221 réponses à ce sujet

[ImperialOperative]

Tirigon wrote...

No offense meant because I really can´t be sure, but as far as I know you weren´t told about torture during the Iraq war, Guantanamo etc.

And anyways, what´s the point in seeing a law you don´t like? You are stil bound by it.....

laws =/= covert military operations

Intelligence, covert ops, etc are not for the public eye to see in any state.

Modifié par ImperialOperative, 27 avril 2010 - 12:51 .

[SarEnyaDor]

I find it ironic, Wicked, that you live in California where pot may be getting legalized at the same time that retailers could be getting fined for not carding during a video game purchase - because this law was passed in CALIFORNIA, but has not yet been implemented due to the legal challenge.

"Mom, I'm going shopping"
"See you later, dear."
*time passes, teenager returns home smoking a joint*
"Mom, can you believe they wouldn't let me buy Mass Effect 3 because I'm 17, but I got four fingers for the same price as the CE at the pharmacy?!?"

Won't that be a kick in the quads?

Modifié par SarEnyaDor, 27 avril 2010 - 12:56 .

[AntiChri5]

@Trigon



Man you dont know much about children.



Making rational decisions regarding what is best for them is almost impossible for them.

[Tirigon]

ImperialOperative wrote...

laws =/= covert military operations

Oh sure.....

But if a government performs military operations without public knowledge who´s to say they don´t do other thing without us knowing it?

[Tirigon]

AntiChri5 wrote...

@Trigon

Man you dont know much about children.

Making rational decisions regarding what is best for them is almost impossible for them.

That might be, but that´s no reason they should have less rights.

And don´t tell me you really think a guy with 17 years and 11 months can´t decide rational but 2 months later he can.......

The age border is too high. If games like GTA were to be forbidden for children at the age of 10 I´d see the point (though not like it, as the parents should care, not the state), but not with a minimal age of 18.
I know many people who can be rational and responsible with 14, sometimes even younger.
I know just as many who are stupid with 30 or older, and will stay so forever.

[Wicked 702]

Tirigon wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...


Minors DO NOT have the same rights under the law as adults. They are not people in the sense you describe.

Hell, whom are you telling. In Germany (where I live) it´s even worse than in the US. I know that. Doesn´t mean I must like it though. I think it is insane to give people less rights than others because they are not yet 18, 21 or whatever the age of adulthood in the different countries is.

And there's where we totally disagree. Minors are not adults, they don't get to make adult choices. Period....


Wicked 702 wrote...

As far all the other stuff, yes we all know wha happened during WWII. There's plenty of documentation. What there wasn't was a universal, freely published directive to do one thing or another. It was mostly hush hush, even though most people had some idea what was going on but not all people did, in order to not get people in a panic.

Tirigon wrote...
Yea, and how does that prove me wrong or anything?

I made a statement, not a refutation of a point. You already admitted to using hyperbole in your example. I was just clarifying that someone's "policy" is different from the actual "law".

Wicked 702 wrote...
I live in a country where every law is debated openly, every policy commented on publicly, every decision made in front of the voters for them to see. Whether we agree with the law or not, at least it's given to us to read directly.

Tirigon wrote...
No offense meant because I really can´t be sure, but as far as I know you weren´t told about torture during the Iraq war, Guantanamo etc.

And anyways, what´s the point in seeing a law you don´t like? You are stil bound by it.....

If we had known and people had protested, would it have made a difference? This is where a system of referendum becomes extremely awesome. I'm starting to see now why I've heard peole mention that we're lucky to have it. Although in America the people have little effect over what changes at the federal level, at the state level many states allow the people, with enough time and signatures, to put their own laws up to a vote directly to the people. That means we do get to particpate directly in the process. Maybe that's the thing more people need...

[ImperialOperative]

Tirigon wrote...

Oh sure.....

But if a government performs military operations without public knowledge who´s to say they don´t do other thing without us knowing it?

COVERT military operations and Intelligence operations are things NO government in the world share with the public as they do them (they may document them and release them years/decades after the fact, depending).

If they did share covert operations and intelligence operations with the public, that would make the "intelligence" and "covert" part of the deal void.

Modifié par ImperialOperative, 27 avril 2010 - 12:58 .

[Tirigon]

ImperialOperative wrote...

COVERT military operations and Intelligence operations are things NO government in the world share with the public as they do them (they may document them and release them years/decades after the fact, depending).

Of course, that´s why they´re covert. i distrust every government, so what?

[Wicked 702]

SarEnyaDor wrote...

I find it ironic, Wicked, that you live in California where pot may be getting legalized at the same time that retailers could be getting fined for not carding during a video game purchase - because this law was passed in CALIFORNIA, but has not yet been implemented due to the legal challenge.

"Mom, I'm going shopping"
"See you later, dear."
*time passes, teenager returns home smoking a joint*
"Mom, can you believe they wouldn't let me buy Mass Effect 3 because I'm 17, but I got four fingers for the same price as the CE at the pharmacy?!?"

Won't that be a kick in the quads?

Ahem, well the law would only make pot legal for people over 21, much as alcohol is now. But I enjoyed the joke anyway.

Edit: By the way, we also made gay marriage illegal.....

So.....what exactly. We're okay with smokin' bud but not marrying a guy named Bud? Are we liberal, conservative, or just plain weird? I honestly don't know anymore....

Modifié par Wicked 702, 27 avril 2010 - 01:03 .

[ImperialOperative]

Tirigon wrote...

Of course, that´s why they´re covert. i distrust every government, so what?

You sounded as if you thought there were governments which didn't hide things from their public.

Modifié par ImperialOperative, 27 avril 2010 - 01:00 .

[ImperialOperative]

SarEnyaDor wrote...

I find it ironic, Wicked, that you live in California where pot may be getting legalized at the same time that retailers could be getting fined for not carding during a video game purchase - because this law was passed in CALIFORNIA, but has not yet been implemented due to the legal challenge.

"Mom, I'm going shopping"
"See you later, dear."
*time passes, teenager returns home smoking a joint*
"Mom, can you believe they wouldn't let me buy Mass Effect 3 because I'm 17, but I got four fingers for the same price as the CE at the pharmacy?!?"

Won't that be a kick in the quads?

Fail?

The law restricts the drug to those of the age of 21 and over.  Oh, and "4 fingers" (not sure what that is, I suppose that means 4 smoking joint/sticks/cigarettes of marijuana) would not be priced at 60-70 dollars.  Legalized marijuana would make the cost of producing and distributing much less (with virtually no risk in comparison) and the price would be marked down significantly (in a way that greatly undercuts illegal distribution).

Modifié par ImperialOperative, 27 avril 2010 - 01:03 .

[Tirigon]

Wicked 702 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...
Hell, whom are you telling. In Germany (where I live) it´s even worse than in the US. I know that. Doesn´t mean I must like it though. I think it is insane to give people less rights than others because they are not yet 18, 21 or whatever the age of adulthood in the different countries is.

And there's where we totally disagree. Minors are not adults, they don't get to make adult choices. Period....

This is the law, yes, but is it justified?
If a law would be passed saying "Women are not men, they don´t get to make men choices" (as, by the way, is still reality in many countries) would that make it true? We can probably agree it wouldn´t, right?
I fail to see the difference between these 2 laws.

Wicked 702 wrote...
If we had known and people had protested, would it have made a difference? This is where a system of referendum becomes extremely awesome. I'm starting to see now why I've heard peole mention that we're lucky to have it. Although in America the people have little effect over what changes at the federal level, at the state level many states allow the people, with enough time and signatures, to put their own laws up to a vote directly to the people. That means we do get to particpate directly in the process. Maybe that's the thing more people need...

In a democracy, it SHOULD make a difference if people protest.

[Tirigon]

ImperialOperative wrote...

You sounded as if you thought there were governments which didn't hide things from their public.

Sorry then:crying:

Hell, I lost that kind of idealism long ago....

[AntiChri5]

Tirigon wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

@Trigon

Man you dont know much about children.

Making rational decisions regarding what is best for them is almost impossible for them.

That might be, but that´s no reason they should have less rights.

And don´t tell me you really think a guy with 17 years and 11 months can´t decide rational but 2 months later he can.......

The age border is too high. If games like GTA were to be forbidden for children at the age of 10 I´d see the point (though not like it, as the parents should care, not the state), but not with a minimal age of 18.
I know many people who can be rational and responsible with 14, sometimes even younger.
I know just as many who are stupid with 30 or older, and will stay so forever.

Of course there is no magic age where everyone becomes mature but there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

Making more things up to the parents means they can look at their kid and judge whether or not they are mature enough.

[Wicked 702]

ImperialOperative wrote...

SarEnyaDor wrote...

I find it ironic, Wicked, that you live in California where pot may be getting legalized at the same time that retailers could be getting fined for not carding during a video game purchase - because this law was passed in CALIFORNIA, but has not yet been implemented due to the legal challenge.

"Mom, I'm going shopping"
"See you later, dear."
*time passes, teenager returns home smoking a joint*
"Mom, can you believe they wouldn't let me buy Mass Effect 3 because I'm 17, but I got four fingers for the same price as the CE at the pharmacy?!?"

Won't that be a kick in the quads?

Fail?

The law restricts the drug to those of the age of 21 and over.  Oh, and "4 fingers" (not sure what that is, I suppose that means 4 smoking joint/sticks/cigarettes of marijuana) would not be priced at 60-70 dollars.  Legalized marijuana would make the cost of producing and distributing much less (with virtually no risk in comparison) and the price would be marked down significantly (in a way that greatly undercuts illegal distribution).

Well, that's two yes votes in November. Now if I can just get all my college age buddies to register....

[AntiChri5]

Tirigon wrote...

ImperialOperative wrote...

You sounded as if you thought there were governments which didn't hide things from their public.

Sorry then:crying:

Hell, I lost that kind of idealism long ago....

I dont think i ever had that.

[ImperialOperative]

Captain Cornhole wrote...

Let me just say this, the ESRB rating system is there for a reason. There is some content in certain games that kids probably should'nt be exposed too, but what the Court is doing sounds more like a police state to me.

They might legalize pot, but police video game sales?

As if the police is actually going to spend any resources (man hours, tax payer money) to arrest and deal with them evil criminals selling childen' them damn vidya gaymez.

[Tirigon]

AntiChri5 wrote...

I dont think i ever had that.

Well I once was a child, full of funny ideas about flying horses, elves in the woods and a world of peace and freedom for everyone.

By now I realized the last one is the most unlikely.

[SarEnyaDor]

D'oh, it was a joke first of all.



Four fingers is how high the baggie is filled with pot, I certainly HOPE you can get more than four joints from that amount, unless you are rolling them like you are on an SNL skit.



See, many moons ago, when I was of an age that this law would have concerned me further than how it may impact the future of game development and availablity at my local retailer of choice, that's how people who did that sort of thing measured their ill-gotten plant material. One finger was about 10-15 bucks, four fingers would be about 60-100 depending .... or so my scientific observations of the test subjects seemed to imply....

[ImperialOperative]

SarEnyaDor wrote...

D'oh, it was a joke first of all.

Four fingers is how high the baggie is filled with pot, I certainly HOPE you can get more than four joints from that amount, unless you are rolling them like you are on an SNL skit.

Primitive caveman units of measurement offend me greatly.

Point is, legalization would mark down the price significantly.

[Tirigon]

ImperialOperative wrote...

Point is, legalization would mark down the price significantly.

True.

The high prizes are actually what prevents people from smoking, not the illegality of said action.

[Wicked 702]

Tirigon wrote...
This is the law, yes, but is it justified?
If a law would be passed saying "Women are not men, they don´t get to make men choices" (as, by the way, is still reality in many countries) would that make it true? We can probably agree it wouldn´t, right?
I fail to see the difference between these 2 laws.

I might be swayed into agreeing with you (since I'm generally a Libertarian and believe the government should butt out of most things within reason) except that parents are generally held legally responsible for the actions of their children. What you propose would allow kids to get their hands on things their parents might not want them to have and then hold those same parents responsible when their kids do something bad. I see that as truly unfair. It's like pulling in opposite directions.

If we take this example to the extreme, any child could buy a firearm and kill someone. The parents could then be sued by the victim's relatives and have to pay millions of dollars in restitution for wrongful death. Now, the situation might be different if the parent bought the guy and failed to keep it secured but how should they be responsible if not? What you propose almost sounds like you want to make someone responsible for their own actions at birth. Considering that all creatures have to experiment and fail in order to learn, that seems a bit drastic even for my extremist mind.

[SarEnyaDor]

ImperialOperative wrote...
Primitive caveman units of measurement offend me greatly.

Dimes and ounces are too hard to remember when you're baked.

ImperialOperative wrote...
Point is, legalization would mark down the price significantly.

No, the point was it was a joke - for the sake of irony - for thinking about the look on the concerned parent's face if that situation occurred.

Modifié par SarEnyaDor, 27 avril 2010 - 01:20 .

[AntiChri5]

SarEnyaDor wrote...

ImperialOperative wrote...
Primitive caveman units of measurement offend me greatly.

Dimes and ounces are too hard to remember when you're baked.

You know, from your scientific observation, of course.