rec.autos.simulators

Graphic *** that makes a point in a movie, such as in Saving Private Ryan, is
perfectly acceptable to me. *** for the sake of it, as in those four movies,
without making any valid point is, in my opinion, very disturbing.

That is _very_ worrying for me.

It means that any misunderstandings may now have lethal consequences,
or that if someone breaks into her house then either she or they will
die. Given that an intruder has the advantage of surprise, intent and
practice I wouldn't like those odds. There's nothing in my house that
I would even consider dying for, and would infinitely prefer someone
to take what they could and rather than risk being killed or maimed
for it. That's what the police and insurance companies are for.

Then too there's the issues that if a gun is in the house it may be
used in domestic or neighbourhood disputes, in road-rage incidents if
in the car, kids playing with it

If the "baddies" didn't expect to be meeting the Lone Ranger every
time they turned a corner they probably wouldn't feel they needed a
gun, but as I said, I think this can never be the case in the US. You
can't backtrack from a position like that.

Cheers!
John

<snip>

<more snipped...>

Is this because they weren't your kids? I can't believe parents don't have
this right. And isn't 'their' room actually yours if you own the house?

Not arguing, just curious...

Keith

Keith

I agree with John, though. These are symptoms, not causes.

Keith

I thought Dogs was good, both from an entertainment point of view and
a psychological one, in the manner that your emotions are tweaked
almost without you noticing. NBK however is one of the worst films
I've ever seen, not only seriously gruesome but having no redeemin
features whatsoever.

We have that already - you're playing the online version of it right
now.....

Cheers!
John

A distinction that is often drawn is whether or not the ***
devalues life - if the person's death is gratuitous or if it conveys
the enormity of the act. Personally I don't see the distinction as
valid, since seeing death or *** in any form inures you to it
over time. I'm certainly not an advocate of censorship in any form, I
think that people have to WANT not to watch gratuitous ***.

The trouble is that in this case "art" really is a reflection of life,
and movies like that are an easy sell for the Sonys and Time-Warners
of the world. Look at sim-racing for an example - count the number of
people who want huge, end-over-end smashes to be included, and are
upset when parts don't fly off cars. I remember doing a survey as part
of Sim Racing News on what people would like to see in the next
Indycar sim, and one guy wanted motion-captured pit-crew that he could
run over, with body parts flying. Now I've got as fine a BS detector
as I've come across and it seemed like a genuine request!

I don't doubt that movies and *** games contribute to a downward
spiral of society as a whole, but they are primarily a result and not
a primary cause. As you mentioned with the "Ward of the state"
program, how can you possibly keep any kind of order when "do-gooders"
preclude it? They don't want people being overly hard, and yet overly
soft doesn't work at all. At base level man is an animal, and in the
animal kingdom you rarely, if ever, see a community based on
harmonious co-existence - it doesn't happen. If you step out of line
you get bitten, banished or eaten, therefore you stay in line.

Cheers!
John

Since PCs are the vessel for all these heinous acts then let congress pass a
bill that prohibits purchasing a PC for 30 days along with a background
check. This bill would include a training and ethics course to pass so as to
weed out hackers, ***s and people who dont use speell check. To purchase
xtras such as a modem one would require another permit( such as the folks in
China require one)  to monitor where one surfs.

All these reactive measures never work for the looney tune crackhead who
wants to harm people - period.

 I for one cant stand Jerry Farwell( Mr. Anti Teletub dude) but for once I
agreed w/ him when he said it all starts at home - parenting is alot harder
than it looks.

Jude R.

what worries me about you and your fellow unenlightened chums, is that, GUNS
are not the only way to kill people. do you want to ban knives, too? how
about rat poison? how about a sharpened flute? or a severely overcooked
taco?

perhaps those of you in other parts of the world are so unfamiliar with
having rights that you don't fully understand the horror in losing them.
once a right is taken away from you, it is almost impossible to get them
back...

You are one of the sick people we have to deal with.  You have to
realize that a majority of deaths are due to guns that were bought for
"personnal protection".  If you ban guns there is much less interest
for a criminal to use one, since he knows you probably don't have one.
It isn't as simple as you seem to think.  There are much more facts to
think about than only "I must have a gun so I can shoot the bad guys
if they attack me"...  This thinking is flawed and will only result in
a higher number of fatalities in the end.

My opinion.

Frank

P.S.:  No point in answering this message, I'm killfiling this thread
since it's off topic.  Sorry for adding to it too.

On Wed, 28 Apr 1999 16:54:34 -0700, "Jay Wolfe"

GUNS
are not the only way to kill people. do you want to ban knives, too? how
about rat poison? how about a sharpened flute? or a severely overcooked
taco?

There's a difference there, isn't there?  I suppose I could kill someone
with a frozen, sharpened pig's ear, but it'd be a real struggle.  However,
the widespread and common availability of guns-for-killing-people means that
what used to be petty fights (okay, maybe a black eye, a busted lip or
tooth) now more and more becomes a "tragic domestic accident."  Or a lethal
spree.

having rights that you don't fully understand the horror in losing them.
once a right is taken away from you, it is almost impossible to get them
back...

Are you refering to individual rights or communal rights?  Aren't there any
rights that are worth giving up for some higher good?

ciao,
DK

PS  I know, I know, this thread really doesn't belong here .  . .

So what do you advocate - we go and bomb someone else's house?
Terrorism and the sliding values of society vis-a-vis firearms and
*** are separate subjects, related only loosely - lets not cloud
the issue.

 when you compare japan to the US, you are forgetting the most

Er, yes, my point exactly....

Where is this? The CIA HQ or something?

What is banned in the UK is "offensive weapons", so if you are
wandering around the centre of town with a kitchen knife stashed in
your slacks you'd better be able to whip up a steak and fries pronto
or your gonna have some explaining to do at the police station.
"Offensive weapon" is somewhat vague (probably deliberately so), such
that a baseball bat can be offensive or inoffensive depending upon the
circumstances. I like that, since I'd hate to have my head bashed in
because some *** was carrying an "inoffensive" 3-iron and took a
practice swing at my me.

The right to die in the street, gunned down because some crackhead can
gut a gun more easily than a job? You can keep that one.

Cheers!
John

That's why the US keeps killing convicts, seems to really help, doesn't it?

It sounds like a horrible place to live. Although, could it be you saw a
cowboy movie yesterday evening? ;^)

Nutcase with knife = maybe 1 dead, 2 hurt
Nutcase with automatic rifle = 15 dead, 20 hurt

"I only will give back my AK47, if my wife gives back her kitchen knife!"

A right that dramatically increases the danger my kids are exposed to in
school, I'll give up in a minute. Of course, if there is a military regime
taking over, I understand that all those democratic yuppies in shirts and
ties will fight to the last drop of *** with their cutsie NRA approved
hand guns...

l8er
ronny

--
How to get rid of censorship in German game releases
<http://www.racesimcentral.net/;

          |\      _,,,---,,_        I want to die like my Grandfather,
   ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_              in his sleep.
        |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'     Not like the people in his car,
       '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)            screaming their heads off!

the US has a huge amount of ***'s when compared to the rest of the
world. approximately 5-6 more per 100,000. hard to argue with this. i do
have a suspicion about these (don't worry - it's not a *** theory),
that being there is no distinguishing between a *** act by a baddie or a
life-saving defensive action by an goodie. for example, a couple of baddies
holds up a goodie at gun point. the goodie then blows away thre baddies
after being accosted. result: two ***s. the definition of "***, by
the way, is:

a person who kills another.

this is very different.

if my example holds any water at all, i am glad that the world is rid of 5-6
more baddies. yes, this freedom does have a cost. if that cost is 1 out of
100,000 kids having an accident with daddy's gun - then that is a small
price to pay for a better society. chalk it up to natural selection at work.
a kid that stupid would've pissed on a light socket eventually anyway.

no. let me decide for myself how i want to be governed, thanks.

oh, yeah? lemme see...how about this:
if jim clark was confronted by a ticked off sartee, would he within legal
bounds to stab him with a sharpened taco if he was indeed threatened with
great bodily harm?     ; -)