Quote:Original post by Konfusius

Quote:The way you two are talking, it seems apparent Germany may not be considered such a free country.

It seems apparent that you have no idea how free we are.

I happen to live in the very same country, and I have to say that DrEvil is quite right. Besides, I am one of the people who are very unhappy with Germany becoming Naziland once again. As if once wasn't enough.

Just to clarify, with "Naziland", I am not talking of a dozen idiots shaving their heads and wearing boots singing hate songs, and smashing a few windows.
I am talking about a government that systematically reverses the presumption of innocence (a cornerstone of the constitutional state) and systematically builds up a surveillance state, employing area-wide camera surveillance, biometric passports and biometric surveillance, DNA-catalogisation, wiretapping, logging and scanning phone and internet connections, withholding and recording of bank transfers, recording flight data, and many other intrusions of privacy and personal rights.

It has to be said that we're not talking about dangerous criminals, rapers, murderers or terrorists here, we're talking about you and me, people who (presumbably) have never been in conflict with the law.

Quote:Original post by Konfusius

Quote:Original post by DrEvil
You hold a belief that games cause harm to kids despite zero supporting evidence, and in fact plenty of evidence of the opposite.

Games are bad for my social nerve (<---- EVIDENCE) , but at least I have good hand-eye coordination (<---- YOUR POINT HAS MERITS).

No, that is not 'evidence' in the slightest; that is and opinion or, at best, the effect on ONE person, which is not statistically relivent nor a good basis for any action what so ever.

Quote:

Quote:have any effect on the things you feel you are targeting, is just disgusting to me. In the case of Konfusius, it's even worse, as his motivation seems to be based on his personal dislike of something,

It's called "taste". :P

Quote:and the blatantly wrong judgments he is making about those that would play that which he dislikes.

I'm free to have an opinion, right?

Yes, you are free to have an opinion based on your own personal taste, however trying to push that opinion on others as a 'fact' is crossing the line.

You don't like it? Fair enough, you are free to dislike things, however just because you dislike things doesn't mean that your view is the only one which is right.

Until you can get over yourself and accept that not everyone is going to share your point of view this whole discussion is somewhat pointless as neither party is going to suddenly see the other party is right.

Quote:Original post by Konfusius

Quote:You hold a belief that games cause harm to kids despite zero supporting evidence, and in fact plenty of evidence of the opposite.

Games are bad for my social nerve (<---- EVIDENCE) , but at least I have good hand-eye coordination (<---- YOUR POINT HAS MERITS).

Games cured my cancer, AIDS, blindness, and hairy palms (<---- EVEN BETTER 'EVIDENCE')

Quote:

Quote:and the blatantly wrong judgments he is making about those that would play that which he dislikes.

I'm free to have an opinion, right?

You're free to be wrong, yes.

Quote:Original post by Konfusius

Quote:Original post by Fantus69

Quote:Original post by Konfusius
Yes I'm sure. It's still my opinion that playing stuff like Manhunt can possibly make you a worse people.

OK, fair enough, then maybe that should read: "Again, imo if you are entertained by Manhunt (other than, "crap, these guys really pulled something like that"... well, possibly throws a shady light on you."

Otherwise you are accusing all who play and enjoy Manhunt of being "shady".

Either that, or uncritical in the choice of media they consume.

No. Buy buying, keeping and playing a game, a person is by default being critical, just not negatively so. A 'critique' is not necessarily a negative thing, e.g. One critic may critique a move and enjoy it, giving it a positive review, while another may critique it and give a negative review.

Quote:Original post by DrEvil
If despite all of this you still think government should get involved I don't know what else to say. It boggles the mind how stupid that is

Apoch, that's not okay. I was still thinking that this was needed because DrEvil did not think about parents unable to do their job due to no knowledge about it. Hence he's declaring my arguments as stupid so you warn me for just wanting to give him a lesson not to jump right into insulting conclusions which he did more than once just because he does not care to think about what he might be not seeing? I'm not imposing my views by repeating the same things over and over again each post, I'm just showing him sides of them he's missing. It'd be nothing wrong about that since that's the basic thing about a discussion but could he just refrain from using the word stupid on people, please? ;)

What do other moderators here think about that provided they read this? (that's why I do not use a pm here)



BTT, samoch, there are only 2 options here, either remove those logged data files resp. remove the respective new law altogether or leave it and then consequently make use of it by the regulated means of law. I do have my fears too about abuse and I actually presume it gets all down the hill but then I'd like to do at least some good with it and undoubtedly, getting kids and parents likewise from playing indefinitely and get stuck in their development or parenting duties is a worthy cause for me (might even lead to them getting aware of something going wrong in politics and vote the law down in the end ;)). I hope I made it clear that measures like I proposed earlier are only meant an additional thing and not a replacement to common responsibilities of society.

It's just that I want to point out that you can't have both: These laws that we get right now breaking privacy step-by-step apart for the sake of some terrorist fighting where it's still unclear if that ain't a plot at all in the end (I mean the terrorism) on the one hand, and the privacy still intact on the other. Either one of them or nothing I'd say.

Since I was always thinking more the practical way, I made these propositions and proposals for the case at hand. It's all about how you do it but if you can do it by not violating any privacy given the current framework of law, then in my opinion one should do that.

Quote:Original post by DrEvil
You act like legions of cave men are accessing the internet and we can't expect them to think for themselves. There is no justification for such a stance.

Dude. Have you even been to the internets?