-
You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
So your saying that Video game manufactures should be held accountable for the slayings of the all the people in Norway...since the killer said he practiced using video games.
There have been alot of people in crimes say that video games and the acts they carried out in them led them to the crimes they did...so video game makers should be held responsible?
what if someone went on a mass murder rampage after a marathon watching of Dexter.....I mean Dexter showed him how to do it and get away with it on TV right...
There have been alot of people in crimes say that video games and the acts they carried out in them led them to the crimes they did...so video game makers should be held responsible?
what if someone went on a mass murder rampage after a marathon watching of Dexter.....I mean Dexter showed him how to do it and get away with it on TV right...
Understand I am not defending NAMBLA.
You seem to be arguing that people shouldn't be able to advocate illegal behavior. I would remind you that there are a lot of things legal that didn't used to be. Black people voting, owning property, etc. comes to mind as a convenient example. Should those who advocated civil rights for blacks have been prosecuted where those civil rights conflicted with criminal laws?*
I find what NAMBLA advances repugnant, as we all do. But personal repugnance has never been, not should it ever be, a valid reason under our Constitution for limiting speech.
I cannot stand the Westboro trolls. And yet when I see them spewing truly repugnant filth, it reminds me of how great our country is.
*Understand also that I am not equating blacks and pedophiles.
You seem to be arguing that people shouldn't be able to advocate illegal behavior. I would remind you that there are a lot of things legal that didn't used to be. Black people voting, owning property, etc. comes to mind as a convenient example. Should those who advocated civil rights for blacks have been prosecuted where those civil rights conflicted with criminal laws?*
I find what NAMBLA advances repugnant, as we all do. But personal repugnance has never been, not should it ever be, a valid reason under our Constitution for limiting speech.
I cannot stand the Westboro trolls. And yet when I see them spewing truly repugnant filth, it reminds me of how great our country is.
*Understand also that I am not equating blacks and pedophiles.
What if you're over 30 and for it? I think you are off on you're analysis of the population. Of course this varies depending on where you are in the country, but I would say it's the over 55 vote that is holding this back as of now. Young people don't vote in the same numbers that retirees do. Especially when they are high......on BATH SALTS!
Why be against it? Are you scared that a new strain of marijuana turns people into cannibals who want to eat your face? Well, considering that narcs say they only seize 10% of the underground drug market, I'd be scared, too.
But the point is, if illegal drugs are really all that big of a menace to society, don't you think the government would be doing a more serious job of protecting us from illegal drugs, along with Oklahoma sending more people than it does for life in prison over drugs?
But the point is, if illegal drugs are really all that big of a menace to society, don't you think the government would be doing a more serious job of protecting us from illegal drugs, along with Oklahoma sending more people than it does for life in prison over drugs?
Townie, I don't know why you are antagonistic. I don't feel like I lost an argument, I thought NYC made a very valid point and if I felt that the aclu was acting appropriately I would have said so. As I stated they have at times been a protectorate of the 1st amendment, the last several years they have become more of a political shill.
The other point I was making is that the aclu stated something that was demonstratively false. I very much respect what NYC says (in most cases
) well thought out, educated and reasoned. That does not mean I am always going to agree nor does it mean we are in an argument. Maybe I was wrong I thought it was a civil discussion with differing pov's.
I posted the above because I felt it had become a circular discussion it was meant as much for me as it was anyone.
If you felt it was an argument then I apologize it was not meant to be.
The other point I was making is that the aclu stated something that was demonstratively false. I very much respect what NYC says (in most cases
) well thought out, educated and reasoned. That does not mean I am always going to agree nor does it mean we are in an argument. Maybe I was wrong I thought it was a civil discussion with differing pov's.I posted the above because I felt it had become a circular discussion it was meant as much for me as it was anyone.
If you felt it was an argument then I apologize it was not meant to be.
It's close, but my argument is more about the fact that the 55+ vote in much higher numbers than under 30, greatly skewing the actual public opinion on the matter. If the lazy buggers would put the bong down and go vote something might change. 
76,750,000 - 55 years of age and older
42,688,000 - 20 - 30 years of age
That's not the issue though. The ACLU did not defend the fat bastard. The ACLU defended the right of NAMBLA to say asinine and highly offensive things. I don't like it that NAMBLA says this crap (or even exists, for that matter) but how do you silence those assholes without silencing the man who says we are being taxed too much?
