Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: I am a first amendment absolutist - RU

Posted 5 years ago on Dec. 17, 2012, 11:01 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

movies & video games are rated -
and maybe those ratings should be stricter

if we ban violent movies & games,
do we ban televangilists demanding money to get into heaven?
do we ban religions that say if you apologize, you can murder people and be forgiven?
do we ban racial intolerance?
do we ban lies that parents teach their children about the age of the earth?
do we ban parents teaching their children any religion?
do we ban porn ?
do we ban religious intolerance?
do we ban ideas?

children must be taught the truth - and how to behave
adults should be restrained by laws - that punish the harming of others

fyi - full disclosure - I have not played a violent game in 10-12 years - I never liked them & I dont go to movies to see violence



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by mideast (506) 5 years ago

anyone who is violent because of something on a screen - has a lot of problems

[-] 3 points by Ache4Change (3340) 5 years ago

Does that include our televisions too? Also please read and reflect on - 'Guns In America: Musings On Our National Psychosis' - http://www.nationofchange.org/guns-america-musings-our-national-psychosis-1355674607 , which ends with - 'extremism is nothing new in this country. Just ask the victims of gun crimes.' We Must Never Give Up Trying To Join The Dots! Occupy Reasoning & Compassion!

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 5 years ago

I read it - but strong gun laws & penalties would make a big difference.

I cannot know what was in the CT killers mind or his mother's;
but what would have happened if the owner had to pay a $1000 license fee + $1000/gun registration fee + provide proof that all of the guns had trigger locks + assault type weapons were banned + large clips were banned

This may be a bit morbid, but if this mother was still alive, laws should exist that would hold her financially and criminally responsible for not properly securing her guns.

[-] 3 points by Ache4Change (3340) 5 years ago

Banning semi-automatic assault weapons is such a non-brainer as to indicate that those who oppose it, as to be potentially dangerous psychopaths! Anyone who wants to kill animals with machine guns is NOT a hunter, s/he's a nutjob! Of course I agree with gun control and we need investment in mental health services in this country too - urgently! Never Give Up Connecting The Dots! Occupy Hope!


[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

There is a distinct possibility she was buying them solely to satisfy her son; that's what women do today - anything - to satisfy their children. And males in particular seek control.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 5 years ago

I heard someone say she bought them for self defense or hunting.
But strong gun laws would help at the national level. I'm really looking forward to watching john boehner & paul ryan trying to defend their major contributor - the nra

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

I don't care for the NRA. But on the other hand, if left to the Left, criminals would be going door to door stealing and robbing and raping without impunity because there would be no self defense.

And you know this goes beyond Boner and Ryan, Americans are NOT turning in their guns, we're just not doing it. It will just be good people killing good people while the armed criminals continue to roam the streets. In the sense of empowering the disadvantaged, and the underprivileged, I'm quite certain the Left would be fine with that. Well, say HELLO to 80 million legal gun owners who are saying "no."

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 5 years ago

I am generally NOT interested in the confiscation direction
register all guns and owners - like cars
require trigger locks & insurance
if you dont - you go where you don't have to worry about guns - jail

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

Most crimes are committed with handguns; all states require their registration. I'm not opposed to trigger locks; I see insurance as a punitive measure in light of the fact that we have law which holds the individual directly responsible for his or her actions; this should apply to negligence as well.

We can take this to another level - the Germans are now using biological trigger locks.

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

Have you seen the movie "The Story of PI". Now that is a movie everyone should see.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

on my agenda

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

Relatively absolute.

[-] 1 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 5 years ago

For likely 99.9% of gamers, its just a game. But it isnt a stretch to imagine some boy having the line between fantasy and reality blurred so that pulling a real trigger is just an extension of video game violence.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

I would bet that at least 50% of the southern bigots learned from their parents & ministers. Do we ban southern parenting? or evangelical preaching?

NO! but I'd be VERY tempted to say yes

what adults do is their responsibility
if children are ALLOWED by their parent to see violence, it is the parent's responsibility

[-] 1 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 5 years ago

I'm curious. Where do the northern bigots learn their bigotry from? Those in Boston and New York? You seem to be an expert on this. If it's from their parents, would you be tempted to ban northern parenting? What about Serbian parenting or German parenting? Still tempted?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

I am a northerner who spent many years in the south
I know good southerners and "bad" ones
of course bigotry is all over
but as a peripheral concept that is actually central-
from 1865-1965 where were 90% of American lynchings?
can you name ANY other "community" [ southern crazies ] in the world who
celebrate the worst treasonous loss of a war in history? ANY?

[-] 1 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 5 years ago

I'd guess certain groups in Germany, but I wouldn't want to sound as stupid as a certain poster who paints with such large brush strokes does.

Lots of gang bangers get shot. You forgot to mention banning them, Margaret Sanger.

Seriously, tempted to say ban southern parenting? Whenever anybody talks to me about how democrats are so much more intelligent, educated and understanding, I'm going to send them to your post.

[-] 1 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 5 years ago

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

[-] 1 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 5 years ago

He's saying that he's the dumbest person posting on this website. Or any website.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago


[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Your damn near 60 years old....I hope your not playing video games :)

[-] 0 points by Coyote88 (-24) 5 years ago

I have to agree with you. And I feel the same about the Second Amendment.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

We should really ban not only violent video games but also all blood and guts film; it's bizarre on a level that is rather extreme.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (352) 5 years ago

Who would define violent? Who would define blood and guts? Be careful what you ask for. Instead, how about a little more parenting, like when to say "NO" to your kids instead of giving them every thing they want. How about going back to some personal responsibility, instead of the blame others game that is so prevalent in today's society.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

I define violent. Because I am the parent. And I think if you find it difficult to ascertain "blood and guts" then you should probably not be having children.

You're saying "parenting" but it's obvious you yourself lack the skill. Of common sense.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (352) 5 years ago

Please. Why did you take this personally? The "you or your" is not personally you but in a general sense for dicussion. This is not a binary solution for a definition. I ask for yours or how would you define it, especiallynif for legislation. Do not assume my position (you are way off there), as I have not stated one, but rather asked you for some clarity. What you consider violent may not be for others. Or it may not be enough. Would it be considered violent to shoot targets with a gun. How about on a video screen. What of the targets where photos of bad guys? What if they just silhouettes? What of the weapon was a knife? A machete? A machine gun? What If it was a pie? Or even and "angry bird"? So now where do we go?

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

Stop... desensitization is a psychological process which transforms that which we naturally find repugnant into acceptable, exciting, and stimulating. It's something which transforms the person of peace into a weapon of human destruction, very vital in war but unwelcome in society.

I think "no" is very easy to legislate. No "blood" - can we define "blood'? And no "guts" - can we define "guts"? Are you saying you lack the ability to articulate these two?

If we look at the old spaghetti westerns there's no lack of drama, no lack of suspense, but there is no blood. And the violence was always directed at evil, as those who victimize, and those who commit wanton acts of violence.

A child should NOT be playing these video games. Any parent who fails to recognize this is not much of a parent. Because we have a responsibility to raise "good" children. Good meaning they will not victimize or harm others when they enter society.

Is there some aspect of this concept you struggle with? Or is it simply your desire to sacrifice people to your own selfish pursuits?

[-] 2 points by engineer4 (352) 5 years ago

I have no selfish pursuits. I am not against restrictions, I would love to see video games be restricted better, especially with better parenting. You seem to believe that I am supporting an opposing view. Calm down. This is discussion, and I am bringing up the reality and practicality of trying to legislate morality. Interpretation of words on paper is not quite that simple, though I wish it was. Yes, we have been desensitized, that is true. But who would be at fault: the people that make the violent stuff that we look at or play with, or the person or parents that accept it or allow it? One other thing: would we try to monitor or restrict writing (books, etc) also? Another dilemma that is part of the discussion. It just is not that easy. And by the way, I have raised wonderful children who have more integrity, tolerance, and personal responsibility than most others and am very proud of that in this day and age. So be carefull when you accuse or assume the conduct of others from a few sentences on a blog or forum. I did not assume anything about you.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

Again, although I fully understand the gist of your argument, I fail to see how a society with full access to not only every written word but the ability to create words anew, could possibly fail to legislate succinctly. It occurs because our legislators are not writers; they don't fully understand, or perhaps are not always fully aware, of unintentionally imparted ambiguity. Which is rather sad because our forefathers certainly understood it; look at Washington, even without the full advantage of education, every word written to posterity is precisely and succinctly placed.

The purpose of vision is to inform, that's what it does; the written word, just as my words here, is but a means of telepathy - the written word "speaks" directly to mind. So there is a succinct difference between that visual which paints a universal subliminal picture and that which the mind creates as imaginary through the cognitive. What the writer attempts to do is use the cognitive as descriptives in multilayered form to paint a succinct universal; "Gone with the Wind" - does the visual art align with the imaginary? Well not entirely but it's close enough to the universal to be acceptable to many.

It matters not - very few children's books contain this level of violence - not only does it not sell well, it does not sell at all.

But we can accomplish that which would normally take years of education, years of improved reading, with but one simple visual that any child can understand, can't we? And any child can go into any video store and rent any game; there is no ratings system on violent games, is there?

I think we're a rather despicable society. We should not allow the depths of our perversion - which all will explore - to emotionally contaminate our children.

And I know what you're thinking - those most vocal are usually hypocrites, but you'll find nothing incriminating here; I raised "good" children, too.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

The mentally ill must have their level of violent entertainment managed. Someone (parent, dr, state) must be held responsible for preventing any negative affects from violence in any form.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (352) 5 years ago

The problem is that we have enacted legislation that people over the age of 18 can not be held or institutionalized without consent unless proven to be a danger to others, which can be hard to prove unless there have been a history. Anymore it is all about privacy. But these rules are the result of the pendulum being too far in the other direction when we had the state hospital system. And that was a bad system as one could be unfairly committed and there was no way out. So here is the rub: what is defined as "mentally ill"? Not as easy as you propose. How would you hold someone responsible for another's actions? It's not that exact pf a science.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

The problems with the mental health system must be corrected. (goes back to Reagans & other repub cuts), Fairness/abuse must be watched closely.

The difficulties is no excuse for inaction. I don't decide who is mentally ill? Professionals must.

In this case clearly the mother was caring for her son. Easy to hold her responsible. More difficult (but not impossible) to hold the father/ex husband, brother, & aunt responsible.

Gotta do it. Put 'em in jail, see how quick and how many reportsstart comin in.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (352) 5 years ago

So you going to load up the jails with people that are "judged" responsible for others actions? Where does that stop? There are only six degrees of separation. We would all be in jail. Be carefull in blaming others, especially before all e evidence is in. It would be like going back to lynch mobs in the wild west. The judgement of anothers mind is not exact, especially by an untrained populace, including relatives. And what if they are wrong? Which side do you err on? We had one tragedy, why make more? It's the same when an innocent is sent to jail, or worse, executed. It is not the time for reactionary measures, but a more thoughtful discourse which may get some better outcomes.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Sounds like pretty good reasons not to do anything.

Courts of our peers will have to be the judge. And problems will have to be addressed. But potential difficulties are inadequate reasons for inaction.

I do not think it will be many people. In this case, start with the father. Many people will see it and report potentially dangerous situations and fair reasonable action can be taken.

Don't be afraid. We won't go crazy. Just shake people out of their silence, & complacency. We need a robust netwrk of townsquare type "it takes a village" community.

It's all good.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (352) 5 years ago

Do not mistake me that I am not for doing anything. Not the case. Complancency is a big problem. But we must think rationally before acting instead of a knee jerk response, that's all. Somehow we must make it easier to report or monitor irrational behaviors, but we also must be carefull not to inhibit a persons rights. It's is a delicate balance. It would be very easy for someone to ruin a very normal person just because of a grudge, or even a complete misunderstanding of an observation. It is just like "profiling" or "stop and frisk" policies, which I am sure you are against, but you can see the similarities. We all want the same result ( a peacefully society), but are we able to really get there in a free society?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

obviously whatever reporting occurs (which is already allowed) we must be fair, & careful not to violate anyones rights. Of course, If goes WITHOUT saying.

Certainly society can go overboard, right now we are on the opposite extreme where people say nothing.

We must care about our mentally ill better, not hide them, or stay silent about them. We have to be a caring community, and considerate neighbors.

For there sake and ours.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (352) 5 years ago


[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Wow, Planets aligning.

I can't express how devastating it is to see these innocent children gunned down.

To know that better observation/reporting on the shooter & his Mom could have prevented it is depressing, & infuriating.

Something must be done.

[-] 2 points by engineer4 (352) 5 years ago

"something must be done". Ah, there is the rub. How do we avoid the labeling of people with disabilities, or mental problems without stigmatizing, or even creating unintended discrimination? It is where public and privacy rights collide head on. And yet many people can be in society normally through medication. For example, my brother requires medication to live "normally". I have seen first hand many times when he goes off his meds, or use to other stress situations, can become "out of balance". If you have never experienced this personally, I can tell you it can be tough for a while until things get back under control. As you can imagine, working a job can be a problem when this occurs. Yet, when fine, he works as well as anyone. Yet would an employer hire him knowing this over another person who does not have any medical issues? You can say we should not discriminate, but if you were the person who was hiring and knew the medical history of the potential employees, who would you hire: the person without the history of course. So while I agree that we need to assist people in need, it can be more difficult than you can imagine.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

These are important considerations. The mentally ill have many challenges.

I have great empathy for their plight. I've only had some exposure to the realities you described. I state honestly, I would not hire the medicated, i would not rent to them, I would not want my family near them.

I live down the block from a group home. no troubles, no objection. I like that solution. certainly no guns for those mentally ill, or medicated (at risk of losing it).

Better treatment for mentally ill. Small group homes with good oversight. seems the best option.

Hope your brother is doing well & I hope he does not have access to guns when he is "out of balance".

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (352) 5 years ago

He is and just found a new job. So we are happy here about that. Thanks for asking. And there is no accessible arms either to worry about.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Rock n Roll.

[-] -2 points by MarkKevin (-46) 5 years ago

Well, we've already banned freedom of association through COMPULSORY union membership, so the first amendment is dead.

"the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

you make pro-union issues sound silly
which is what you are paid to do

[-] -2 points by MarkKevin (-46) 5 years ago

Don't give me this "absolutist" crap only to shoot yourself in the foot later in the thread.

I don't GAS what union goon/hack you are. Those liberties are being subverted, plain and simple.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

██████░████.░░.█████░.░█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ ████░░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█.░.█████ ░░█████░ █████