🚀 go-pugleaf

This FlameWarrior online game is addictive, alright...


In article <4067cv$6...@news.xs4all.nl>, Jojo  <jo...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>I have been trying to make two points here. You've obviously failed to see
>what I mean:
>
>1) I don't think sex ads are bad for children. There are more important
>   things to worry about. Why don't these same people complain about the
>   violent pictures in CGW? It's illogical to complain about sex and not
>   about the violence.

Whether or not you believe sex ads *in themselves* are bad for children is a 
matter of personal opinion, and I can accept that.  But if the logic 
supporting that opinion is merely that "there are more important things 
to worry about" than these ads, then I'd suggest you pause a moment and 
rethink this.  What you're suggesting is that anything is acceptable and 
"not worth worrying about" so long as you can think up something even 
less acceptable.  A single murder is not bad at all, since there are all 
these double-murderers to worry about.  Double-murderers are not bad, 
since there are multiple-victim serial killers.  Multiple-victim killers 
are not bad, since there are crazed dictators who kill thousands...and so 
on, ad infinitum.  You can easily define "bad" out of existence this 
way, as other posters have pointed out.

Nobody's saying that sex ads are the *only* unhealthy influence on 
children, just that it may be *one* unhealthy influence.  Whether or not 
you agree with this or not is up to you, but your aforementioned "proof" 
is irrelevant.  This is a value judgment, plain and simple.


>2) I don't want people to decide on what I should read. 

Does this include the editors of CGW, who edit out the grammatical errors 
and shorten the articles to fit the format?  How about obviously 
biased reviews written by people who haven't even played the game?  And, 
while we're at it, how about all the people who *fail to write* articles 
for CGW -- they're standing in the way of your reading their potential 
articles, aren't they?  You're mistaking your right to information for 
everybody else's "duty" to provide all manner of information to you.

(Isn't charging for a magazine a financial barrier to information, 
incidentally?)


>   People who try to
>   influence CGW (and many times society as a whole) are indirectly telling
>   me what not to read.

No, people who influence CGW are telling CGW what they would like in the 
magazine.  They could care less about what you read.  Any reader of the 
magazine has a perfect right to express what he would like or not like in 
it, and to deny that right to everybody but yourself -- and in the name of 
freedom, no less! --  is a bit small-minded, if you ask me.


>Point 2) is something for which I don't accept other opinion. I don't 
>want people to tell me how to live, what to read and what to say. I can 
>decide for myself. So, leave the sex ads in the mag, 'cause I might want 
>to have a look at them.

Nobody is stopping you from deciding for yourself what to read, how to 
live, what to say (and so on and so forth -- really what's at issue here 
is what goes in a print magazine that we all pay for, so let's not go 
spinning off into outer space here.)  You can wallpaper your room with 
sex ads for all anybody cares, put it up in your windows, stick one in 
your .sig, have a sex ad tattooed on your forehead -- it's all well and 
good.  I might have questions about your mental stability after you do 
all that, but I will always concede your right to do so.

But at the same time, I have a right to decide the same thing, and 
if I feel that a magazine contains material I don't want to see, I won't 
buy it.  Surely you will accept that I have a right not to buy 
something with money that is mine.  In the process, I am aware that the 
loss of my business will hurt CGW in some miniscule way, so I feel 
responsible to inform them of the reasons I am no longer buying their 
product.  If they feel that my business is valuable enough, they will 
change and I will become a customer of theirs again.  If not, they won't, 
and neither will I.  It's all very civil, with no hard feelings.

Note that nowhere did I say anything about YOUR right to buy whatever you 
like.  You can decide to keep subscribing if you like.  My actions do not 
affect yours in any way, except if CGW suddenly goes bankrupt as a 
result of my $27 a year going away and you have no more magazine to 
read.  But I can't be responsible for that.  I have no more duty to 
subsidize your preferences than you do to subsidize mine.


>And yes, I still think that many people are morons. And people can call 
>me names too, I don't care. If I call someone a moron, it doesn't add to 
>my arguments, but it also doesn't make my arguments invalid (as you would 
>like to wish). It's just something I have to say, as a result of many 
>years of frustration.

This has nothing to do with anything.

In another post you said something about taking a poll of readers, and 
going with the majority.  This is no different than what anybody is 
suggesting -- in fact, it goes farther than anybody else has, since 
nobody to my knowledge has suggested a boycott of any sort.  In the end, 
if this issue becomes significant enough, that's inevitably what's going 
to happen.


Finishing his turn,

Robin.

-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
Robin J. Lee                                               amr...@netcom.com
Vulture's Row Worldwide Web Page             URL: http://webcom.com/~amraam/