But that's not what I said so I'm not sure why you brought it up.Surely you are not suggesting that only things you say are worthy of discussion.
That bold and unexpected statement reads to me as an unnecessarily adversarial and perhaps diversionary. I'm not trying to trade blows with you, just talk on an issue. I hope you don't think I was playing the part of contrarian foil with my call to caution. Not my intention.
Yes, surely I did not say or imply that. Do you really believe that's where I was coming from? That I suggested only things I say are worthy of discussion? You're talking more at me than with me. Let's conduct our discourse in the For Mature Audiences thread maturely. I'm altogether happy to chat with you, but please let's show a greater respect for one another, alright? Even if we're on opposite sides of an opinion.
Why did I say I wasn't sure why you were bringing it up? Well, my first post said, "It's just such a slippery slope once you start banning" (books).
You responded with a "Maybe, maybe not. Often time the slippery slope statement is a way to justify having no standards at all."
I never said anything about having no standards, so pointing me to a semantic wikipedia entry suggesting the very use of slippery slope is often fallacious sets an aggressive tone that I don't feel was called for. We can do better.
I never said "if you ban books then this and this will happen." I'm not a proponent of anarchic freedom. I was vague because I didn't realize I'd stumbled into debate club, but then you decided to fill in the blanks for me. What I meant, and guess should have spelled out, was that once you start limiting what people can see, there is always the risk of a snowball effect, as it becomes ever easier to ply controls over what people are allowed to know. Some people think kids shouldn't see breasts, for instance. I think they'll survive the experience just fine. So when someone with authority who has shame issues with nudity tells an artist she'll go to jail if her nephew sees her charcoal sketch of the human boob, well that's over my line. There are many belief systems in society, and they don't all agree on the particulars. Who gets to choose and then quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchers?
Perhaps, as you say, the middle can be more defined, rather than my choice of phrase which can interpreted as me suggesting the outcome would either be black or white. But history tells that power corrupts, and given the authority to restrict what we see and read, some people will invariably abuse this power. This is the slippery slope I referred to. Not meaning that your footing will slip out from under you--rather, that it can.
To your question, "Is it uplifting to a culture to dwell on negative aspects of human nature when not giving equal time to the positive aspects of human nature?"
There are many examples of charity, kindness and mercy throughout books and movies. If people don't care to watch or read them... what can we really do about that? Offer government incentives to theaters giving away popcorn with every PG movie stub? I think kids are seeing these positive aspects all the time. Positivity doesn't get the same notice as negativity. There's just not as much glamor in counting the kids who don't shoot up schools. When we recollect our love relationships, memories of bad times and fights are often enduring while so many good memories are fuzzy or lost. It's so easy for cream to sink to the bottom, sans fanfare.
When we're young the blood and guts is much more appealing. If that's what kids are buying then that's what's being sold at market. Most of the kids I knew could watch a stupid slasher film, shrug it off, and still mature into responsible adults (although half of them are doing dimes in Chino for aggravated trisodomy). You don't need buckets of movie blood or death metal opuses to facilitate a teenager's amplified fascination with life's darker aspects. When I was that age I too could watch a violent film and then go about my day unaffected. These days I find such subjects aversive and prefer comedy to all other genres.
Grimm's Fairy Tales were quite often very violent. Should I have been reading Care Bears pop-up books instead? Would that have stimulated my imagination in the same way? Is exposure to violence alright in this dose but not in that dose? Beheadings and torture fine but cannabalism simply unacceptable? Castaways on a small island, Yosemite Sam and Bugs were wanting to eat each other--they were so tired of coconut soup. Back in the 40's they didn't have a problem showing us such things. Were we worse in everyday society then? (aside from all the ways in which we were that owe nothing to cartoon cannabalism)
Would I be better adjusted if I hadn't seen so many horror movies as a kid? When I was 16 I chose to read A Clockwork Orange from a reading list for a class called 'man looks at himself and humanity through literature'. There were things in that book that made me ball my fists until my knuckles went white, but I didn't become a depressed person, a rapist, or a violent felon. It's... art. I'll take away from it what I brought to it. I'm not going to kill myself because Ozzy sang liquor was a suicide solution or because 1st edition D&D's monster manual gave me stats for demons and devils. A suicidal person might have that album or book lying around, but you could just as easily find the poem When I Am Dead, My Dearest, or an angry cucumber sandwich for that matter--because these are adornments to a bad mood, not the causative factors.
I wasn't saying giving in to fear was always a bad thing. I was thinking of the people out there who count on keeping you scared and who do it for all the wrong reasons. That's why I think that it's a slipp... er, well, you know.
Some say, "A democrat is just a republican who hasn't been mugged yet." Without getting in political issues (NO THANKS!) I think it's funny how accurate part of that joke really is. When very bad things happen to certain people it does indeed change their world view. They are sure they're right and they warn everyone not to do what they did or disaster will ensue. When someone doesn't listen and gets hurt anyway they might, despite feelings of sympathy, have an overriding compulsion to say, "See, I told you." But sometimes other people walk the path they're told to be so afraid of and they reach the other side victorious, and good things occur as a result of this exploration.
Thus, I don't trust certainty.
Is the path dangerous to tread? It was last Tuesday, but not last Wednesday. That's why it's difficult to create hard, fast rules for path walking. The future is not as knowable as we'd like it to be. We are faulted and thus, we make faulted decisions. A teacher letting fifteen year olds read about a guy who uses skulls as a fruit salad container? Yeah, that's an incredibly questionable education and the teacher isn't showing good career sense. Sure, kick him in the nuts. Do I think the kids will emerge from this ordeal emotionally intact? Only the ones who were fine before they read that book; and the one's who weren't will find their dark fuel somewhere, book or no book.
That bold and unexpected statement reads to me as an unnecessarily adversarial and perhaps diversionary. I'm not trying to trade blows with you, just talk on an issue. I hope you don't think I was playing the part of contrarian foil with my call to caution. Not my intention.
Yes, surely I did not say or imply that. Do you really believe that's where I was coming from? That I suggested only things I say are worthy of discussion? You're talking more at me than with me. Let's conduct our discourse in the For Mature Audiences thread maturely. I'm altogether happy to chat with you, but please let's show a greater respect for one another, alright? Even if we're on opposite sides of an opinion.
Why did I say I wasn't sure why you were bringing it up? Well, my first post said, "It's just such a slippery slope once you start banning" (books).
You responded with a "Maybe, maybe not. Often time the slippery slope statement is a way to justify having no standards at all."
I never said anything about having no standards, so pointing me to a semantic wikipedia entry suggesting the very use of slippery slope is often fallacious sets an aggressive tone that I don't feel was called for. We can do better.
Ok, if you want to have a mature discussion, then let's start by stopping to reinterpret other people's statements shall we? I NEVER said, that you said there would be no standards. I said (and you even quoted it but obvious did not read it carefully), "Maybe, maybe not. Often time the slippery slope statement is a way to justify having no standards at all." See that word often in there. That means I was not suggesting it is always the case. That is why I said, "Maybe, maybe not." I left open the possibility that what you were suggesting, that banning things can be a slippery slope might be accurate.
For some unknown reason you took those statements to be that I was suggesting you, yourself, did not support standards. I don't know you, and so it would be stupid of me to suggest such a thing. You decided to take my statements personally, I'm sorry you felt the need to do that, they were not stated that way.
Ok, if you want to have a mature discussion, then let's start by stopping to reinterpret other people's statements shall we? I NEVER said, that you said there would be no standards. I said (and you even quoted it but obvious did not read it carefully), "Maybe, maybe not. Often time the slippery slope statement is a way to justify having no standards at all." See that word often in there. That means I was not suggesting it is always the case. That is why I said, "Maybe, maybe not." I left open the possibility that what you were suggesting, that banning things can be a slippery slope might be accurate.
For some unknown reason you took those statements to be that I was suggesting you, yourself, did not support standards. I don't know you, and so it would be stupid of...
Well then your approach to our conversation didn't made sense to me. Sorry for getting you wrong.
Wow, this is still going? It seems the proverbial horse has been beaten into a bloody mass...
Now all that's needed is for someone to figure out how to sodomize the remains.
Nic?
"Yumm. Bloody mass of horse! ... As soon as you're done sodomizing it, can I have the ribs?"
Wow, this is still going? It seems the proverbial horse has been beaten into a bloody mass...
Now all that's needed is for someone to figure out how to sodomize the remains.
Nic?
"Yumm. Bloody mass of horse! ... As soon as your done sodomizing it, can I have the ribs?"
Actually Pres Man and I were talking specifically about the idea of book banning. I don't believe you can actually beat that subject to death. I think the arguments need to be heard for the good of all-- why? Because we're going to solve this great question once and for all on the Paizo boards! :)
Wow, this is still going? It seems the proverbial horse has been beaten into a bloody mass...
Now all that's needed is for someone to figure out how to sodomize the remains.
Nic?
"Yumm. Bloody mass of horse! ... As soon as you're done sodomizing it, can I have the ribs?"
"Ah called dibs, pipsqueak!"
|
Actually Pres Man and I were talking specifically about the idea of book banning. I don't believe you can actually beat that subject to death. I think the arguments need to be heard for the good of all-- why? Because we're going to solve this great question once and for all on the Paizo boards! :)Wow, this is still going? It seems the proverbial horse has been beaten into a bloody mass...
Now all that's needed is for someone to figure out how to sodomize the remains.
Nic?
"Yumm. Bloody mass of horse! ... As soon as your done sodomizing it, can I have the ribs?"
That is, until someone else has a question about it...
Dun-dun-DUNNNNNN!!
"Ah called dibs, pipsqueak!"Wow, this is still going? It seems the proverbial horse has been beaten into a bloody mass...
Now all that's needed is for someone to figure out how to sodomize the remains.
Nic?
"Yumm. Bloody mass of horse! ... As soon as you're done sodomizing it, can I have the ribs?"
"Listen handsome. You can't call dibs when I'm already sitting here with my chopsticks out. Now go find your own dead horse"
Don't make me have to come down there and make dead horse burgers ouchy'all.
::yank starts his chainsaw::
You didn't think fast food restaurants were actually feeding you suckers cow meat, didja?
Mmmmm....Horsemeat.....
"Listen handsome. You can't call dibs when I'm already sitting here with my chopsticks out. Now go find your own dead horse""Ah called dibs, pipsqueak!"Wow, this is still going? It seems the proverbial horse has been beaten into a bloody mass...
Now all that's needed is for someone to figure out how to sodomize the remains.
Nic?
"Yumm. Bloody mass of horse! ... As soon as you're done sodomizing it, can I have the ribs?"
"Feh. Baby kobolds tastes better anyway..."
Mmmmm....Horsemeat.....
But... how you gonna ride a steak to town?
Oh, you're just yanking my chainsaw...
Don't pretend you didn't like it.
Don't pretend you didn't like it.
Oh, you're just yanking my chainsaw...
It was stimulating. Intellectually, I mean.
I wish I lived in Europe sometimes, where they have less violence and more sex.?????
I think somebody else must be having my share...
Come to the UK where we like violence with sex. The French think we all like being spanked. I couldn't possibly comment.
Would I be better adjusted if I hadn't seen so many horror movies as a kid? When I was 16 I chose to read A Clockwork Orange from a reading list for a class called 'man looks at himself and humanity through literature'. There were things in that book that made me ball my fists until my knuckles went white, but I didn't become a depressed person, a rapist, or a violent felon. It's... art. I'll take away from it what I brought to it. I'm not going to kill myself because Ozzy sang liquor was a suicide solution or because 1st edition D&D's monster manual gave me stats for demons and devils. A suicidal person might have that album or book lying around, but you could just as easily find the poem When I Am Dead, My Dearest, or an angry cucumber sandwich for that matter--because these are adornments to a bad mood, not the causative factors.
I do find this 'Blame something, just don't blame me" mindset to be sad. IT's like after the Columbine incident, the media came out blaming Marilyn Manson and violent video games because that had WAY more to do with it than Oh say the Nazi gear these little bastards were wearing and the video tape they made for a class project showing them killing classmates. Maybe it was a clue? I cringe anytime one of these 'Ritual Satanic abuse" cases hits TV, because you know D&D is going to get drug up.
Actually Pres Man and I were talking specifically about the idea of book banning. I don't believe you can actually beat that subject to death. I think the arguments need to be heard for the good of all-- why? Because we're going to solve this great question once and for all on the Paizo boards! :)Wow, this is still going? It seems the proverbial horse has been beaten into a bloody mass...
Now all that's needed is for someone to figure out how to sodomize the remains.
Nic?
"Yumm. Bloody mass of horse! ... As soon as your done sodomizing it, can I have the ribs?"
I think it's healthy to talk about this out in public. Here in the States our government, now Big Brother, has decided that free speach is 'Unpatriotic' and that it's Ok if the CIA reads our E-mail, cause if they don't 'The terrorists win.'
The problem with freedon of speach is this: Freedom of speach isn't there to protect speach that you like, it's there to protect speach that you hate.
Mmmmm....Horsemeat.....But... how you gonna ride a steak to town?
In the immortal words of Jayne Cobb: "IF wishes we horses, we'd all be eatin steak."
Really off topic:
I think it's healthy to talk about this out in public. Here in the States our government, now Big Brother, has decided that free speach is 'Unpatriotic' and that it's Ok if the CIA reads our E-mail, cause if they don't 'The terrorists win.'
The problem with freedon of speach is this: Freedom of speach isn't there to protect speach that you like, it's there to protect speach that you hate.
Hey, if the CIA is reading your emails, at least that means that someone is bothering to read your comments. What good is speach if nobody hears it, right? In other words, just because your comments MIGHT be being spied on does necessarily mean that you are being stopped from saying them.
Back to the topic:
Let me ask this hypothetical to all those people that suggest that any kind of "censorship" is bad. Let's say someone came out with a video game about beating and/or killing people of a specific subgroup (racial, sexual, gender, religious, etc) would we be so cavalier? Would we be saying comments like, "Well just because the people playing the game are enjoying killing virtual blacks/gays/women/jews/whatever, that doesn't mean that they really are racists/homophobic/anti-semitic/whatever. I mean it is JUST A GAME." I hope not.
There is a couple of adages:
"When you lay down with dogs you are likely to get fleas.
"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?
In another thread, people were discussing what it means to be "you", and many feel that who you are is determined by what you experience. That means EVERY experience is effecting you on some level. Of course I may have a schewed idea, since I never play evil characters, I never play in games where genocide is acceptable, and though killing is done in the games I play, I have no moral problem with killing unreasonably dangerous beings. So I don't play against my own natural leanings.
Back to the topic:
Let me ask this hypothetical to all those people that suggest that any kind of "censorship" is bad. Let's say someone came out with a video game about beating and/or killing people of a specific subgroup (racial, sexual, gender, religious, etc) would we be so cavalier? Would we be saying comments like, "Well just because the people playing the game are enjoying killing virtual blacks/gays/women/jews/whatever, that doesn't mean that they really are racists/homophobic/anti-semitic/whatever. I mean it is JUST A GAME." I hope not.
I'm guessing that you haven't played any of the Grand Theft Auto games? IT's like negative sterotypes on parade. And your job is to kill them in as many twisted ways as you can think of. If not, they have most of them at greatest hits price at Walmart.
|
There is a couple of adages:
"When you lay down with dogs you are likely to get fleas.
"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?
1) No, my dog doesn't have fleas, and although stupid, she makes a great pillow.
2) True, but you do get yummy, yummy blackberries and loganberries from briars. Sometimes, if you want a good cobbler, you have to suffer a couple of pricks now and then. Much like internet arguing.
Adages, down-homey quotes, and selected Bible passages are only so good as the milage you are able to drag out of them. When met with a different perspective, they sometimes don't measure up as profoundly.
|
|
Back to the topic:
Let me ask this hypothetical to all those people that suggest that any kind of "censorship" is bad. Let's say someone came out with a video game about beating and/or killing people of a specific subgroup (racial, sexual, gender, religious, etc) would we be so cavalier? Would we be saying comments like, "Well just because the people playing the game are enjoying killing virtual blacks/gays/women/jews/whatever, that doesn't mean that they really are racists/homophobic/anti-semitic/whatever. I mean it is JUST A GAME." I hope not.
This is going to piss people off, but here goes:
If someone has an opinion, in my opinion, they're entitled to it. The law shouldn't interfere with opinions. People should. Someone insults you because you're of a different sexual orientation, or of a different gender, or of a different nationality, or of a different race, then that's their thing. It's your choice whether to ignore them, agree with them, or just plain hit the sonofab$%%#.
For example, you said:
"Let me ask this hypothetical to all those people that suggest that any kind of "censorship" is bad. Let's say someone came out with a video game about beating and/or killing people of a specific subgroup (racial, sexual, gender, religious, etc) would we be so cavalier?"
In response, I would say that I wouldn't give two shakes about whatever game was released, because I wouldn't be playing it. If, say, the game was about beating the s!#! out of scruffy-looking white guys, I wouldn't be offended, because if someone tried to beat the s@$* out of me, I would lay the smackdown on them. No big deal. I make a point not to take things personally. If someone does, it's their problem.
I guess I'm kind of an outside opinion, but if someone has a problem, THEY SHOULD DEAL WITH IT THEMSELVES. Government censorshit only keeps people from seeing other people's opinions. I don't really know where I'm going with this, but, in my opinion* censorship causes a decrease in freedom of choice. Find your own conjectures.
In the immortal words of Malcolm Reynolds; if someone tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back. That's my stand, anyway.
*Editor's note: I overuse this phrase.
If someone has an opinion, in my opinion, they're entitled to it. The law shouldn't interfere with opinions. People should. Someone insults you because you're of a different sexual orientation, or of a different gender, or of a different nationality, or of a different race, then that's their thing. It's your choice whether to ignore them, agree with them, or just plain hit the sonofab@&@~.
So you are seriously suggesting that violence is an acceptable form of "expression" and that the law should look the other way? Really? To me that only leads to the oppression by the strong. You can dicate your will on others based on how well you can beat the crud out of them. If they speak up, you beat them some more.
In response, I would say that I wouldn't give two shakes about whatever game was released, because I wouldn't be playing it. If, say, the game was about beating the s!%~ out of scruffy-looking white guys, I wouldn't be offended, because if someone tried to beat the s!%~ out of me, I would lay the smackdown on them. No big deal. I make a point not to take things personally. If someone does, it's their problem.
First off, you seem to be assuming that if you were approached it would be by one person and a fair fight. I think that is extremely unlikely. People like to talk big until they are facing 7 guys armed with bats and then suddenly it is all, "Hey guys, can't we just talk about this."
So you are seriously suggesting that violence is an acceptable form of "expression" and that the law should look the other way? Really? To me that only leads to the oppression by the strong. You can dicate your will on others based on how well you can beat the crud out of them. If they speak up, you beat them some more.
Real violence? No, we have laws against REAL violence. But Violence in a movie? Violence in a book or video game of roleplaying game? Yeah, thats fine. Freedom of expression.
In response, I would say that I wouldn't give two shakes about whatever game was released, because I wouldn't be playing it. If, say, the game was about beating the s!%~ out of scruffy-looking white guys, I wouldn't be offended, because if someone tried to beat the s!%~ out of me, I would lay the smackdown on them. No big deal. I make a point not to take things personally. If someone does, it's their problem.First off, you seem to be assuming that if you were approached it would be by one person and a fair fight. I think that is extremely unlikely. People like to talk big until they are facing 7 guys armed with bats and then suddenly it is all, "Hey guys, can't we just talk about this."
I've stared down a gun a few times. I had knives pulled on me more times than I can count. What makes you think that you can judge what someone will and won't do in a situation? As far as free speach goes. It's easy to defend something that you agree with. Try defending the rights of someone else, especially when you absolutly know they are wrong.
|
|
In response, I would say that I wouldn't give two shakes about whatever game was released, because I wouldn't be playing it. If, say, the game was about beating the s!%~ out of scruffy-looking white guys, I wouldn't be offended, because if someone tried to beat the s!%~ out of me, I would lay the smackdown on them. No big deal. I make a point not to take things personally. If someone does, it's their problem.First off, you seem to be assuming that if you were approached it would be by one person and a fair fight. I think that is extremely unlikely. People like to talk big until they are facing 7 guys armed with bats and then suddenly it is all, "Hey guys, can't we just talk about this."
You'd probably be right about that with maybe sixty percent of people, but I know that I'm the kind of guy that would
a.) get the snot beaten out of me by trying to beat the snot out of them, orb.) Happen to be carrying a firearm at the time.
Because I'm hardcore like that.
Sex in Gore in game is fine as long as it is part of the story line. There is no need for it ever to be in excess. I ussually only use sex as a source of humor, to make the PC's think about what they are doing before they decide to do it. For example, one of my PC's changed into a new suit of armor at the blacksmith shop which was a open shop and just for kicks I said some woman threw her shirt at him, so he decided to follow her. I skippd right to the next morning and told him he cant remember a thing that happened because of the amount of booze that he drank, as he looked around there were several empty bottles on the floor. Then when he decided to look around he relieved that he was in a dorm room at the temple, and the girl he was with was a virgin. Thn he found out he deflowered the daughter of the high pristess. Now he is going crazy trying to get approval from her mom and dad to be in a relationship with her. As for gore I only use it to describe an area they might go into. For example they decided to explore a ancient temple of unknown origins in the underdark, and they came across a large room that has completly covered with remains of hundereds of creature and the ways and doors were covered in what looked like sword marks but made from somthing much larger than any normal sword.
|
Back to the topic:
Let me ask this hypothetical to all those people that suggest that any kind of "censorship" is bad. Let's say someone came out with a video game about beating and/or killing people of a specific subgroup (racial, sexual, gender, religious, etc) would we be so cavalier? Would we be saying comments like, "Well just because the people playing the game are enjoying killing virtual blacks/gays/women/jews/whatever, that doesn't mean that they really are racists/homophobic/anti-semitic/whatever. I mean it is JUST A GAME." I hope not.
So like Left Behind, the video game where the rapture has occured and gun-toting Christians are sent to cleanse the world of non-believers by blowing them away?
Is it freedom of speech or is it promoting hate and violence?
It's not hypothetical, really.
So like Left Behind, the video game where the rapture has occured and gun-toting Christians are sent to cleanse the world of non-believers by blowing them away? Is it freedom of speech or is it promoting hate and violence?
Supposedly, bashing gays and unbelievers falls under "freedom of religion" -- or so I'm told. It therefore trumps freedom of speech. Bashing religion in return, claiming freedom of speech, supposedly violates that same freedom of religion, because "we were never meant to have freedom from religion!"
I'm not making these up. People tell me things like this all the time. It makes me feel very sad.
Concerning Hook Mountain Massacre:
Nick, thank you. Do not ever doubt that HMM was a worthy adventure. The gore/horror level was spot on.
Why do I think so, with all these people saying by rote that it was "too much" or "gratuitous"?
Because I feel it is entirely justified, on many levels. I have been a DM since way too long ago, and I have hundreds, perhaps a thousand or so, adventures I've read, considered, or played. Of all these, a vanishingly small part actually offers something new. So what did HMM offer? Horror of a different sort than D&D has traditionally presented, and recommendations on how to run it.
I know my Ravenloft evangelium, I have read the darker adventures in Dungeon. And all around, there are only gothic horror stories. A genre that today is considered safe, and that relies on very implied terrible acts. Or put another way: In today's world where violence and crime are well-known facts, it's generally hard to take it seriously.
So what is too much? Well, to be truly horrifying, there needs to be good room for identification. A military campaign, with torture as a matter of course, a racist/genocidal theme, and monstrous violence against civilians used as entertainment, perhaps? No, Massacre could have been MUCH worse, and it is a reference to a well-established horror genre, a fact that I feel should be relevant somewhere in this discussion. You don't make a zombie horror adventure without gore, do you?
|
Really off topic:
I think it's healthy to talk about this out in public. Here in the States our government, now Big Brother, has decided that free speach is 'Unpatriotic' and that it's Ok if the CIA reads our E-mail, cause if they don't 'The terrorists win.'
The problem with freedon of speach is this: Freedom of speach isn't there to protect speach that you like, it's there to protect speach that you hate.Hey, if the CIA is reading your emails, at least that means that someone is bothering to read your comments. What good is speach if nobody hears it, right? In other words, just because your comments MIGHT be being spied on does necessarily mean that you are being stopped from saying them.
If the CIA is bothering reading my emails, can they please investigate the 5 mysterious benefactors from Nigeria that want me to send them my name, address, and social to get my $20,000 in return. They could look into the people advertising pedophile sites to me at the same time.... I have 300 emails in my spam mail folder... at least 20 of them are doing SOMETHING illegal.
On topic: I see the HMM as fine. I was reading books as bad if not worse than that in 3rd grade. And as stated earlier, literary masterpeices like Grimm's Fairy Tales are worse.
I believe (though I might be slightly off) that this is in Exodus, when Moses is leading the people to the promised land. When you strip away the Greek and go right to the Hebrew text, possibly the most accurate translation is 'd!ck heads', which after a couple of translations is cleaned up to 'thick necked people',
Could you please refer me to the relevent verse? I studied the bible rather well and never came upon the expression "dlck heads" in fact, I'm not even sure there is a word for the male member in Bible Hebrew.
So, if you find this one, I'll be very grateful.
While we are on the topic of "Mature Audience Adventures" those of you who don't know about my new publishing studio yet, come check it out:
Not everything we put out should have a "Mature Audiences Only" Sticker on it, but most of it probably should. Our first major release (Razor Coast) is safe enough for all audiences...I think...but if you scroll down on the page to Ebon Shroud, you probably don't want your kids playing that one. Though who am I to censor your children's madness and horror intake!!! ;-)
if you scroll down on the page to Ebon Shroud, you probably don't want your kids playing that one.
You got that right. Vampires ascendant over werewolves? Spare the young from that soulcrushing concept.
if you scroll down on the page to Ebon Shroud, you probably don't want your kids playing that one.You got that right. Vampires ascendant over werewolves? Spare the young from that soulcrushing concept.
Ha!
Not to mention what they do with the few human slaves they keep around...shudder.
You know why the protective mother never let her kids read Ivanhoe?
** spoiler omitted **
OH! BAAAAAAD PUN! YOU SHALL BE PUNISHED...ugh...I did it too. ;-)
if you scroll down on the page to Ebon Shroud, you probably don't want your kids playing that one.You got that right. Vampires ascendant over werewolves? Spare the young from that soulcrushing concept.Ha!
Not to mention what they do with the few human slaves they keep around...shudder.
Eh, humans. Feh.
They had it coming.
|
|
I wish I lived in Europe sometimes, where they have less violence and more sex.
?????
I think somebody else must be having my share...
Come to the UK where we like violence with sex. The French think we all like being spanked. I couldn't possibly comment.
No need to comment; actions speak louder than words...
<ker-swwwiiiiiishhh!>
"Onward, my proud pony-boy! Lift up those hooves!"
Wow, this is still going? It seems the proverbial horse has been beaten into a bloody mass...
Now all that's needed is for someone to figure out how to sodomize the remains.
Nic?
En?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Wow, this is still going? It seems the proverbial horse has been beaten into a bloody mass...
Now all that's needed is for someone to figure out how to sodomize the remains.
Nic?
En?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
When a dead horse says no it means, "rough, please."
|
|
Or raise it from the dead. Since the topic is back up where I seen it for the first time I shall respond and raise the horse from the dead.
Poedophile is where i personally draw a line and rape happening to a PC unless the player is ok with it.
For the most part it depends on the players and GM, the lowest level tends to be the line with in reason. I have no problems with most "mature" as it is label stuff. I think the only problem with the stuff is when there is to much of it and it loses what makes it a useful tool.
Yes I look forward to Sinister Adventures and what you guys end up making.