Jack gets pwned!

Sometimes it looks like he' s playing limbo with himself. How low can he go?

http://www.dailytech.com/Videogames+Blamed+for+NIU+Shooting/article10734.htm

Ok the story is boring, same bullshit different month. Now time for some Jack Thompson getting PWNED videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoE1-v2Y4H8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dal-0Z27_CM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVAVLOXc4dE&feature=related4


I' m sure there are many more examples. Maybe I' ll come back and add more but I have some COD4 to play.

Ugh, damn dude, I' m sorry, it' s going to be longer than anticipated on the COD front. It' s looking more like 8:45 now.

Yeah, his entire reaction is pointless. I haven' t watched the videos you posted, but his main argument is that he was unstable because he played Counter-Strike, a game his entire dorm played, and that the violence caused him to act. It wasn' t that he was a disturbed guy off of his meds.

I love it how they ask him something and completely responds with a pre-set " video games are killer training sims" answer[:' (]

Always this crap...

By the way, how many people have been killed by followers of certain religions for example? Yet I hear no one ever talk about trying to ban those ;) Despite the fact that it has resulted in many more deaths.

And where' s the logic? One person out of I don' t know how many does something wrong so then it' s ok to blame it on video games? Why doesn' t a much bigger percentage go crazy then? Simple, because there was something wrong with that indivdual to start with. This is something that the media and general people ignore. When will they wake up and grasp these basic facts?

By the way, really good " simulators" ... Pushing a button to reload and actually knowing how to reload is really the same thing. You can also learn how to anticipate the recoil with your body by playing the game of course.

It' s because trying to ban a religion would be political suicide. Especially in the places that need it the most. Shit, forget about their career, it would be suicide period.

I wouldn' t advocate that sort of thing though. I would consider that a form of oppression. Restricting freedom of speech is not the answer. That being said I will support the seperation of church and state.

I know that no one would take up this subject of course and I was being a bit tongue in cheek. The fact remains that the trouble caused by it is a lot bigger than the existence of video games. But still it gets used a lot as a scapegoat.

By the way, out of curiosity, aren' t the church and state separated in Canada? Or did you mean that you would continue the support of it being that way now? At my place (Northern Belgium that used to be part of the Netherlands) it' s been separated since around the year 1800. And at my current place (in Sweden) since 2000 I think and I prefer things that way. Wordly and spiritual matters are best separated.

It depends how you define " seperation of church and state" . Technically I guess we are, I' m not even sure it needed to be done in the first place. But we still have stupid social issues that Christians bring up which waste time and take away from the real issues. What I mean by seperation of church and state is that people should consider human rights and reason and not the latest version of their religious dogma when voting on issues. That' s the problem with democracy. The morons are granted equal voting power as the intellectuals.

In Canada anyone can make their own party and run for a seat. We actually have a communist party, a marijuana party... I would vote for either party before the Christian party we have. Can you imagine how ***ed up things would be if the Christian party gained the majority of seats? The country would fold up like a leaf (no pun intended). Thankfully I doubt they have any seats.

-Things like abortion, contolled substances, gay marriage, stem cell research shouldn' t even be debated. The ansers are so obvious to anyone with common sense.

-To my knowledge high schools still aren' t permitted to teach evolution. They do anyways thankfully. Schools can' t even talk about religion with a secular view. Who do you think are in the school board? In High School, Religion was not even discussed in history class. They only talked about religion in religion class. Ha what a joke! Do they look at any history of religion, politics of the church? No, they only use one book in that class, I' m sure you can guess which one.

-Then there are minor things like having " god" in our anthem and money. They should get rid of that, at least from our money.

I was speaking in general for the world, not just Canada though, when talking about seperating politics from religion.

----------------------------------------------------

http://www.dailytech.com/Jack+Thompson+Served+With+Order+to+Show+Cause+by+Supreme+Court/article10819.htm

Jack has until March 5th to prove cause and effect of violent videogames leading to violent behaviour. Which is impossible, he' ll only be able to show correlation. This will give me lulz. Once he fails he will no longer be able to file any videogame related cases unless he has a cosigner. LOL

Jack has until March 5th to prove cause and effect of violent videogames leading to violent behaviour. Which is impossible, he' ll only be able to show correlation. This will give me lulz. Once he fails he will no longer be able to file any videogame related cases unless he has a cosigner. LOL

I love it how he responds to the court, stepping up to the challenge. Ohh Jackie boy, if it weren' t for the fact that you have no chance of winning this, I would call your " audacity" a brave step, but in your case, it only furthers your stupidity.

On the other hand, it wouldn' t surprise me if he still manages to file complains after this incident. People are easily swayed, specially those who don' t care about further investigating matters, which I am sure anybody in the Florida Bar wouldn' t really care about investigating into video games. If anything, they' ll probably reject to cosign on Jack' s crusades due to his less than stellar record, not because they believe in video games in any way.

Can' t wait to see how he responds to the " show cause" order.

-Then there are minor things like having " god" in our anthem and money. They should get rid of that, at least from our money.

I disagree.

I' m a proponent for separation of church and state on an administrative level in our government. You can' t expect a country such as The States to run under one specific religious belief, especially with our ever-growing immigrant population, but there' s no need to change symbolic things that are already in place.

I mean, really, what direct harm is " in God we trust" or " One nation under God" going to do to an atheist or a polytheist? Those are 2 things that are a traditional part of our country, and to change them would take away precious time and energy from debates (in your opinion useless or not) that have a direct effect on citizens.

-To my knowledge high schools still aren' t permitted to teach evolution. They do anyways thankfully. Schools can' t even talk about religion with a secular view. Who do you think are in the school board? It' s much worst in the US than here though. In High Scool Religion is not even permitted to be discussed in history classes. They only allow religion to be tought in Religion class. Ha what a joke! Do they look at any history of religion, politics of the church? No, they only use one book in that class, I' m sure you can guess which one.

I' ve got firsthand knowledge there, and that' s about dead opposite, at least in my state.

I live in a purple state (Primarily conservative, with large liberal economic centers and a liberal governor). We' re taught evolution in the public school system. We' re taught stem-cell research. As a small aside, I don' t mind being educated on stem cell research, but they talk about it like the world' s just waiting for conservatives to step down, and then earth' s problems will be solved with embryonic stem cells.

As for religion, you do have to take a class to learn that primarily speaking, but I thankfully have an amazing history teacher, who values us having a well-rounded education as being more important than being politically correct.

Edit: By the by, our religion course covers Islam and Judaism equally to Christianity.

I mean, really, what direct harm is " in God we trust" or " One nation under God" going to do to an atheist or a polytheist? Those are 2 things that are a traditional part of our country

Not true. " Under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance some time in the mid 20th century, I believe.

Really? Huh, I' d be interested to hear more about that if you can link me Zoy.

I' ve got firsthand knowledge there, and that' s about dead opposite, at least in my state.

Sorry, I was talking about what a teacher was telling the class about my own school. It' s my fault, I put " it' s worst in the US..." in an awkward spot. I' m just going to delete it.

I disagree.

I' m a proponent for separation of church and state on an administrative level in our government. You can' t expect a country such as The States to run under one specific religious belief, especially with our ever-growing immigrant population, but there' s no need to change symbolic things that are already in place.

I mean, really, what direct harm is " in God we trust" or " One nation under God" going to do to an atheist or a polytheist? Those are 2 things that are a traditional part of our country, and to change them would take away precious time and energy from debates (in your opinion useless or not) that have a direct effect on citizens.

It' s not a big deal to me, but theres a legitimate argument against it. You said it wasn' t a big deal to an atheist then why is it a big deal for you. Why would it be less important to an atheist than a theist?

It' s just insulting. Religion should be personal. It' s as if the President writes a poem about his dog and prints it on national currency. Money is universal, it should be neutral and exclude no one. For the same reason there shouldn' t be atheists quotes, there shouldn' t be religious doctrin on it.

How would you feel if instead of " in god we trust" they printed:

" In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."


Brownie points if you can tell me who said that. The irony is, that would be far more American than " In god we trust" .

ORIGINAL: Agent Ghost
Can you imagine how ***ed up things would be if the Christian party gained the majority of seats? The country would fold up like a leaf (no pun intended). Thankfully I doubt they have any seats.

-Things like abortion, contolled substances, gay marriage, stem cell research shouldn' t even be debated. The ansers are so obvious to anyone with common sense.

Hehe, right now Christian Democrats are the majority and have been so now and then in Northern Belgium (different situation in the southern part due to separated voting amongst many things). The interesting part is that there' s things like legal abortion anyway or regulated gay marriage for years etc. Some of these progressive things even happened while they had the majority or seated in the government. But it might be because the party is more of a conservative, humanist party these days who mainly kept the name out of tradition of course. Or because religion in general doesn' t have a very big presence in society.

My school was a " christian one" actually. Well, officially, it was also more of a case of keeping the name of the founder who happened to be a christian long ago. But most teachers weren' t religious and religion class was more talking about history and concepts of different religions and ethic aspects of life. We had a priest as a teacher one time and even he said that only idiots would disregard theories like evolution etc. He said that religion is about metaphors and things like moral support for people, not absolute facts. He felt that its true strength should lie there and I agreed with him on that point at least :P

The fascinating part is that those who totally disregard evolution theory for exampe claim that scientists just gather up against religion because they are scientists. They forget that there are religious scientists, the concept of the Big Bang even came from a Belgian priest back then for example. They' re also quite selective, they can use computers, cars, bridges, play video games, use electricity, get operated, ... which are all accomplishments of scienctific thinking. But suddenly those same scientists can' t be trusted at all when it comes to one particular aspect of science : evolution. Not really logical I think.

Jack has until March 5th to prove cause and effect of violent videogames leading to violent behaviour. Which is impossible, he' ll only be able to show correlation. This will give me lulz. Once he fails he will no longer be able to file any videogame related cases unless he has a cosigner. LOL

I don' t think that he' ll be able to really prove this. As you said, he might show some correlation in a couple of cases but nothing more than that.

How would you feel if instead of " in god we trust" they printed:

" In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."

How would I feel? Just fine if that' s what the quote originally was, but there' s no need to change it late in the game. I feel the same way when people get pissed off because there' s a nativity scene on city property, or a Dreidel, or hell, a light show of darwinian evolution for all I care. Money' s money, it' s good everywhere, who cares what' s on it? That' s time and funds the already strapped US Govt. really doesn' t have, and I think there are higher priorities personally.

Oh, and the quote? James Madison, primary author of the US Constitution, and author of the Bill of Rights. I' ll take my brownie points, with whatever it is you want printed on them.

Check out the quote in it' s entirety. It' s not about the church not being guardians of the liberties of the people. It' s actually, conveniently about separation of church & state, and how the state often uses the church as justification for it' s actions, but that' s not what I' m debating. I' m all for a non-religious-specific state, so long as my ability to practice my religion isn' t impeded.

It' s actually, conveniently about separation of church & state, and how the state often uses the church as justification for it' s actions, but that' s not what I' m debating. I' m all for a non-religious-specific state, so long as my ability to practice my religion isn' t impeded.

Freedom from religion is the same thing as freedom to practice your religion.

Really? Huh, I' d be interested to hear more about that if you can link me Zoy.

Between 1924 and 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance was worded:

" I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, during the McCarthy era and communism scare, Congress passed a bill, which was signed into law, to add the words " under God." The current Pledge reads:

" I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

From religioustolerance.org


The inclusion of " under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is a result of the McCarthy era Red Scare, and related smear tactics that the power elite used to associate atheism and Communism in the minds of the general public.

The inclusion of " under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is a result of the McCarthy era Red Scare, and related smear tactics that the power elite used to associate atheism and Communism in the minds of the general public.

The things you learn from a videogame discussion forum.