A Tripolation

That is funny. I suppose it was just my bias talking. Or...the more logical conclusion... You're secretly an advertising agent for Dell, here to shill your crappy products...yeah...makes a lot more sense

Well, I've had some real bad experiences with Dell, and good ones with HP, so I'd recommend going with them on your next computer purchase. Of course, the incidents that happened to me may be completely isolated, but I'd still recommend HP. And, to reiterate what everyone has told you, desktops are more powerful than laptops of the same price, but you are confined to a single place. But laptop keyboards feel really good to type on

That's how I've always felt ever since I learned that "snuff films" existed. I'm relatively new to the internet, and wasn't aware of the atrocities that people enjoy watching on here...namely innocent people getting gunned down. I don't see how people could even watch that and not feel some shame. So, I'm not twisting my logic to suit my argument. That's how I feel. And no, since you would not knowingly be viewing a murder. If you buy something with the intention of seeing a murder, then you are helping to fuel demand for murder, meaning more murders are perpetrated for profit's sake, thus, you are indirectly responsible for the rise in profit-related murders. When you buy such material, you are basically creating a market for it...can you not see that? And also (as an unrelated aside), why would you even WANT to watch that? Do you enjoy seeing people die?

No. While I certainly don't have any respect for someone that would choose to watch it, from what I've gathered from the description, it shows scenes of accidents and suicides. Not people being drug into the woods and raped and murdered. Big difference between the two. But if I'm wrong, then yes, you should be held accountable for helping to fuel murder in terms of profit.

From what I read, watching that makes me question your high-school morals, but no. They were all either fake deaths and/or deaths in a historical context, or the deaths of animals. The description I read may be off, but if that is the case, that is not the type of violent, real, crime viewing I was speaking of. So, basically all I have to do to contract a legal kill is to tell my hitman to record it, so I can watch it in the future? Edit: Ok, let me correct it. So, basically all I have to do to contract a legal kill is to advertise that I would pay money for the viewing of the death of you.

iNow, you're simply wrong. I would hate the game, but since it's a game, I would recognize that it's a freedom of speech thing. Since they don't exist, there really is no crime. Your argument fails at this one point: It shouldn't be a freedom to view violent crimes. It should be illegal to view any and ALL real, violent crimes. And since I've already stated that I do think that people that view videos of murder should be held as accessories to murder, your argument fails in that it isn't a "freedom", but rather, a crime to do so. And if you didn't know, any sexual crime committed against a minor is automatically classified as a violent crime. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Even if that is true (which I don't think it is), then that would mean that there would be a 10% or so that did do it for economic reasons, and punishing the consumer WOULD help to stop it, thus, helping to protect the children. So, going with your logic iNow, if I offered money to view your murder, then I shouldn't be held responsible for your death at all? I didn't harm you in any way. The only harm was done by the murderer.

That's exactly right. But I would hate the people that made the game and the people that bought the game.

And I think this is precisely how it should be. If I offer money to see someone being killed, then that person's blood is on my hands as well. You can try to obfuscate that point as much as you want, but it doesn't change that simple fact. Again, this is spot-on. I personally don't play games like this as I find it incredibly disturbing to murder innocents (even in video game form), but I won't tell someone they can't kill imaginary people. The thing with child porn and "censorship" is that you are viewing something being done against someone else's will. Thus, you are creating demand for it, meaning that more criminal acts of that nature will take place. And yes, I do think it should be illegal to view other crimes as well, eg, people being murdered.

As an avid gamer, I hate censorship too (for people that are legal adults), but IN GAMES. We DON'T allow killing people or beheading families in REAL LIFE. I really fail to see what point you are trying to make, Dudde.

Wrong. People that buy/view child porn create a demand for it. You cannot refute that. By creating a demand for it, more children are subjected to that deplorable thing. So, while it is the producers that are causing a DIRECT harm to the children, the consumers are the one's DRIVING the producers to create more, meaning they are causing harm, be it indirectly. That's enough logic to kill the consumer and producer in my opinion.

Really iNow. By viewing it, they are creating a demand for it, which leads to more child porn produced. Can you really not see that?

I plan on it Phi For All. I'm ashamed I haven't, I thought myself to be quite well-versed in literature.

Well you damn mods can do whatever you want, so it doesn't matter does it? And thanks for explaining...I really thought Phi For All was being literal.

lol, what?

*facepalm* You're really not helping the team you're thinking you're helping.

This I realize. But like you stated, the Axis wasn't. Therefore, that option is gone.

...dam...how did I get that WRONG??? *grabs a pencil and paper* huh... Ah...added to the thousands place instead of hundreds on that last 10...wow, that's kinda sad.

Well, maybe that's the best way of explaining the concept of mortality to children. And yes, this was an excellent reminder, and I wish I had heeded the warning about not watching the video. I've never seen such...blood everywhere like that.

Please tell me how violence understands anything except the violence used against it. Diplomacy did not work very well then. I can't think of anything that would've allowed a non-violent end to World War II. Now I'm not implying that that means there isn't one, I'm just saying I sure as heck can't figure it out.

What do you mean? I think (in this forum anyways) that both groups understand the other all too well.

Seeing as how I know nothing of physics, the only advice I can give is that the word "exerts" in your thread title should probably by "excerpts". Score one for pedantics.

But they weren't doing it to be evil. They did it to end a world war. War is a necessary evil. How could Hitler have been stopped by anything other than war? And really? I've never met anyone that wouldn't kill one to save a million (though I seriously doubt I could do the act myself). But this is fairly off topic.

I wonder why bascule didn't address the rest of your post, padren... Seems to me that was the only one he had a rebuttal for. Damn well said.

Can you come up with any other options? I'm sure I'm missing some variants, but those seem to be the main three. Are you saying that they would have agreed to peace talks while they were not under immediate threat of being overrun? Let me just run and travel to the alternate universes where those scenarios occurred and get the relevant data on civilian deaths. How in the world could I have studies on that? It's just plain common sense, based on history of people and wars before that (and after, as with vietnam). Oh yes, we could have detonated several thermonuclear weapons in that area and ended all resistance. Luckily, we withdrew before that happened (as it was proposed, by Robert Mcnamara, IIRC). We couldn't just withdraw from our engagement with Japan. Two entirely different situations.

Well, look at how much they fought to hold useless islands in the pacific. They were shelled for weeks on end by battleships, and yet they continued. And then they would fight until the very end, and more often than not, the IJA never surrendered. So how do you think they would react to an invasion of their HOMELAND? Do you honestly think they would have just let us waltz in their unopposed? I think it's safe to say that most of the inhabitants would fight (which would include untrained civilians) and they would all be shot by the allies. So civilians die either way, as a result of them being directly involved a la the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, or they would've been killed by artillery strikes or bombers (which wouldn't be aiming for them, but at the IJA stationed in those places). And then, all the allied soldiers that DIDN'T fight in Japan (because they surrendered) would have to fight in Japan, and quite a few of those men would have died as well. Seems pretty easy to substantiate, IMO. This further reinforces the supposition that the Japanese would have mandated that all able people fight, had we invaded Japan directly. For the record, I seriously doubt that I could've ordered the dropping of the nukes, on account of all the children that would die. But looking back, I don't see how they had much of a choice. The only other options were Continued firebombings Blockades with the idea to starve them out An all-out assault on Japan Tell me, how could ANY of those result in less civilian deaths?