other words they "change their mind" NOT "lie to get an eagle badge" So to strip them of their honor because of this seems like.......well, like an excuse to keep slates clean, really.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

Oh, it's just for selling them to children younger than 17. I have no problem with that... I thought they were going to ban violence is games all together. If they try that, I'm going after them asking why shit like SAW would be legal to make as a movie, but no violent games?

 

[Capslockbroken]

Schlafly? That pokemon's adorable! Oh, wait...

On a serious note, please remember that there are people on both sides of the aisle who want to ban violent videogames--this is not a purely conservative or purely liberal thing. The fact Rush Limbaugh is actually against the censorship of games says volumes.

Ha!
"Schlafly, I choose you!"
"bzzz bzzzzz bzzbzz bzzz"
"Completely out of touch hot-air mega-annoy attack!!"
"bzzz bzz BZZZZZZ!!"

rofl!



Excellent point about Limbaugh, by the way.

 

[AlternatePFG]

These kids didn't go out and buy the games themselves. They MIGHT have bought the headset with the $50 allowance their spoiled little brat ass gets every week, but they didn't buy the game himself.

Headset but not the game..?

What the hell are you talking about, lol

Technically, they can't buy the game if it's rated M. They need their parent to buy it or at least have their parent with them in order to buy it, and given how spoiled some kids are today, it's probably the former.

Sure they can, it's entirely legal for kids to buy M rated games (In USA anyway) it's Gamestop's store policy (that they only enforce sporadically) that stops them, and even then it only stops them if they choose to buy the game AT GAMESTOP.

Actually in Illinois at least, you have to be 17 or older to buy M-rated games. Stores that don't enforce this policy can be fined.

 

[DataSnake]

Aren't conservatives supposed to be against the whole "nanny state" ideology?

 

[Danpascooch]

Alright, I'm going to nip this in the bud here: ONE CRAZY ***** DOES NOT REPRESENT ALL OF CONSERVATISM. STOP DOING THAT ESCAPIST.

I just came from Teamliquid where evidently all Texans are crazy because we don't like a fairly abusive new statute the EPA is trying to cram down our throats, I've had enough of political misrepresentation and ignorance today.

When someone is a politician it is standard practice to mention their party alignment when introducing them. You'll notice that nowhere does it mention conservatives as a whole (except to say that she, A SINGLE PERSON, thinks they should do X Y & Z), the title is using Conservative's pertaining to a SINGLE CONSERVATIVE I'm sure. You're projecting.

I'm well aware of what it ACTUALLY says, but don't tell me you read it, read my post, then went back and re-read the thread title. It's completely misleading in its current wording as evidenced by a good number of posts in this thread ALREADY.

It's only misleading if you jump in with the preconceived notion that its intention is to bash Conservatives because:

1.) You hate Conservatives yourself

OR

2.) You are used to seeing Conservatives get bashed, and are projecting that expectation onto the title.

What would you have called it? "Woman who just happens to be a Conservative and is not representative of the party as a whole wants Violent Video Games banned"?

Because it SHOULD be mentioned that she is conservative (because that's standard practice, if it was a Liberal, that should be mentioned too) and that alternative title is pretty fucking wordy.

Stop being so sensitive, you conservatives always make trouble where there isn't any! (that was a joke)

If I put up a title that says "Negros Does not Like Video Games", and I was referring to John Negros who lives down the street, you'd STILL get half the posts declaring me a racist at worst or a generalist at best. Making your thread titles less apt to spark controversy helps discourse along and cuts out the extraneous bullshit. This woman isn't representing herself as a conservative at all in the stated work, or the principles of modern conservatism either. You have to reach all the way back to classical conservative radicals to even categorize her as one and THAT's a stretch. It was posted on a conservative website, that's all.

That's because it's not common practice to announce someones race when you are commenting on their political views.

But when you are talking about the POLITICAL VIEWS of a POLITICIAN it's more or less universally accepted that you should mention their POLITICAL PARTY when introducing them. Notice how on CSPAN there are little (D) or (R) icons next to them? Yeah.

 

[Darth Sea Bass]

Must be honest here, thought it was David Cameron's lot and started to panic.

Yeah that was my initial reaction. Give em time though and they'll no doubt move on it!

 

[ninja51]

How cute, a crazy old lady who claims that women should only be pleasing their man, buying food, and making food forgot that by saying anything at all in a public forum outside of the local womans club is going against that! Shes an old ass batshit insane bible thumper who like all of those type of people, are hypocrites. Dont bother putting any stock at all into what she says, sometimes they just go senile.

 

[michiehoward]

Here's a resolution for parents worldwide

I will not allow or pay for video games for my child that still reside in the home, if I deem it to mature, violent ect ect. I won't allow the gov't, any gov't to decide how I should raise my own child. If I have a problem, moral or otherwise about the games my child plays I will speak with said child, to discern their level of maturity and intellect to know that my child knows what is make believe and what is real life.

 

[Danpascooch]

These kids didn't go out and buy the games themselves. They MIGHT have bought the headset with the $50 allowance their spoiled little brat ass gets every week, but they didn't buy the game himself.

Headset but not the game..?

What the hell are you talking about, lol

Technically, they can't buy the game if it's rated M. They need their parent to buy it or at least have their parent with them in order to buy it, and given how spoiled some kids are today, it's probably the former.

Sure they can, it's entirely legal for kids to buy M rated games (In USA anyway) it's Gamestop's store policy (that they only enforce sporadically) that stops them, and even then it only stops them if they choose to buy the game AT GAMESTOP.

Actually in Illinois at least, you have to be 17 or older to buy M-rated games. Stores that don't enforce this policy can be fined.

seriously? I'm gonna need to see a link or something

 

[monkey_man]

I say, there are tiny numbers on the gameboxes. They aren't on there for no reason, silly woman!

Spoiler: proof = here.

See those Numbers? the 1 and the 8?[yelling] THAT MEANS CHILDREN SHOULDN'T BUY IT! IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE FOR 18 (+) YEAR OLDS[/.yelling]. damage [if any] done to those poor children is their own fault. Or at least their parents, who have been {tricked/talked} into buying these 18+ games by their offspring.

hooray for brackets!

 

[AlternatePFG]

seriously? I'm gonna need to see a link or something

Quick Google search shows me that it was quickly overturned after it was created but I could swear that they still enforce it. *shrug*

 

[Danpascooch]

seriously? I'm gonna need to see a link or something

Quick Google search shows me that it was quickly overturned after it was created but I could swear that they still enforce it. *shrug*

It's probably that the store's are just really careful to not sell M rated games to minors because it goes against store policy.

I salute you for actually doing the search, Good to know.

 

[Jumpingbean3]

Conservatives: they fight for the right's of the people except when they don't.

 

[albania614]

These are not real conservatives.
A real conservative would never stop someone from playing video games.
They believe in liberities. A libral or left wing nation would ban violent video games.

 

[TyrantGanado]

I know this is a little off-topic (so don't call me out on it) but I always find it somewhat amusing that a lot of America is still obssessed with "protecting the children" like bubble-wrapping them will make them better people, blind to the horrors their governments in future will perpertrate because they're so docile they don't want to know and will unquestioningly obey and...

Oh fuck they're coming for me, spread the word Escapist, the NWO has taken over!

/shitty humour.

 

[Flac00]

These kids didn't go out and buy the games themselves. They MIGHT have bought the headset with the $50 allowance their spoiled little brat ass gets every week, but they didn't buy the game himself.

Headset but not the game..?

What the hell are you talking about, lol

He means that what few things the kids buy are small and inexpensive. The parents know the kid is playing a violent video-game.

 

[Flac00]

These are not real conservatives.
A real conservative would never stop someone from playing video games.
They believe in liberities. A libral or left wing nation would ban violent video games.

I don't think that is entirely correct. The dislike of video-games is shared by all crazy people, right or left.

 

[Caiti Voltaire]

It doesn't say "Tops the conservative party's to do list", it says "Tops Conservative's to do list". The apostrophy in "Conservative's" indicates possession of an individual which is not the same as "Conservatives". If you plan on complaining about language use learn some first.

You know, that kind of furious nit-picking kind of rationalisation comes up every time that people use loaded language, and I think it's just a pile of ... something. We're not saying "Person X thinks we should ban violent video games" which would be fair and unbiased. We're saying "Conservative wants to ban violent games" which unfairly associates a fringe extremist with a mainstream political movement. It's biased. I wish people would quit it.