Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?

2009-06-14T14:39:15Z

ARX3000:

== Worse ==
I personally think that games are getting worse as they improve. I was playing Star Wars Republic Commando on my friend's Xbox. And that thing was so hard, it wasn't even like a fun challenge. You had to walk around as a clone trooper using one joystick and with the other you had to aim the clone troopers gun. This sort of gameplay coupled with a first person view of the game(rather than just a objective which I perfer most of the time) made the game nearly impossible. I found similar gameplay on Halo, although that seemed slightly easier.

Double Edge

Pornographic images? Apparently someone has never played "Custer's Revenge."--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Dude Custer's revenge, the graphics were so dated, you were looking at pixesl, woo woo. I've never played it but c'mon. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 09:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::There are some Japanese video games that are basically rape simulators.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 21:11, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::And they also gave us ''Boong-Ga Boong-Ga''... --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 10:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Graphics isn't the limiting factor for porn in games. Graphics help a bit, true, but there is so much that could be achieved with plotline, dialog and text. The only reason for the rise in sexual games is that there is now a great enough demand for them to be profitable. - BornAgainBrit.

They get worse because the devoloper is forgetting why we geeks play video games in the first place. The complexity contributed to the world of gaming is nice, but it's removing from the central core of what gaming is all about. Most of us play video games as a way to excape reality and fit ourselves into another world, to control what goes on. As games become more complex, it's coming to a point where we are just moving a pretty picture. Sure it looks nice, but the quality of the games begin to lack. [[User:Dfairlyxed13:Dfairlyxed13]]

:Geeks are a niche market. Loyalty is nice, but at the end of the day, the geeks will till be there anyway. Anything that they can do to expand their base, they'll do.

In a word, repetitive. Back in the earlier days of gaming, production costs were low. Anyone could make a half-decent game as a hobby, and producing even a big title was possible with a team of ten full-time developers on a budget of a few hundred pounds to a few tens of thousand at most. But with the fancy graphics demands now, making a commercially successful game is '''expensive''' - it takes voice actors, and CG experts, sound artists, writers, all kinds of specialists in different fields. Hundreds of them. Then the marketing - with the competition for shelf space, it needs major contacts and advertising. It all comes up to a budget of millions. Because of this very high production cost, there is much less innovation. What publisher or developer would risk investing that much money in something that they were not confdent would succeed? So we are not in the age of sequals and franchises, and of very tight genre-typing. Nothing new is tried, its too expensive to risk. Just a lot more of the same. The situation could be compared with the effect of the hollywood blockbuster on movies, where the demand for special effects and marketing raised production costs to the point where no studio would invest large amounts of capital in something that hadsn't been shown to be profitable already. - BornAgainBrit.
I feel that it is not the graphics or the story line that makes recent games worse, but merely the overall rise in complexition of the controlls. I believe that this takes away from the main storyline. However Halo 3 is excellent.--[[User:JonL|JonL]] 20:05, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

I'd have to say "worse." Games used to be about the games, not the graphics and special effects. When you concentrate on such things, the games lack quality, and this has shown.
Gone are the days of games like "Police Quest," "Adventure" (Crowther/Woods), "Zork," "ZZT," and "Rogue" (Toy/Lane). Those games, though having little or no graphics, had great stories and great programming, and were often very replayable.
Another great thing about older games is the "ma-and-pa" feel of a game being designed by one or a few people, often who become visible and well-known due to their games. The same thing can even be said about certain smaller companies such as Nullsoft (original developers of Winamp) and Netscape, which had the same "ma-and-pa" feel prior to being bought by AOL/Time Warner. Today's games are bureaucratic messes designed over long periods of time by major corporations. --[[User:RedBlade7|danq]] 21:58, 3 December 2007 (EST)

As time goes on, games have gotten less and less difficult and more focused on fancy explosions and whatnot. To prove my point about difficulty, I strongly suggest you go play Super Ghouls and Goblins. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:31, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Better==
Yes! Games are getting better. Games have recently become whole new worlds capable of an insane level of intricate awesomeness. Let's give some examples; I own a PC and 360 and frequently play both (except when the 360's out for repairs, like now. Don't snicker, Wii owners.) Now, as for the new possibilities available to game developers, I've got 4 really good examples. First off is Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Oblivion has a fully realized, 16 square mile world with an intricate system of quests, a functioning legal system (albeit a bit rudimentary and arbitrary), and a whole host of options. Really want that shiny new elven sword but can't afford it? 5 fingers discount, if you happen to have the skill and be willing to risk the punishments of being caught. But then there are two other genre defining games, that move gaming from entertainment to grand story-telling. Next is Bioshock. In Bioshock, you crash-land in the middle of an underwater city named Rapture, where "Where the artist will not fear the censor, and the scientist will not be constrained by petty morality." And if that made you shudder, good - because Rapture has pretty much literally gone to hell. The rest of the game is spent discovering who you are, what happened to Rapture, and who a whole cast of characters were before Rapture's descent into chaos. And all of this is done while repeatedly forcing you into moral dilemmas and making you question the nature of being human. Third on my must-play list is Portal. Yes, the cake is a lie. An deceptively simple-looking puzzle game with a great soundtrack, and the best plot with 3 characters. Fourth on my list is a game I've just recently been playing, that takes huge advantage of new graphics and sound technologies. Audiosurf is available on Steam for $10 - I have no idea if it's sold elsewhere. Anyways, it lets you choose a song and creates a rhythm game from that song - all the parts of the level are generated from the song's beats. It's addictive, fun, cheap and easy to learn. Whoah. Wrote a lot without meaning to. Sorry. Time to start wrapping up: Newer graphics and sound technologies are unlocking whole new possibilities. Games can tell complex, epic stories, or allow you to do whatever you want. They can adjust themselves completely to your tastes, or they can let you play against a friend whenever, wherever. And all of this is good. But shineyz are hardly a replacement for good old ingenuity.--[[User:Reasonless|Reasonless]] 11:59, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Of course the learning edge is going to be hard to adjust to, but once you're up there playing with the big boys, a whole new level of play emerges. Double Edge, you seem not to be the biggest Halo player, so I'm guessing you can't tell me what "superjumps", "sweepsticking", and "track-shooting" are. Scratching the surface, of course there doesn't seem to be too much complexity. But by utilizing existing features, a whole new level of complexity emerges. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 11:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply '''I was not complaining about the lack of compexity in Halo. I was rather complaining about the incredibly hard and unnessiarily complecated gameplay.

::Improved graphics and sound combined with greater computing power are making possible games that were inconceivable 10 years ago. Right now I have "Medieval 2: Total War" loaded up on my PC. The battle graphics are absolutely incredible; it is almost like a window into history. And while "twitch" games may be harder with the additional controls to master, I think they're still a lot better and will only continue to improve.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:38, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Better. The games are harder, but your skill evolves over time, and the greater substance makes the game infinitely more pleasurable. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 14:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Games are definitely getting better. At least for me. Personally, I think that the first games where made to have fun, and to just be "somewhere else". The games these days certainly aren't lacking in that. =D And I also agree with Hacker on his/her point as well - what is easily won doesn't give the same satisfaction as what takes work (or something to that effect). [[User:TaintedInnocence|TaintedInnocence]] 23:06, 3 March 2008 (EST)

'''Better''' Games are definetly getting better as technology increases. I will give an example, and a response to an the first comment on this page. Look at the Wii, games are requiring more skill and at the same time are easier to pick up. In response to the first comment on this page, games are requiring more and more hand-eye coordination. Just because its harder doesn't mean its worse. In the past, games were easy three button affiars. Now, playing a game trains your brain and hands to work together, and you forced to think more and learn more in order to beat a game. In Halo, the best players are the smartest, not always the fastest. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:30, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Games are definitely getting better. I play sports games, and I've found it pretty obvious that ESPN College Hoops 2K5 for my PS2 is far better than March Madness 2001 for my PS1. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 20:36, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==No Opinion==
I don't necessarily think the graphics have anything to do with the games. I've seen some horrible games come out despite new amazing graphics, and yet I've also seen horrible games in days gone past (E.T. for Atari anyone?). Games like FarCry are amazing, with superb gameplay and non-linear methods (even though the storyline is linear), yet have awesome graphics. That being said I've also run across games like Call of Duty, which are pretty good, really can be frustrating at times due to the nature of the "enemy" AI's. It's frustrating clearing a building out only to have a new enemy "bot" spawn directly behind me (United Offensive). Graphics can only go so far in adding value. The final touches HAVE to be in the gameplay for the game to really stick. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:00, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, I think that the problem with improved graphics means that these games can take over a person's life as in many cases, it is more appealing than real life. However, in other cases it can simply enhance the enjoyment...this can be hindered however with far more complicated controls which cause people to practice them and therefore they can also take-over one's life this way!!!!!!
Having said this they can be very enjoyable and especially sports games for me...the better the graphics, the better the gameplay, the more enjoyment (User:bealecr) (EDT) 10:56, 28 April 2007

It's a tough call. While graphics, sound, gameplay, etc. are getting better, I don't think the substance of video games is getting any better. There haven't been any truely innovative games released in a long time. A majority of it is the same old same old FPS, RTS, etc. I'd like to see game developers slow down on the fluff and come up with some revolutionary ideas. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:22, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

==No duh!==
It is not important if video games are getting better or worse. Just don't play them, allright? Unless there is some benefit to it. But look at your life this way: time is your greatest comodoty. Time is MORE valuable than money... time is your LIFE. The devil is slowly killing countless young people by getting them to waste their time (lives) on silly video games. Get out there and do something more productive with your life... do something for GOD.
(fyi - the only way I see video games being beneficial, is if it is a recreational activity that you can use to build relationships with other people. And even then, use sparingly.
[[User:Jason|Jason]] 22:31, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
:However, there are non-recreational purposes for videogames. The Rainbow-Six series of videogames were used by both Military and Police in order to practice tactical actions when MILES gear and Shoot-Houses are not available. Games can also be used to enhance one's fine motor skills, and certain games require the player to think through a situation, something I think that many people should learn how to do. My friends and I use games in order communicate when face-to-face contact is impossible. You can get a lot of things out of games, that you can't get otherwise. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]][[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 21:26, 7 February 2008 (EST)
:Recently, a study showed that surgeons who played video games had better hand-eye coordination than those who did not. Here's the link [http://www.webmd.com/content/article/132/118223?src=RSS_PUBLIC]. So apparently not a total waste of time. Also, like movies and books, games provide something to talk about and a forum for socialization. Why are group online games any worse than offline group card games (the ones using old fashioned paper cards) or board games? There's no reason the whole family couldn't theoretically participate if there is more than one computer in the household connected to the net. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 16:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

== /debate ==
Video games are moving, or have moved, from mindless entertainment into storytelling mediums. Just look at games such as the Metal Gear Solid, FEAR, System Shock, or Deus Ex series.
/debate. --[[User:GaussRifleGrunt|GaussRifleGrunt]] 13:28, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
:Agreed. The best ones have constructive and creative elements, like my favorite, the Sims 2. When the graphics improved, EA games also replaced the make baby scene with a cinematic so that the T for Teen rating could be maintained, and to discourage fan-made pornographic elements. (All one sees is a couple lumps under the covers plus fireworks.)Most of the game is similar to a virtual dollhouse, and the Sims are the "dolls", but with specific needs and aspirations. A lot of creativity is used in creating the Sims, building and furnishing their houses and venues, and making up stories about them. Best of all, the game is non-violent. I like the Simcity series for much the same reasons. Casual games (like match-3, multitasking and hidden object games) are also becoming more and more popular, though they don't require the latest graphics they do have the advantage of playing well on notebook computers. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 16:08, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree too. A good game has a good storyline AND good graphics. Without either, it is a crappy game. Not to say I wouldn't go back and play Final Fantasy VIII on the original Playstation, but it does mean I will refuse to play a game developed on a current console system with such generational graphics. It is pathetic to accept a crappy product. [[User:ARX3000|ARX3000]] 10:39, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?

2009-06-14T13:39:34Z

ARX3000:

Well, I'll come out clearly and say that I'm against any book banning, but I think it would be a topic for a lively discussion so I place it before you and eagerly await your opinions.

==No==

No, a library is a place that categorizes knowledge, even obscene or unpopular knowledge. Banning books from libraries is tantamount to censorship. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Censorship is a liberal concept, and thus I do not believe in it. It is an attempt to create conformity among the youth of our nation. -[[User:BMoore|BMoore]] 02:10, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

: Actually censorship is generally incompatible with liberalism. True liberalism holds that the individual ought be allowed the maximum possible freedom so long as the exercise of such freedom does not impinge on the freedom of others. Censorship is something more often associated with religiously motivated groups and totalitarian societies. That being said, liberalism would allow for censorship of books which could cause harm. I would think that bomb making books might fall into that category for example. --[[User:LeopoldRex|LeopoldRex]] 02:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

::Differing use of terms, Leopold. Most here, I think, would refer to that philosophy as "Libertarianism"--though some might agree with you that it's closely related to liberalism. I see it as a very conservative philosophy, in that it is essentially the philosophy of many of the Founding Fathers.

::That being said, censorship occurs for many reasons. Certainly, there have been instances where conservative Christians called for censorship of materials they considered to be offensive or spiritually dangerous; the Harry Potter books spring to mind immediately. On the other hand, we have the ad nauseam attempts to censor, say, ''Huckleberry Finn'' because it contains offensive words--completely ignoring the fact that the book uses those words in a historical context to teach a valuable lesson.

::--

Good points from both of you guys, although I'd like to know exactly how liberals cry for censorship? I never hear any of them saying how certain movies, books, or songs should be banned. Well, actually it does occur occasionally, so perhaps more accurately I should say liberals censor much less than conservatives. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 13:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:Generally speaking, "liberal" censorship takes the form of concern about racism or violent material and protecting children from exposure to the same. Consider Tipper Gore, and her crusade to protect children from rock music back in the eighties. Shakespeare's ''The Merchant of Venice'' has been banned in the past because Shylock is considered an offensive Jewish stereotype. Likewise, ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'' and ''Huckleberry Finn''
:The folks calling for these bans generally have good intentions, but we all know the old saying about good intentions.
:[[User:BenP|BenP]] 13:50, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I am opposed to any Government authority or otherwise censoring anything. People have a right to read, watch, and play what they want. Granted, parental units can restrict media to their children, but that is about it. Those over the age of 18 should have access to any media they wish to access, this is guarenteed by the First Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States, and it should be kept that way. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 15:49, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

There are many, many things that the world would be better off if they could be banned. Islam, for a start, and all other religions that damn people to hell (like Christianity). Liberal propaganda. Texts defending the right to sodomy or trying to normalise it. Attacks on the family. Anti-christian materials. Pornography. Occultism. Darwinism, and other pseudosciences that destroy God. I would be happy to see all of those banned. However, there is no earthly authority that I would trust to write or to enforce the list of banned materials - there is too much potential for corruption, and without such an authority there is no option but to allow everything. This is why the first ammendment exists - of course the founders knew there were many things that should be banned, but they also realised that government cannot be trusted to do this. Better to just put up with this cultural pollution and to fight it where possible than to risk creating a position with the power to ban the bible and hoping it's only ever occupied by good people. All we can do as Christians is fight to silence and surpress unholy speech and those who continue to make it on a case-by-case basis, to keep it as quiet as possible. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

You really come off as a fascist, ya know.

There is nothing wrong with seeing or hearing a viewpoint that conflicts with your own. If nothing else, it is a mental exercise to see if you have a) the faith you proclaim to have (if you're religious) or b) evidence for your religion/theory/assertion. The only reason to ban anything is if it conflicts with a law. I would like to direct your attention to the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."
If a person wishes not to see something in the library, all she or he has to do is not look at it. Same with the internet, but that's a different argument.
There are a few reasons people want to see things banned. One is that it reveals a deep flaw in their reasoning, but nobody will admit that. A second reason is that they think people shouldn't see that idea or viewpoint, which, for children, makes sense (we do have age restrictions on items such as porn). For adults, however, it doesn't make that much sense. If they are going to be functioning adults, they should develop maturity and strength in their beliefs (even if that belief is the lack of a belief system), enough strength to encounter these things and realize that they either "have a point, but I don't agree with that," "they don't have a valid point, and I don't agree with that," or "they have a valid point, let me check it out and go deeper into my own belief system to figure out what's going on" [[User:Pwulf|Pwulf]]

If we were to allow such a terrible thing to happen, we're another step closer to a 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 scenario. Without books, without concrete literature to sway and form our perspectives on life, we would easily be strayed to blind following. WE should be exposed to disgusting, terrible and downright awful things on a daily basis if it does nothing more than strengthens our convictions. If we read these things and thus find them interesting or agreeable, is it bad? No, "good" and "bad" books alike have swayed people to do crazy things. We just need to maintain a clear perspective at all times and don't become too radical. Taking the choice away from someone is downright irresponsible and morally corrupt. [[User:smokeandmirrors|smokeandmirrors]]

==Yes==

I agree that certain books should be banned. Censorship already exists for the most extreme obscene and terrorist material in libraries. You've got to ask why are standards of morality being constantly eroded? I'm not saying Harry Potter books are going to corrupt a child, but at the least it will desensitize an impressionable mind to the occult. The progessive liberalisation of media is a dangerous road to go down. The effects of desensitivation to sex and violence are all to obvious in declining values and increasing crime (in the UK). I can't see the government doing anything, so I guess self censorship is the answer for those who still care. Free speech and human rights are wonderful, but what about the right to walk down the street without getting verbal abuse or being attacked! Regards, Adam
:But Self-Censorship is in and of itself not censorship. Censorship is where an authority restricts access to certain types of media (such as books, videogames, internets, movies) to people (minors excluded). Choosing not to read something is not censorship. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 15:50, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
::Crime has steadily fallen in the UK for a couple of decades, it is linked more to prosperity rather than reading material [[User:MrVipond]]
Alll books should be banned that do not includes god
:Dear Mr. Khumeni (I assume that's who wrote the proceeding comment), please contact me for a list of books that do not mention God, but may just strech your mind, increase your moral sensitivites and make you a better person, and a better Christian. Sincerely, Parcival
:You are very biased and are likely to offend people. [[User talk:Faizaguo|Offend.]]--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:33, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::Just a comment to the "Harry Potter and the Occult Influence" above - the kind of "magick" which the Bible forbids is specifically sorcery, i.e., summoning the dead, demons, or demons masquerading as angels. This type of magic, when it even appears in the HP books, is specifically denounced as evil, and infact the kind of magic used is much more in line with Moses' miracles, or a "God-given talent" - there is no pact with the devil, just what you were born with. Rowling goes further than that, and in fact a major theme of the books is that Love (which, as we all know, IS God, and God IS Love) is the highest form of magic, the most powerful force in the Harry Potter universe.
::Also - the Bible also has many instances of verbal attacks being allowed, so long as it is constructive in intent. The same goes with physical attacks. If anything, a conservative should be more worried about the increasingly-large "Nanny State/Big Brother" that "progressivism" inculculates, than in which books might allegedly encourage minors to ill. Looking into history, we can see that large-scale censorship is always allied with the most "progressive" and "socialist" regimes - and that the capitalist, conservative view should always rest on absolute freedom of speech (not acts, which can infringe on others rights).[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] 05:51, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I must confess I am in conflict with my church's position on this one. I think censorship should be applied similar to the way we apply hatespeech. A book shouldnt be censored for merely mentioning or describing immoral or ungodly things. Rather it should be banned for inciting people to do such things. Thus Harry Potter shouldn't be banned but a book on "how to cast spells" should be.[[user:DamianJohn]]

You could argue that since the bible says "do not bear false witness" (paraphrased somewhat) that ANY FICTION is contrary to Gods will and therefore should be untouched by any true Christian. Following this reasoning though a library could contain ANY book, and a moral person would simply leave it unread, or stop reading as soon as its nature was determined. Parents should supervise their children though, so Sex manuals in a library would not bother me , since my children would not have access to them . [[User:Markr|Markr]] 20:23, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

Libraries have and already do censor books becuase there have been many times where i went to local library and i was unable to find what i was looking for becuase it was to conserative.

==No, no, no, no...no.==
Tell me, what does censorship accomplish? It takes away someone's access to information. Now that is done, all that is left is one side. One sided information creates drones. People who are the same. Now, if everyone were the same, we couldn't really have progress. Here are some examples of people who have been labeled different, people with new ideas, that were considered bad. MLK, Galileo Galilei, and Jesus. -[[User:Nono|Nono]] 16:21, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

No idea in and of itself, has ever caused harm. It is how a person uses that idea that causes harm. Reading something opens your mind to possibilities. it is the choice of the path you take that defines who you are, what you are.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 16:31, 11 November 2008 (EST)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==Yes!==

Censorship indeed takes away someone's access to information, but as long as the side that's left is the side that's good, then it should definitely be enacted, even if only to prevent children from getting at evil books like The Catcher in The Rye, and LaVey's Satanic Bible. Censorship limits thought, but if you take that stance, then prosecuting criminals limits their freedoms. Censorship should be used as a proactive criminal justice system, taking the ideas of Naked Lunch and others like it out of people's heads for good. -[[user:Honomo|Honomo]] 21:27, 9 October 2008

:Really? The side that's left is the side that's good? Good? Now I can hardly believe that you would say something like that? Who are you to judge what is good and what isn't. Ecclesiastes 12:14:
"For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil" God will judge, certainly not you. Do not start to believe that you can decide what is right and what is wrong. You can have an opinion about it, a belief, a hope, but you can certainly not know. And every time you ban a book, a movie, a word or a thought, you take undue power into your hands. You may believe that something is wrong, but let your children and your friends decide for themselves. Book banning is the reason why people are afraid of faith. Never hide science, or injury or madness, it's the only to understand the world that surrounds us. And if you trust your faith in God, if you truly trust it, you would certainly be unafraid of "Catcher in the Rye".
And how about a suggestion: read it, just to see what it does to you, before attacking it without thought.

==No==

We should not seek to censorship books, because they represent the entirety of human knowledge. If we were to begin widespread censorship, then we would be travelling down a very slippery slope. Just as we cannot and should not deny events such as the Holocaust existed, we should not disclude ourselves from realising that other viewpoints exist than our own in this world. How can anybody possibly be allowed to distinguish for themselves what is right and wrong without having seen both sides? [[User:Masterofhisdomain|Masterofhisdomain]] 16:36, 23 February 2009 (EST)

==Totalitarianism==

When you attempt to use the government to censor what is wrong, you are effectively shoving your morals down the throats of other people. Not even Christian thought condones such methods. If you want people to do what is right, then you need to lead by example, not keep anyone from knowing horrors.

And not only that but when you attempt to censor information through the government, you certainly are no better than any totalitarian dictatorship, because you are taking people's ability to choose away. It is up to each individual person whether to do wrong or to do what is right or just, and without that all you have is lack of responsibility.

On the other hand, it is perfectly acceptable to censor in your own home with your own family. No one has the right to tell you that you cannot discipline your kids for doing wrong. [[User:ARX3000|ARX3000]] 09:39, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:F-22 Raptor

2009-06-14T13:20:14Z

ARX3000:

THe F-22 can't have external hard points, you conservationist...

I like it expand too. just didnt know there was one. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 09:41, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

"The ability to supercruise at supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners" needs to be changed, it should say "it is capable of super-cruising, an ability to achieve supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners." [[User:ARX3000|ARX3000]] 09:20, 14 June 2009 (EDT)