<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_09_164259</id>
	<title>Video Games, the First Amendment, and Obscenity</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1247156580000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes with an excerpt from an article about <a href="http://gametopius.com/index.php/video-games/features/624-nwtjobcenity">how obscenity laws and the first amendment relate to modern games</a>:
<i>"This question is a tough one, for the very good reason that no video game developer or publisher has ever been prosecuted for obscenity related to video games. As we have seen, if the medium of video games are held to the same standard as literature and film then, presumably, they can also be held to be obscene. One of the reasons for the lack of obscenity prosecution against video game developers and publishers is that the courts have limited obscenity to sexual content only. In fact, the courts have gone so far as to specifically reject calls to alter the definition of 'obscenity' to include violent content in video games. The other major reason is the vast majority of video games sold in the United States have only small amounts of sexual content thanks to the Electronic Software Rating Board."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes with an excerpt from an article about how obscenity laws and the first amendment relate to modern games : " This question is a tough one , for the very good reason that no video game developer or publisher has ever been prosecuted for obscenity related to video games .
As we have seen , if the medium of video games are held to the same standard as literature and film then , presumably , they can also be held to be obscene .
One of the reasons for the lack of obscenity prosecution against video game developers and publishers is that the courts have limited obscenity to sexual content only .
In fact , the courts have gone so far as to specifically reject calls to alter the definition of 'obscenity ' to include violent content in video games .
The other major reason is the vast majority of video games sold in the United States have only small amounts of sexual content thanks to the Electronic Software Rating Board .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes with an excerpt from an article about how obscenity laws and the first amendment relate to modern games:
"This question is a tough one, for the very good reason that no video game developer or publisher has ever been prosecuted for obscenity related to video games.
As we have seen, if the medium of video games are held to the same standard as literature and film then, presumably, they can also be held to be obscene.
One of the reasons for the lack of obscenity prosecution against video game developers and publishers is that the courts have limited obscenity to sexual content only.
In fact, the courts have gone so far as to specifically reject calls to alter the definition of 'obscenity' to include violent content in video games.
The other major reason is the vast majority of video games sold in the United States have only small amounts of sexual content thanks to the Electronic Software Rating Board.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638531</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1247162280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It boils down to this:  Crusades = ok, premarital sex = da debbil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It boils down to this : Crusades = ok , premarital sex = da debbil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It boils down to this:  Crusades = ok, premarital sex = da debbil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28647577</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247226120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Sounds like the market is SCREAMING for someone to develop a good, highly sexual content video game.</p></div></blockquote><p>Not very loudly. There's still pr0n, and making it interactive... *mental image* doesn't mix...</p><blockquote><div><p>That ratings board is stil voluntary, right?</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, but NO distributor is going to touch a sex game with a ten-foot-pole.</p><blockquote><div><p>What's to stop someone from making such a game, that will work on some or all of the platforms, and marketing and selling it independently?Sure, you may not get offical blessing by Sony, Nintendo or MS, and you may have to omit their trademarked names, but, surely there is no law about what you can plug into your own game unit that you own, is there? Hell sell it online, the first one out to do this would win by word of mouth selling. If the companies start bitching, just throw out the 1st amendment rights and the fair use doctrine.</p></div></blockquote><p>1. Profitability. Indie games are dead. Yeah, I know, "long tail niche market". The banker you'll talk to about how you need $$$ to develop a product that has a projected market penetration of near zero doesn't.<br>2. No official blessing = no official marketing. For Sony/Nintendo/MS, marketing one game is free. Included in ad buget. For an independent, it's an arm, a leg, all his internal organs and a loan on seven generations, and that's for *marketing* ONE game. Oh, and you'll be sued to Hell and back by the console companies, too, both for obscenity and for using their tech illegally. Fair use, what's that to a full-time lawyer team on salary? And judges are all too old to get it up, so they'll hate the game makers and clients. Or they'll be aroused, whic&#200;Y will make them hate you even more, because they're all hardcore puritans.<br>3. Sell it online? Interactive online sex is called webcam chat and it's paid by the minute. (And now *that*'s a game company's wet dream...)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like the market is SCREAMING for someone to develop a good , highly sexual content video game.Not very loudly .
There 's still pr0n , and making it interactive... * mental image * does n't mix...That ratings board is stil voluntary , right ? Yes , but NO distributor is going to touch a sex game with a ten-foot-pole.What 's to stop someone from making such a game , that will work on some or all of the platforms , and marketing and selling it independently ? Sure , you may not get offical blessing by Sony , Nintendo or MS , and you may have to omit their trademarked names , but , surely there is no law about what you can plug into your own game unit that you own , is there ?
Hell sell it online , the first one out to do this would win by word of mouth selling .
If the companies start bitching , just throw out the 1st amendment rights and the fair use doctrine.1 .
Profitability. Indie games are dead .
Yeah , I know , " long tail niche market " .
The banker you 'll talk to about how you need $ $ $ to develop a product that has a projected market penetration of near zero does n't.2 .
No official blessing = no official marketing .
For Sony/Nintendo/MS , marketing one game is free .
Included in ad buget .
For an independent , it 's an arm , a leg , all his internal organs and a loan on seven generations , and that 's for * marketing * ONE game .
Oh , and you 'll be sued to Hell and back by the console companies , too , both for obscenity and for using their tech illegally .
Fair use , what 's that to a full-time lawyer team on salary ?
And judges are all too old to get it up , so they 'll hate the game makers and clients .
Or they 'll be aroused , whic   Y will make them hate you even more , because they 're all hardcore puritans.3 .
Sell it online ?
Interactive online sex is called webcam chat and it 's paid by the minute .
( And now * that * 's a game company 's wet dream... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like the market is SCREAMING for someone to develop a good, highly sexual content video game.Not very loudly.
There's still pr0n, and making it interactive... *mental image* doesn't mix...That ratings board is stil voluntary, right?Yes, but NO distributor is going to touch a sex game with a ten-foot-pole.What's to stop someone from making such a game, that will work on some or all of the platforms, and marketing and selling it independently?Sure, you may not get offical blessing by Sony, Nintendo or MS, and you may have to omit their trademarked names, but, surely there is no law about what you can plug into your own game unit that you own, is there?
Hell sell it online, the first one out to do this would win by word of mouth selling.
If the companies start bitching, just throw out the 1st amendment rights and the fair use doctrine.1.
Profitability. Indie games are dead.
Yeah, I know, "long tail niche market".
The banker you'll talk to about how you need $$$ to develop a product that has a projected market penetration of near zero doesn't.2.
No official blessing = no official marketing.
For Sony/Nintendo/MS, marketing one game is free.
Included in ad buget.
For an independent, it's an arm, a leg, all his internal organs and a loan on seven generations, and that's for *marketing* ONE game.
Oh, and you'll be sued to Hell and back by the console companies, too, both for obscenity and for using their tech illegally.
Fair use, what's that to a full-time lawyer team on salary?
And judges are all too old to get it up, so they'll hate the game makers and clients.
Or they'll be aroused, whicÈY will make them hate you even more, because they're all hardcore puritans.3.
Sell it online?
Interactive online sex is called webcam chat and it's paid by the minute.
(And now *that*'s a game company's wet dream...)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28644289</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>PaganRitual</author>
	<datestamp>1247143140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is marked as interesting, but isn't this the exact line of thinking that we endlessly mock? Violence doesn't bother you because, well, no one is going to kill anyone hurr, that never happens.But OMG KIDS MIGHT WANT TO HAVE SEX THIS IS TERRIBLE WE HAVE TO STOP THEM SEEING THIS.</p><p>It's still about control then, surely. Sex is considered more 'seductive' than violence because it's not overtly illegal. Yet. You can't go out and hit/shoot/kill someone because that's against the law, so sure, let people watch people murder other people because that's fine, they aren't actually allowed to do it anyway. But let them watch sex? But<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but, that might make them curious about what it's like and then they might actually go have sex and that would be<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... bad? I guess? Because we can't directly control that, maybe?I don't know, it's not my own stupid point I'm trying to back up here.</p><p>Then there is the awesome logic that I've heard where violence is okay because violence is a fact of life and kids need to be exposed to what can happen. But sex isn't?</p><p>I really do have trouble getting my head around all this crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is marked as interesting , but is n't this the exact line of thinking that we endlessly mock ?
Violence does n't bother you because , well , no one is going to kill anyone hurr , that never happens.But OMG KIDS MIGHT WANT TO HAVE SEX THIS IS TERRIBLE WE HAVE TO STOP THEM SEEING THIS.It 's still about control then , surely .
Sex is considered more 'seductive ' than violence because it 's not overtly illegal .
Yet. You ca n't go out and hit/shoot/kill someone because that 's against the law , so sure , let people watch people murder other people because that 's fine , they are n't actually allowed to do it anyway .
But let them watch sex ?
But ... but , that might make them curious about what it 's like and then they might actually go have sex and that would be ... bad ? I guess ?
Because we ca n't directly control that , maybe ? I do n't know , it 's not my own stupid point I 'm trying to back up here.Then there is the awesome logic that I 've heard where violence is okay because violence is a fact of life and kids need to be exposed to what can happen .
But sex is n't ? I really do have trouble getting my head around all this crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is marked as interesting, but isn't this the exact line of thinking that we endlessly mock?
Violence doesn't bother you because, well, no one is going to kill anyone hurr, that never happens.But OMG KIDS MIGHT WANT TO HAVE SEX THIS IS TERRIBLE WE HAVE TO STOP THEM SEEING THIS.It's still about control then, surely.
Sex is considered more 'seductive' than violence because it's not overtly illegal.
Yet. You can't go out and hit/shoot/kill someone because that's against the law, so sure, let people watch people murder other people because that's fine, they aren't actually allowed to do it anyway.
But let them watch sex?
But ... but, that might make them curious about what it's like and then they might actually go have sex and that would be ... bad? I guess?
Because we can't directly control that, maybe?I don't know, it's not my own stupid point I'm trying to back up here.Then there is the awesome logic that I've heard where violence is okay because violence is a fact of life and kids need to be exposed to what can happen.
But sex isn't?I really do have trouble getting my head around all this crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28640507</id>
	<title>Probably only in the US...</title>
	<author>seekret</author>
	<datestamp>1247169720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's pretty crazy that sexual things are frowned upon but violent murder and acts of aggression are typically seen as ok in movies and video games. Just goes to say what type of country we are when we can't handle things like a woman's breast being shown during the half time show of a sport that revolves around people trying to beat each other up. I'm not against violent movies or games though, I just find it funny that it's okay for impressionable teens to sit around killing each other, but if there's a sex scene the country throws a fit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pretty crazy that sexual things are frowned upon but violent murder and acts of aggression are typically seen as ok in movies and video games .
Just goes to say what type of country we are when we ca n't handle things like a woman 's breast being shown during the half time show of a sport that revolves around people trying to beat each other up .
I 'm not against violent movies or games though , I just find it funny that it 's okay for impressionable teens to sit around killing each other , but if there 's a sex scene the country throws a fit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's pretty crazy that sexual things are frowned upon but violent murder and acts of aggression are typically seen as ok in movies and video games.
Just goes to say what type of country we are when we can't handle things like a woman's breast being shown during the half time show of a sport that revolves around people trying to beat each other up.
I'm not against violent movies or games though, I just find it funny that it's okay for impressionable teens to sit around killing each other, but if there's a sex scene the country throws a fit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28643281</id>
	<title>awww they're gonna cancel it</title>
	<author>ILuvRamen</author>
	<datestamp>1247138160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>All I have to say is I hope they don't cancel Puppy Wars 2: Furmageddon.  I just can't get enough of that shooting puppies with shotguns.  Just kidding, I made that up (unless it's a real game, in which case I wouldn't be that surprised).  But seriously, that Japanese rape game that was just mentioned on slashdot in another recent story and games that have you shooting or otherwise harming real, existing people definitely shouldn't be made.  You don't need to go through a bunch of constitution reading and legal song and dance to know people shouldn't be allowed to write freaking rape games.  I mean what's next, Child Molester 3000?</htmltext>
<tokenext>All I have to say is I hope they do n't cancel Puppy Wars 2 : Furmageddon .
I just ca n't get enough of that shooting puppies with shotguns .
Just kidding , I made that up ( unless it 's a real game , in which case I would n't be that surprised ) .
But seriously , that Japanese rape game that was just mentioned on slashdot in another recent story and games that have you shooting or otherwise harming real , existing people definitely should n't be made .
You do n't need to go through a bunch of constitution reading and legal song and dance to know people should n't be allowed to write freaking rape games .
I mean what 's next , Child Molester 3000 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I have to say is I hope they don't cancel Puppy Wars 2: Furmageddon.
I just can't get enough of that shooting puppies with shotguns.
Just kidding, I made that up (unless it's a real game, in which case I wouldn't be that surprised).
But seriously, that Japanese rape game that was just mentioned on slashdot in another recent story and games that have you shooting or otherwise harming real, existing people definitely shouldn't be made.
You don't need to go through a bunch of constitution reading and legal song and dance to know people shouldn't be allowed to write freaking rape games.
I mean what's next, Child Molester 3000?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639015</id>
	<title>What is "obscenety" anyway?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247164140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has anyone of those bible thumpers ever thought about what that word means?<br>It is the implication of nudity, sex, and talking about these things, being related to something bad and forbidden.<br>Now if you think about it, we all are born nude, and by nature, this is our intended default state. Also our very existence is based on sex, and it is probably the best feeling that anything can give you. (Especially when based on love and fun). Which of course is for the same reason of our existence depending on it.<br>So if this are the best and most natural and important things in our existence, then why in the world would anyone come up with the concept of them bing somehow bad and forbidden? It just boggles the mind, doesn't it?<br>Yet somehow we are so used to it, that it appears to be a totally normal thing, to look in a disgusted manner upon "obscenity".</p><p>I once found an article that was the first to actually shed some light on how this was possible.<br>It explained, that in the dark ages, and even before that, some people came up with this scheme:<br>You make the very things that they love the most, and can't help but wanting to do, because it is you basic nature, a bad and forbidden thing. Forbidden by "god".<br>You then tell the people, that this "nice" god, would literally raise hell upon you, if you so much as thought about doing these things.<br>Because nobody can hold back his basic nature forever, this would make everyone a sinner.<br>And this would give you absolute power and absolute control over those people, commanding them to do how you please, to pay for their sins.</p><p>So apparently, this whole concept is just straight out of the rule book for oppression from the dark ages. And in reality, there is no such thing as obscenity.<br>Which would make it a power play. A fight for power and control.</p><p>Well, if this really is the case, which I believe it is, (but ask you to think and decide for yourselves), then, well, this is easy to fight:<br>Just ignore those who scream against "obscenity". Because all they scream for, is to stay in power, or for their master to stay in power (while being mostly unaware of it).</p><p>So question such (seemingly) basic matters of course, and look at things yourself. Then you will exactly know what is OK and what is not OK to do, and your art and ideas will not be limited by false beliefs or controlled by others. Which in my experience usually results in the most outstanding art and concepts, and even make people follow <em>your</em> strong reality. But not because you oppress them, but because they respect you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone of those bible thumpers ever thought about what that word means ? It is the implication of nudity , sex , and talking about these things , being related to something bad and forbidden.Now if you think about it , we all are born nude , and by nature , this is our intended default state .
Also our very existence is based on sex , and it is probably the best feeling that anything can give you .
( Especially when based on love and fun ) .
Which of course is for the same reason of our existence depending on it.So if this are the best and most natural and important things in our existence , then why in the world would anyone come up with the concept of them bing somehow bad and forbidden ?
It just boggles the mind , does n't it ? Yet somehow we are so used to it , that it appears to be a totally normal thing , to look in a disgusted manner upon " obscenity " .I once found an article that was the first to actually shed some light on how this was possible.It explained , that in the dark ages , and even before that , some people came up with this scheme : You make the very things that they love the most , and ca n't help but wanting to do , because it is you basic nature , a bad and forbidden thing .
Forbidden by " god " .You then tell the people , that this " nice " god , would literally raise hell upon you , if you so much as thought about doing these things.Because nobody can hold back his basic nature forever , this would make everyone a sinner.And this would give you absolute power and absolute control over those people , commanding them to do how you please , to pay for their sins.So apparently , this whole concept is just straight out of the rule book for oppression from the dark ages .
And in reality , there is no such thing as obscenity.Which would make it a power play .
A fight for power and control.Well , if this really is the case , which I believe it is , ( but ask you to think and decide for yourselves ) , then , well , this is easy to fight : Just ignore those who scream against " obscenity " .
Because all they scream for , is to stay in power , or for their master to stay in power ( while being mostly unaware of it ) .So question such ( seemingly ) basic matters of course , and look at things yourself .
Then you will exactly know what is OK and what is not OK to do , and your art and ideas will not be limited by false beliefs or controlled by others .
Which in my experience usually results in the most outstanding art and concepts , and even make people follow your strong reality .
But not because you oppress them , but because they respect you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone of those bible thumpers ever thought about what that word means?It is the implication of nudity, sex, and talking about these things, being related to something bad and forbidden.Now if you think about it, we all are born nude, and by nature, this is our intended default state.
Also our very existence is based on sex, and it is probably the best feeling that anything can give you.
(Especially when based on love and fun).
Which of course is for the same reason of our existence depending on it.So if this are the best and most natural and important things in our existence, then why in the world would anyone come up with the concept of them bing somehow bad and forbidden?
It just boggles the mind, doesn't it?Yet somehow we are so used to it, that it appears to be a totally normal thing, to look in a disgusted manner upon "obscenity".I once found an article that was the first to actually shed some light on how this was possible.It explained, that in the dark ages, and even before that, some people came up with this scheme:You make the very things that they love the most, and can't help but wanting to do, because it is you basic nature, a bad and forbidden thing.
Forbidden by "god".You then tell the people, that this "nice" god, would literally raise hell upon you, if you so much as thought about doing these things.Because nobody can hold back his basic nature forever, this would make everyone a sinner.And this would give you absolute power and absolute control over those people, commanding them to do how you please, to pay for their sins.So apparently, this whole concept is just straight out of the rule book for oppression from the dark ages.
And in reality, there is no such thing as obscenity.Which would make it a power play.
A fight for power and control.Well, if this really is the case, which I believe it is, (but ask you to think and decide for yourselves), then, well, this is easy to fight:Just ignore those who scream against "obscenity".
Because all they scream for, is to stay in power, or for their master to stay in power (while being mostly unaware of it).So question such (seemingly) basic matters of course, and look at things yourself.
Then you will exactly know what is OK and what is not OK to do, and your art and ideas will not be limited by false beliefs or controlled by others.
Which in my experience usually results in the most outstanding art and concepts, and even make people follow your strong reality.
But not because you oppress them, but because they respect you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638287</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247161320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It does amaze me that we live in a society where realistically depicted violence, and in the case of some news stories, actual violence, is considered acceptable.  Meanwhile, a single breast being exposed during a Superbowl half-time show resulted in outrage and a strong desire to "crack down" on obscenity.  The message there is that violence is normal and acceptable while sexuality is obscene and must be censored.
<br> <br>
You are quite right about a chilling effect.  That tells me we are doing things the hard way.  Rather than censorship, I'd much rather we teach people that fictional depictions like video games can be appreciated for what they are without also being idolized and emulated.  Any adult who can't understand what that means is not really an adult but an overgrown child.  So I assume this must be about children.  If parents are worried about their children being exposed to the more severe video games or movies or any other media, I fully support their right to act as the "benevolent dictators" that they are and control what their children have access to.  However, I expect them to actually be parents instead of relying on institutional censorship to carry out their responsibility for them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does amaze me that we live in a society where realistically depicted violence , and in the case of some news stories , actual violence , is considered acceptable .
Meanwhile , a single breast being exposed during a Superbowl half-time show resulted in outrage and a strong desire to " crack down " on obscenity .
The message there is that violence is normal and acceptable while sexuality is obscene and must be censored .
You are quite right about a chilling effect .
That tells me we are doing things the hard way .
Rather than censorship , I 'd much rather we teach people that fictional depictions like video games can be appreciated for what they are without also being idolized and emulated .
Any adult who ca n't understand what that means is not really an adult but an overgrown child .
So I assume this must be about children .
If parents are worried about their children being exposed to the more severe video games or movies or any other media , I fully support their right to act as the " benevolent dictators " that they are and control what their children have access to .
However , I expect them to actually be parents instead of relying on institutional censorship to carry out their responsibility for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does amaze me that we live in a society where realistically depicted violence, and in the case of some news stories, actual violence, is considered acceptable.
Meanwhile, a single breast being exposed during a Superbowl half-time show resulted in outrage and a strong desire to "crack down" on obscenity.
The message there is that violence is normal and acceptable while sexuality is obscene and must be censored.
You are quite right about a chilling effect.
That tells me we are doing things the hard way.
Rather than censorship, I'd much rather we teach people that fictional depictions like video games can be appreciated for what they are without also being idolized and emulated.
Any adult who can't understand what that means is not really an adult but an overgrown child.
So I assume this must be about children.
If parents are worried about their children being exposed to the more severe video games or movies or any other media, I fully support their right to act as the "benevolent dictators" that they are and control what their children have access to.
However, I expect them to actually be parents instead of relying on institutional censorship to carry out their responsibility for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638813</id>
	<title>That's not self censorship!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247163540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The lack of sex has little to do with first amendment as its pretty much all based on the self censorship the industry is doing via the ESRB.</p></div><p>That's only self censorship in the same sense that employer-mandated drug tests are "optional -- as long as you don't mind losing your job".  Game developers censor themselves because if they didn't, their publishing opportunities would be zero thanks to console vendors and the ESRB.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The lack of sex has little to do with first amendment as its pretty much all based on the self censorship the industry is doing via the ESRB.That 's only self censorship in the same sense that employer-mandated drug tests are " optional -- as long as you do n't mind losing your job " .
Game developers censor themselves because if they did n't , their publishing opportunities would be zero thanks to console vendors and the ESRB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lack of sex has little to do with first amendment as its pretty much all based on the self censorship the industry is doing via the ESRB.That's only self censorship in the same sense that employer-mandated drug tests are "optional -- as long as you don't mind losing your job".
Game developers censor themselves because if they didn't, their publishing opportunities would be zero thanks to console vendors and the ESRB.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639131</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247164620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's true, and they're shooting themselves in the feet by doing it. This is a chance for a new undertaking that could eat Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft's lunch, by making a console that AO games would run on.</p><p>Computer games ain't only for kids any more, and actually never were. There's no valid reason why you can't have sex in a video game.</p><p>Look at the disaster <i>Die Hard IV: Revenge of the nerds</i> was. They made it so nothing would have to be cut for it to play on TV so as to get the "younger audience", and it tanked at the box office - for good reason. The PG version sucks donkey balls. The unrated version on the DVD is as good or better than the other three Die Hards, but it is in the same spiruit as those. For instance, when the bad guy woman goes down the elevator shaft, the "fuck you, bitch!" fit. "The last time I saw her she was at the bottom of an elevator shaft with an SUV rammed up her ass". And of course the all important "yippie kayay, motherfucker".</p><p>That was what people were expecting and wanting to see at the theater, and were sorely disappointed.</p><p>Why does the TV version of <i>The Terminator</i> show Arnold cutting his eyeball out, shooting and burning policemen, ripping a punk's heart out, but they cut the sex scene? The people who rate and censor this shit are sick, imo.</p><p>I want to see GTA's hookers get naked. I want to see them actually give somebody a blow job. And, er, why is it OK to show somebody getting their head blown off, but not OK to show titties? Some of you young puritans are hypocritical twits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's true , and they 're shooting themselves in the feet by doing it .
This is a chance for a new undertaking that could eat Nintendo , Sony , and Microsoft 's lunch , by making a console that AO games would run on.Computer games ai n't only for kids any more , and actually never were .
There 's no valid reason why you ca n't have sex in a video game.Look at the disaster Die Hard IV : Revenge of the nerds was .
They made it so nothing would have to be cut for it to play on TV so as to get the " younger audience " , and it tanked at the box office - for good reason .
The PG version sucks donkey balls .
The unrated version on the DVD is as good or better than the other three Die Hards , but it is in the same spiruit as those .
For instance , when the bad guy woman goes down the elevator shaft , the " fuck you , bitch !
" fit .
" The last time I saw her she was at the bottom of an elevator shaft with an SUV rammed up her ass " .
And of course the all important " yippie kayay , motherfucker " .That was what people were expecting and wanting to see at the theater , and were sorely disappointed.Why does the TV version of The Terminator show Arnold cutting his eyeball out , shooting and burning policemen , ripping a punk 's heart out , but they cut the sex scene ?
The people who rate and censor this shit are sick , imo.I want to see GTA 's hookers get naked .
I want to see them actually give somebody a blow job .
And , er , why is it OK to show somebody getting their head blown off , but not OK to show titties ?
Some of you young puritans are hypocritical twits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's true, and they're shooting themselves in the feet by doing it.
This is a chance for a new undertaking that could eat Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft's lunch, by making a console that AO games would run on.Computer games ain't only for kids any more, and actually never were.
There's no valid reason why you can't have sex in a video game.Look at the disaster Die Hard IV: Revenge of the nerds was.
They made it so nothing would have to be cut for it to play on TV so as to get the "younger audience", and it tanked at the box office - for good reason.
The PG version sucks donkey balls.
The unrated version on the DVD is as good or better than the other three Die Hards, but it is in the same spiruit as those.
For instance, when the bad guy woman goes down the elevator shaft, the "fuck you, bitch!
" fit.
"The last time I saw her she was at the bottom of an elevator shaft with an SUV rammed up her ass".
And of course the all important "yippie kayay, motherfucker".That was what people were expecting and wanting to see at the theater, and were sorely disappointed.Why does the TV version of The Terminator show Arnold cutting his eyeball out, shooting and burning policemen, ripping a punk's heart out, but they cut the sex scene?
The people who rate and censor this shit are sick, imo.I want to see GTA's hookers get naked.
I want to see them actually give somebody a blow job.
And, er, why is it OK to show somebody getting their head blown off, but not OK to show titties?
Some of you young puritans are hypocritical twits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638967</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>sckeener</author>
	<datestamp>1247164020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mean while...we get the "ESRB-Experience may change during online play"
</p><p>That I think is the loop hole that gaming companies want.  The gaming company can't create it but I've run into enough players online that want to flaunt AO material.
</p><p>I think that is great, but most gaming companies still crack down on AO fan material creation.  If memory serves there was a AO guild that's stated purpose was to flaunt AO subject matter in WoW.  Blizzard shut it down.
</p><p>Personally I think gaming companies would be better served by allowing players to filter when it comes to online content.  Give them the ability to ignore players/alliances.  Give them the ability to control who can talk to them.
</p><p> I believe the last leisure suit larry game came out in multiple ESRB and included an AO version.  I don't see why online games can't do that.  Just create a restricted area for adults only.  It would be interesting in WoW to see how many people paid to transfer their characters to an AO allowed server.  Kids would still get in illegally of course, but kids also get alcohol before 21 with the infamous 'hey, mister' while offering a $20 outside liquor stores.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mean while...we get the " ESRB-Experience may change during online play " That I think is the loop hole that gaming companies want .
The gaming company ca n't create it but I 've run into enough players online that want to flaunt AO material .
I think that is great , but most gaming companies still crack down on AO fan material creation .
If memory serves there was a AO guild that 's stated purpose was to flaunt AO subject matter in WoW .
Blizzard shut it down .
Personally I think gaming companies would be better served by allowing players to filter when it comes to online content .
Give them the ability to ignore players/alliances .
Give them the ability to control who can talk to them .
I believe the last leisure suit larry game came out in multiple ESRB and included an AO version .
I do n't see why online games ca n't do that .
Just create a restricted area for adults only .
It would be interesting in WoW to see how many people paid to transfer their characters to an AO allowed server .
Kids would still get in illegally of course , but kids also get alcohol before 21 with the infamous 'hey , mister ' while offering a $ 20 outside liquor stores .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mean while...we get the "ESRB-Experience may change during online play"
That I think is the loop hole that gaming companies want.
The gaming company can't create it but I've run into enough players online that want to flaunt AO material.
I think that is great, but most gaming companies still crack down on AO fan material creation.
If memory serves there was a AO guild that's stated purpose was to flaunt AO subject matter in WoW.
Blizzard shut it down.
Personally I think gaming companies would be better served by allowing players to filter when it comes to online content.
Give them the ability to ignore players/alliances.
Give them the ability to control who can talk to them.
I believe the last leisure suit larry game came out in multiple ESRB and included an AO version.
I don't see why online games can't do that.
Just create a restricted area for adults only.
It would be interesting in WoW to see how many people paid to transfer their characters to an AO allowed server.
Kids would still get in illegally of course, but kids also get alcohol before 21 with the infamous 'hey, mister' while offering a $20 outside liquor stores.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057</id>
	<title>The main reason games don't have obscene content</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247160420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So games don't have much potentially obscene content  because of existing censorship and fear of further censorship if they included sexual content? Talk about a chilling effect...</htmltext>
<tokenext>So games do n't have much potentially obscene content because of existing censorship and fear of further censorship if they included sexual content ?
Talk about a chilling effect.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So games don't have much potentially obscene content  because of existing censorship and fear of further censorship if they included sexual content?
Talk about a chilling effect...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28641089</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't it about PUBLIC obscenity?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247172000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Anyway, libel, defamation and slander are illegal, so if you want to put up a stand and hand out pamphlets that tell lies about fags, it's against the law. However, it's against the law for them to put up a stand and tell lies about you... under the same laws.</i> </p><p>You are wrong on every point in your post it seems.  You can tell all the lies you want about "blacks", "fags", "Jews" or "whatevers".  You may have trouble if you reference a specific person.  To just "tell lies about fags" does not create a sufficient tort (AFAIK, IANAL, YMMV).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyway , libel , defamation and slander are illegal , so if you want to put up a stand and hand out pamphlets that tell lies about fags , it 's against the law .
However , it 's against the law for them to put up a stand and tell lies about you... under the same laws .
You are wrong on every point in your post it seems .
You can tell all the lies you want about " blacks " , " fags " , " Jews " or " whatevers " .
You may have trouble if you reference a specific person .
To just " tell lies about fags " does not create a sufficient tort ( AFAIK , IANAL , YMMV ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyway, libel, defamation and slander are illegal, so if you want to put up a stand and hand out pamphlets that tell lies about fags, it's against the law.
However, it's against the law for them to put up a stand and tell lies about you... under the same laws.
You are wrong on every point in your post it seems.
You can tell all the lies you want about "blacks", "fags", "Jews" or "whatevers".
You may have trouble if you reference a specific person.
To just "tell lies about fags" does not create a sufficient tort (AFAIK, IANAL, YMMV).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28645089</id>
	<title>2 points.</title>
	<author>DragonTHC</author>
	<datestamp>1247149320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first, games are protected by the first amendment.</p><p>second, games are not meant strictly for kids.</p><p>Legislators, realize this please.  Games don't mean kids.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first , games are protected by the first amendment.second , games are not meant strictly for kids.Legislators , realize this please .
Games do n't mean kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first, games are protected by the first amendment.second, games are not meant strictly for kids.Legislators, realize this please.
Games don't mean kids.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28641069</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247171940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except that you generally need custom-burned discs from custom factories to be recognized by standard consoles... so you either only sell to hacked consoles, owners of which generally download cracked games anyway, or you go through the standard sources, and get yourself licensed.  And don't sell unrated stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that you generally need custom-burned discs from custom factories to be recognized by standard consoles... so you either only sell to hacked consoles , owners of which generally download cracked games anyway , or you go through the standard sources , and get yourself licensed .
And do n't sell unrated stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that you generally need custom-burned discs from custom factories to be recognized by standard consoles... so you either only sell to hacked consoles, owners of which generally download cracked games anyway, or you go through the standard sources, and get yourself licensed.
And don't sell unrated stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639617</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1247166480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>You Americans need to relax a little bit concerning sex. I think violence is a lot worse than sex. </i>
<br>
<br>
Americans are far more relaxed about sex than a lot of other cultures.  Look at India, or the middle east, for example.
<br> <br>
<i>Of course, in American movies and series, violence is rampant, even in family-rated stuff. </i>
<br>
<br>
Uhhh..examples?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You Americans need to relax a little bit concerning sex .
I think violence is a lot worse than sex .
Americans are far more relaxed about sex than a lot of other cultures .
Look at India , or the middle east , for example .
Of course , in American movies and series , violence is rampant , even in family-rated stuff .
Uhhh..examples ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You Americans need to relax a little bit concerning sex.
I think violence is a lot worse than sex.
Americans are far more relaxed about sex than a lot of other cultures.
Look at India, or the middle east, for example.
Of course, in American movies and series, violence is rampant, even in family-rated stuff.
Uhhh..examples?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638587</id>
	<title>television/cable/radio</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247162580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless these games are broadcast over these mediums the Federal Government is going to try to stay clear of them.  The exception is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well everyone here is smart enough to figure it out.  I am not going to feed the candidate trolls that need a superfluous platform to stand on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless these games are broadcast over these mediums the Federal Government is going to try to stay clear of them .
The exception is ... well everyone here is smart enough to figure it out .
I am not going to feed the candidate trolls that need a superfluous platform to stand on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless these games are broadcast over these mediums the Federal Government is going to try to stay clear of them.
The exception is ... well everyone here is smart enough to figure it out.
I am not going to feed the candidate trolls that need a superfluous platform to stand on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28644637</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247145540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess it's time to change my bumper sticker to "I read banned books AND played AO games"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess it 's time to change my bumper sticker to " I read banned books AND played AO games "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess it's time to change my bumper sticker to "I read banned books AND played AO games"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28642095</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>Peter La Casse</author>
	<datestamp>1247133300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You Americans need to relax a little bit concerning sex. I think violence is a lot worse than sex.</p></div></blockquote><p>You Europeans need to relax a little bit concerning violence.  I think sex is a lot worse than violence.

</p><p>OK, maybe not a lot.  In either case it depends on the precise details.  My point is that each person or group thinks that their own moral code is the One True Way.

</p><p>The reality is that blurring or bleeping out portions does nothing to shelter the viewer.  Prime time TV has all sorts of inappropriate sexual situations even if they don't show any nipple.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You Americans need to relax a little bit concerning sex .
I think violence is a lot worse than sex.You Europeans need to relax a little bit concerning violence .
I think sex is a lot worse than violence .
OK , maybe not a lot .
In either case it depends on the precise details .
My point is that each person or group thinks that their own moral code is the One True Way .
The reality is that blurring or bleeping out portions does nothing to shelter the viewer .
Prime time TV has all sorts of inappropriate sexual situations even if they do n't show any nipple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You Americans need to relax a little bit concerning sex.
I think violence is a lot worse than sex.You Europeans need to relax a little bit concerning violence.
I think sex is a lot worse than violence.
OK, maybe not a lot.
In either case it depends on the precise details.
My point is that each person or group thinks that their own moral code is the One True Way.
The reality is that blurring or bleeping out portions does nothing to shelter the viewer.
Prime time TV has all sorts of inappropriate sexual situations even if they don't show any nipple.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638663</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>Freetardo Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1247162880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's to stop someone from making such a game, that will work on some or all of the platforms, and marketing and selling it independently?</p></div><p>The fact that it won't play on the vast amount of consoles that aren't unhacked?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Sure, you may not get offical blessing by Sony, Nintendo or MS, and you may have to omit their trademarked names, but, surely there is no law about what you can plug into your own game unit that you own, is there?</p> </div><p>Are you completely unaware of the DMCA?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If the companies start bitching, just throw out the 1st amendment rights and the fair use doctrine.</p></div><p>And you'd lose on the grounds that circumventing copy protections in such a manner as you described is clearly against the law.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's to stop someone from making such a game , that will work on some or all of the platforms , and marketing and selling it independently ? The fact that it wo n't play on the vast amount of consoles that are n't unhacked ? Sure , you may not get offical blessing by Sony , Nintendo or MS , and you may have to omit their trademarked names , but , surely there is no law about what you can plug into your own game unit that you own , is there ?
Are you completely unaware of the DMCA ? If the companies start bitching , just throw out the 1st amendment rights and the fair use doctrine.And you 'd lose on the grounds that circumventing copy protections in such a manner as you described is clearly against the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's to stop someone from making such a game, that will work on some or all of the platforms, and marketing and selling it independently?The fact that it won't play on the vast amount of consoles that aren't unhacked?Sure, you may not get offical blessing by Sony, Nintendo or MS, and you may have to omit their trademarked names, but, surely there is no law about what you can plug into your own game unit that you own, is there?
Are you completely unaware of the DMCA?If the companies start bitching, just throw out the 1st amendment rights and the fair use doctrine.And you'd lose on the grounds that circumventing copy protections in such a manner as you described is clearly against the law.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28648285</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>Demonantis</author>
	<datestamp>1247233680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like they said in Eurotrip, the US was settled by religious prudes. I don't know if its true, but it seems to be in line with all the censoring you mention. I always thought it was funny how movies are rated M in the States then in Canada it would be rated T (Matrix).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like they said in Eurotrip , the US was settled by religious prudes .
I do n't know if its true , but it seems to be in line with all the censoring you mention .
I always thought it was funny how movies are rated M in the States then in Canada it would be rated T ( Matrix ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like they said in Eurotrip, the US was settled by religious prudes.
I don't know if its true, but it seems to be in line with all the censoring you mention.
I always thought it was funny how movies are rated M in the States then in Canada it would be rated T (Matrix).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639405</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>LoRdTAW</author>
	<datestamp>1247165640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AO? Anal Orifice?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AO ?
Anal Orifice ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AO?
Anal Orifice?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638547</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247162340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is mostly because most parents feel that their kids having sex is more likely than them becomming violent killers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is mostly because most parents feel that their kids having sex is more likely than them becomming violent killers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is mostly because most parents feel that their kids having sex is more likely than them becomming violent killers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638575</id>
	<title>"Thanks to"</title>
	<author>Arthur B.</author>
	<datestamp>1247162520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The other major reason is the vast majority of video games sold in the United States have only small amounts of sexual content <b>because of</b> the Electronic Software Rating Board.</p></div></blockquote><p>ftfy</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The other major reason is the vast majority of video games sold in the United States have only small amounts of sexual content because of the Electronic Software Rating Board.ftfy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other major reason is the vast majority of video games sold in the United States have only small amounts of sexual content because of the Electronic Software Rating Board.ftfy
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638387</id>
	<title>Obscene</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247161620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well a lot of games involve violence of some sort as critical to gameplay, FPS being a favourite of mine where the objective is to annhilate occasionally with good strategy.
Games with a sexual objective? Not so much. Of course there could be just as well.

However apart from this it's interesting to note just what society calls 'obscene'  in Indian movies a hint of sexuality gets a movie's rating bumped up a couple age groups but a movie I once saw which had systematic hunting down and killing people in crazy ways (including being decapitated by a flying car door from a car exploding) and having a head sheared off with brute force, this got a fucking G rating. While matrix 3 with it's tiny no parts visible sex in the beginning automatically gets that an R rating. There's hypocrisy for you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well a lot of games involve violence of some sort as critical to gameplay , FPS being a favourite of mine where the objective is to annhilate occasionally with good strategy .
Games with a sexual objective ?
Not so much .
Of course there could be just as well .
However apart from this it 's interesting to note just what society calls 'obscene ' in Indian movies a hint of sexuality gets a movie 's rating bumped up a couple age groups but a movie I once saw which had systematic hunting down and killing people in crazy ways ( including being decapitated by a flying car door from a car exploding ) and having a head sheared off with brute force , this got a fucking G rating .
While matrix 3 with it 's tiny no parts visible sex in the beginning automatically gets that an R rating .
There 's hypocrisy for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well a lot of games involve violence of some sort as critical to gameplay, FPS being a favourite of mine where the objective is to annhilate occasionally with good strategy.
Games with a sexual objective?
Not so much.
Of course there could be just as well.
However apart from this it's interesting to note just what society calls 'obscene'  in Indian movies a hint of sexuality gets a movie's rating bumped up a couple age groups but a movie I once saw which had systematic hunting down and killing people in crazy ways (including being decapitated by a flying car door from a car exploding) and having a head sheared off with brute force, this got a fucking G rating.
While matrix 3 with it's tiny no parts visible sex in the beginning automatically gets that an R rating.
There's hypocrisy for you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28640505</id>
	<title>Re:What is "obscenety" anyway?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247169660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey look! The "bible thumpers" and naysayers already blindly spent their mod points! I have to say I expected that.</p><p>But let me react to it with a nice quote from the great movie "Revolver":</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You know what's so elegant about this little game, Jake? Nobody knows what the enemy is. They don't even know he exists. He's in ever...one of their heads. And they trust him. Because they think they are him. If you try to destroy him... to save them,... they'll destroy you... to save him. Ahh... it's beautiful man... You have to admire the opponent's elegance.<br>Check.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey look !
The " bible thumpers " and naysayers already blindly spent their mod points !
I have to say I expected that.But let me react to it with a nice quote from the great movie " Revolver " : You know what 's so elegant about this little game , Jake ?
Nobody knows what the enemy is .
They do n't even know he exists .
He 's in ever...one of their heads .
And they trust him .
Because they think they are him .
If you try to destroy him... to save them,... they 'll destroy you... to save him .
Ahh... it 's beautiful man... You have to admire the opponent 's elegance.Check .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey look!
The "bible thumpers" and naysayers already blindly spent their mod points!
I have to say I expected that.But let me react to it with a nice quote from the great movie "Revolver":You know what's so elegant about this little game, Jake?
Nobody knows what the enemy is.
They don't even know he exists.
He's in ever...one of their heads.
And they trust him.
Because they think they are him.
If you try to destroy him... to save them,... they'll destroy you... to save him.
Ahh... it's beautiful man... You have to admire the opponent's elegance.Check.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28642229</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't it about PUBLIC obscenity?</title>
	<author>computational super</author>
	<datestamp>1247133840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>On one side, people don't want to be offended by someone telling them they are wrong to do this or that; on the other hand, they have no problem offending people that don't want to see, for example, obscenity.</i>
<p>Huh?  I think you're getting mixed up here... everybody I've ever heard from (except you, evidently) is either all for outlawing obscenity <i>and</i> hate speech, <i>or</i> opposed to obscenity and hate speech laws.  At the very least, I think we're consistent when it comes to this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On one side , people do n't want to be offended by someone telling them they are wrong to do this or that ; on the other hand , they have no problem offending people that do n't want to see , for example , obscenity .
Huh ? I think you 're getting mixed up here... everybody I 've ever heard from ( except you , evidently ) is either all for outlawing obscenity and hate speech , or opposed to obscenity and hate speech laws .
At the very least , I think we 're consistent when it comes to this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On one side, people don't want to be offended by someone telling them they are wrong to do this or that; on the other hand, they have no problem offending people that don't want to see, for example, obscenity.
Huh?  I think you're getting mixed up here... everybody I've ever heard from (except you, evidently) is either all for outlawing obscenity and hate speech, or opposed to obscenity and hate speech laws.
At the very least, I think we're consistent when it comes to this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28648747</id>
	<title>Uh?</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1247236500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when showing a breast is having sex?</p><p>The reality is that the puritanical nature of US society permeates every aspect of daily life.</p><p>That nonsense will not stop until people with a clue stand and challenge the general assumptions of society as a whole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when showing a breast is having sex ? The reality is that the puritanical nature of US society permeates every aspect of daily life.That nonsense will not stop until people with a clue stand and challenge the general assumptions of society as a whole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when showing a breast is having sex?The reality is that the puritanical nature of US society permeates every aspect of daily life.That nonsense will not stop until people with a clue stand and challenge the general assumptions of society as a whole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28640307</id>
	<title>Re:What is "obscenety" anyway?</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1247169060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, traditional Christianity already took care of the "everyone's a sinner" thing. (If you want to talk about making them feel like dirty rotten sinners, perhaps you have a point, because people tend to think THEIR sins aren't that big a deal.) Some branches of Christianity might be guilty of using sin/guilt to maintain control of their adherents, but don't assume that all of them are like that.</p><p>Secondly, sex isn't bad or forbidden. It's good and entirely encouraged within marriage. The basis for this is pretty simple: sex results in children, children need love and care, and love and care works best in healthy families with both a mother and a father. You can argue with those premises (and you'd very likely want to argue with some of them, I'd expect), but if you've accepted the premises it's an entirely logical conclusion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , traditional Christianity already took care of the " everyone 's a sinner " thing .
( If you want to talk about making them feel like dirty rotten sinners , perhaps you have a point , because people tend to think THEIR sins are n't that big a deal .
) Some branches of Christianity might be guilty of using sin/guilt to maintain control of their adherents , but do n't assume that all of them are like that.Secondly , sex is n't bad or forbidden .
It 's good and entirely encouraged within marriage .
The basis for this is pretty simple : sex results in children , children need love and care , and love and care works best in healthy families with both a mother and a father .
You can argue with those premises ( and you 'd very likely want to argue with some of them , I 'd expect ) , but if you 've accepted the premises it 's an entirely logical conclusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, traditional Christianity already took care of the "everyone's a sinner" thing.
(If you want to talk about making them feel like dirty rotten sinners, perhaps you have a point, because people tend to think THEIR sins aren't that big a deal.
) Some branches of Christianity might be guilty of using sin/guilt to maintain control of their adherents, but don't assume that all of them are like that.Secondly, sex isn't bad or forbidden.
It's good and entirely encouraged within marriage.
The basis for this is pretty simple: sex results in children, children need love and care, and love and care works best in healthy families with both a mother and a father.
You can argue with those premises (and you'd very likely want to argue with some of them, I'd expect), but if you've accepted the premises it's an entirely logical conclusion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28653389</id>
	<title>machine purity league</title>
	<author>chris.evans</author>
	<datestamp>1247255880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>to protect organic creatures from themselves the machines are bound to to prevent such obsenities, and replace the woman with a plastic stand in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>to protect organic creatures from themselves the machines are bound to to prevent such obsenities , and replace the woman with a plastic stand in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to protect organic creatures from themselves the machines are bound to to prevent such obsenities, and replace the woman with a plastic stand in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28649805</id>
	<title>Story telling</title>
	<author>sjdude</author>
	<datestamp>1247240820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Game design is story telling. So far, I haven't seen or played a game where sexual content is critical to telling a game's story. Not saying this doesn't exist or isn't possible, but short of games where prostitution, bondage, or exploitation are central components of the game play, it seems to me that sexual content is something that is easily be factored in or out of a game's story. So why not make it an option? It certainly is extra work for game developers, but it seems it could prevent a game from being banned, and would allow both adults and non-adults (or people whose tastes would prefer it that way) to enjoy a game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Game design is story telling .
So far , I have n't seen or played a game where sexual content is critical to telling a game 's story .
Not saying this does n't exist or is n't possible , but short of games where prostitution , bondage , or exploitation are central components of the game play , it seems to me that sexual content is something that is easily be factored in or out of a game 's story .
So why not make it an option ?
It certainly is extra work for game developers , but it seems it could prevent a game from being banned , and would allow both adults and non-adults ( or people whose tastes would prefer it that way ) to enjoy a game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Game design is story telling.
So far, I haven't seen or played a game where sexual content is critical to telling a game's story.
Not saying this doesn't exist or isn't possible, but short of games where prostitution, bondage, or exploitation are central components of the game play, it seems to me that sexual content is something that is easily be factored in or out of a game's story.
So why not make it an option?
It certainly is extra work for game developers, but it seems it could prevent a game from being banned, and would allow both adults and non-adults (or people whose tastes would prefer it that way) to enjoy a game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28641029</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247171820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you suck on a tit the movie gets an R rating. If you hack the tit off with an axe it will be PG.<br>Jack Nicholson</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you suck on a tit the movie gets an R rating .
If you hack the tit off with an axe it will be PG.Jack Nicholson</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you suck on a tit the movie gets an R rating.
If you hack the tit off with an axe it will be PG.Jack Nicholson</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639281</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>aj50</author>
	<datestamp>1247165220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alternatively they could cut it out for the American market and sell it as it was created in Europe, where many popular games are given the highest 18+ rating and are still sold in shops.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alternatively they could cut it out for the American market and sell it as it was created in Europe , where many popular games are given the highest 18 + rating and are still sold in shops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alternatively they could cut it out for the American market and sell it as it was created in Europe, where many popular games are given the highest 18+ rating and are still sold in shops.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28640595</id>
	<title>Integrating sex into gameplay</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1247170020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The problem is that sex in games usually doesn't provide good gameplay.  If you just want to watch porn, that's easily available.  Besides, simulated porn doesn't look that good.
</p><p>
That said, the big flap about the "hot coffee" scene in GTA was sort of silly.  The GTA world ought to have sex in it.  In fact, it's inconsistent that a game with strippers and hookers <i>doesn't</i> have sex in it.  There's so much unrealized potential there, for seduction, power games, devious girlfriends - all the basic male/female drama elements.
</p><p>
The key is integrating sex into gameplay without having the sex dominate the game.  That's a design challenge.  It's not impossible. Second Life has sex, but it's not primarily a sex-oriented MMORPG.  What we need are R-rated video games, dramas where sex plays a role in the plot. That could be fun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that sex in games usually does n't provide good gameplay .
If you just want to watch porn , that 's easily available .
Besides , simulated porn does n't look that good .
That said , the big flap about the " hot coffee " scene in GTA was sort of silly .
The GTA world ought to have sex in it .
In fact , it 's inconsistent that a game with strippers and hookers does n't have sex in it .
There 's so much unrealized potential there , for seduction , power games , devious girlfriends - all the basic male/female drama elements .
The key is integrating sex into gameplay without having the sex dominate the game .
That 's a design challenge .
It 's not impossible .
Second Life has sex , but it 's not primarily a sex-oriented MMORPG .
What we need are R-rated video games , dramas where sex plays a role in the plot .
That could be fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The problem is that sex in games usually doesn't provide good gameplay.
If you just want to watch porn, that's easily available.
Besides, simulated porn doesn't look that good.
That said, the big flap about the "hot coffee" scene in GTA was sort of silly.
The GTA world ought to have sex in it.
In fact, it's inconsistent that a game with strippers and hookers doesn't have sex in it.
There's so much unrealized potential there, for seduction, power games, devious girlfriends - all the basic male/female drama elements.
The key is integrating sex into gameplay without having the sex dominate the game.
That's a design challenge.
It's not impossible.
Second Life has sex, but it's not primarily a sex-oriented MMORPG.
What we need are R-rated video games, dramas where sex plays a role in the plot.
That could be fun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638303</id>
	<title>Isn't it about PUBLIC obscenity?</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1247161380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought the idea was protecting against public obscenity.  It's not saying you can't be obscene with someone, or something, or yourself, or whatever, in your home.  I thought obscenity laws were to protect someone like me, walking down the street, from seeing obscenity.</p><p>For those that are complaining about "we don't live a free society because I can't do obscene things in public," what if I were to complain that "I don't live in a free society because I can't even walk down the street without having to wear a mask to keep myself from seeing obscenity."</p><p>Hm.  And, while we're on it, there's nothing wrong with me setting up in public and warning people about how awful homosexuals are, is there?  After all, it's free speech.  It's not even obscene.  Oh, wait, you call that "hate" speech and have decided that "hate" is wrong, whereas "immorality" or "obscenity" is not, thus you want free obscenity and bridled hate.</p><p>IMO, there's a double standard for "moral legislation."  On one side, people don't want to be offended by someone telling them they are wrong to do this or that; on the other hand, they have no problem offending people that don't want to see, for example, obscenity.</p><p>I suppose this particular article is not about public obscenity but "private," e.g., video games.... but most reactions against it are going to be regarding public, not private (video games are private), stuff...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the idea was protecting against public obscenity .
It 's not saying you ca n't be obscene with someone , or something , or yourself , or whatever , in your home .
I thought obscenity laws were to protect someone like me , walking down the street , from seeing obscenity.For those that are complaining about " we do n't live a free society because I ca n't do obscene things in public , " what if I were to complain that " I do n't live in a free society because I ca n't even walk down the street without having to wear a mask to keep myself from seeing obscenity. " Hm .
And , while we 're on it , there 's nothing wrong with me setting up in public and warning people about how awful homosexuals are , is there ?
After all , it 's free speech .
It 's not even obscene .
Oh , wait , you call that " hate " speech and have decided that " hate " is wrong , whereas " immorality " or " obscenity " is not , thus you want free obscenity and bridled hate.IMO , there 's a double standard for " moral legislation .
" On one side , people do n't want to be offended by someone telling them they are wrong to do this or that ; on the other hand , they have no problem offending people that do n't want to see , for example , obscenity.I suppose this particular article is not about public obscenity but " private , " e.g. , video games.... but most reactions against it are going to be regarding public , not private ( video games are private ) , stuff.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the idea was protecting against public obscenity.
It's not saying you can't be obscene with someone, or something, or yourself, or whatever, in your home.
I thought obscenity laws were to protect someone like me, walking down the street, from seeing obscenity.For those that are complaining about "we don't live a free society because I can't do obscene things in public," what if I were to complain that "I don't live in a free society because I can't even walk down the street without having to wear a mask to keep myself from seeing obscenity."Hm.
And, while we're on it, there's nothing wrong with me setting up in public and warning people about how awful homosexuals are, is there?
After all, it's free speech.
It's not even obscene.
Oh, wait, you call that "hate" speech and have decided that "hate" is wrong, whereas "immorality" or "obscenity" is not, thus you want free obscenity and bridled hate.IMO, there's a double standard for "moral legislation.
"  On one side, people don't want to be offended by someone telling them they are wrong to do this or that; on the other hand, they have no problem offending people that don't want to see, for example, obscenity.I suppose this particular article is not about public obscenity but "private," e.g., video games.... but most reactions against it are going to be regarding public, not private (video games are private), stuff...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638439</id>
	<title>I think that word means what you think it means</title>
	<author>Em Emalb</author>
	<datestamp>1247161860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Obscene<br>Ob*scene"\, a/ [L. obscenus, obscaenus, obscoenus, ill looking, filthy, obscene: cf. F. obsc['e]ne.]</i></p><p><i>1. Offensive to chastity or modesty; expressing of presenting to the mind or view something which delicacy, purity, and decency forbid to be exposed; impure; as, obscene language; obscene pictures.</i></p><p><i>2. Foul; fifthy; disgusting.</i></p><p><i>3. Inauspicious; ill-omened. [R.] [A Latinism]</i></p><p>Let each state (or break it down further, I'd prefer, to local municipality) handle what they consider to be obscene.  What I find obscene may be right up someone else's alley.  What they find obscene I may find normal.  This puritanism crap has got to stop.  That was years ago.  Get over it, America.</p><p>*and you too, the rest of the world, especially Germany and Europe in general.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ObsceneOb * scene " \ , a/ [ L. obscenus , obscaenus , obscoenus , ill looking , filthy , obscene : cf .
F. obsc [ 'e ] ne. ] 1 .
Offensive to chastity or modesty ; expressing of presenting to the mind or view something which delicacy , purity , and decency forbid to be exposed ; impure ; as , obscene language ; obscene pictures.2 .
Foul ; fifthy ; disgusting.3 .
Inauspicious ; ill-omened .
[ R. ] [ A Latinism ] Let each state ( or break it down further , I 'd prefer , to local municipality ) handle what they consider to be obscene .
What I find obscene may be right up someone else 's alley .
What they find obscene I may find normal .
This puritanism crap has got to stop .
That was years ago .
Get over it , America .
* and you too , the rest of the world , especially Germany and Europe in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ObsceneOb*scene"\, a/ [L. obscenus, obscaenus, obscoenus, ill looking, filthy, obscene: cf.
F. obsc['e]ne.]1.
Offensive to chastity or modesty; expressing of presenting to the mind or view something which delicacy, purity, and decency forbid to be exposed; impure; as, obscene language; obscene pictures.2.
Foul; fifthy; disgusting.3.
Inauspicious; ill-omened.
[R.] [A Latinism]Let each state (or break it down further, I'd prefer, to local municipality) handle what they consider to be obscene.
What I find obscene may be right up someone else's alley.
What they find obscene I may find normal.
This puritanism crap has got to stop.
That was years ago.
Get over it, America.
*and you too, the rest of the world, especially Germany and Europe in general.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639417</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>StickansT</author>
	<datestamp>1247165760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't censoring stuff from kids usually spark and even more interest in it? Because when i was growing up when ever i couldnt "do" or "see" something i have always wondered, "Why?". And then just got on the internet and found out for my self, and then got into toruble. Would i have gotten into trouble if my parents just told me in the first place?

p.s. I think we all know the answer to that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't censoring stuff from kids usually spark and even more interest in it ?
Because when i was growing up when ever i couldnt " do " or " see " something i have always wondered , " Why ? " .
And then just got on the internet and found out for my self , and then got into toruble .
Would i have gotten into trouble if my parents just told me in the first place ?
p.s. I think we all know the answer to that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't censoring stuff from kids usually spark and even more interest in it?
Because when i was growing up when ever i couldnt "do" or "see" something i have always wondered, "Why?".
And then just got on the internet and found out for my self, and then got into toruble.
Would i have gotten into trouble if my parents just told me in the first place?
p.s. I think we all know the answer to that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639865</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247167380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The DMCA does allow reverse engineering to allow interoperability.  The caveat is that you cannot sell or otherwise disclose how you do it.</p><p>On the other hand, it would still be an uphill battle, and you can bet your ass that the console developers would drag you into court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The DMCA does allow reverse engineering to allow interoperability .
The caveat is that you can not sell or otherwise disclose how you do it.On the other hand , it would still be an uphill battle , and you can bet your ass that the console developers would drag you into court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The DMCA does allow reverse engineering to allow interoperability.
The caveat is that you cannot sell or otherwise disclose how you do it.On the other hand, it would still be an uphill battle, and you can bet your ass that the console developers would drag you into court.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639461</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1247165940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think this is mostly because most parents feel that their kids having sex is more likely than them becomming violent killers.</p></div><p>And they also seem to believe that the two are morally comparable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is mostly because most parents feel that their kids having sex is more likely than them becomming violent killers.And they also seem to believe that the two are morally comparable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is mostly because most parents feel that their kids having sex is more likely than them becomming violent killers.And they also seem to believe that the two are morally comparable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28720929</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247774580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you could completely control the content your kids were exposed to - restricting sex from them Might prevent them from the temptation of sex. Might. Here's the problem - smart people are telling your kids about safe sex, because kids have something called Hormones which make them want to fuck like rabbits all day long. If you put two kids in a room with no outside contact their whole lives, they'd hit puberty - figure out sex - and start doing it.</p><p>That's why restriction of sex isn't effective, you're fighting their pre-programmed base nature. Good luck. Unparented birds figure out how to fly eventually, and that's even if they are entirely restricted of flight education.</p><p>Do you kiss people (your wife)? That is an act your children see and can emulate just like sex, and once they are kissing, they can figure out the rest themselves - safety by ignorance doesn't work - the birth rate in your country should be evidence enough of that.</p><p>The BEST solution, far and away without comparison, is sexual education. Teach your kids about sex, teach them about STDs and pregnancy, and teach them about safe sex and what they are risking by having sex (ie. lifelong diseases, how young pregnancies ruin futures) and you Might see more sex, but you Won't see more babies, ruined lives, and rampant disease. I say might there, because it's not even determined sexual education causes more sex, many kids who are educated about the risks of sex are terrified of the consequences and abstain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you could completely control the content your kids were exposed to - restricting sex from them Might prevent them from the temptation of sex .
Might. Here 's the problem - smart people are telling your kids about safe sex , because kids have something called Hormones which make them want to fuck like rabbits all day long .
If you put two kids in a room with no outside contact their whole lives , they 'd hit puberty - figure out sex - and start doing it.That 's why restriction of sex is n't effective , you 're fighting their pre-programmed base nature .
Good luck .
Unparented birds figure out how to fly eventually , and that 's even if they are entirely restricted of flight education.Do you kiss people ( your wife ) ?
That is an act your children see and can emulate just like sex , and once they are kissing , they can figure out the rest themselves - safety by ignorance does n't work - the birth rate in your country should be evidence enough of that.The BEST solution , far and away without comparison , is sexual education .
Teach your kids about sex , teach them about STDs and pregnancy , and teach them about safe sex and what they are risking by having sex ( ie .
lifelong diseases , how young pregnancies ruin futures ) and you Might see more sex , but you Wo n't see more babies , ruined lives , and rampant disease .
I say might there , because it 's not even determined sexual education causes more sex , many kids who are educated about the risks of sex are terrified of the consequences and abstain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you could completely control the content your kids were exposed to - restricting sex from them Might prevent them from the temptation of sex.
Might. Here's the problem - smart people are telling your kids about safe sex, because kids have something called Hormones which make them want to fuck like rabbits all day long.
If you put two kids in a room with no outside contact their whole lives, they'd hit puberty - figure out sex - and start doing it.That's why restriction of sex isn't effective, you're fighting their pre-programmed base nature.
Good luck.
Unparented birds figure out how to fly eventually, and that's even if they are entirely restricted of flight education.Do you kiss people (your wife)?
That is an act your children see and can emulate just like sex, and once they are kissing, they can figure out the rest themselves - safety by ignorance doesn't work - the birth rate in your country should be evidence enough of that.The BEST solution, far and away without comparison, is sexual education.
Teach your kids about sex, teach them about STDs and pregnancy, and teach them about safe sex and what they are risking by having sex (ie.
lifelong diseases, how young pregnancies ruin futures) and you Might see more sex, but you Won't see more babies, ruined lives, and rampant disease.
I say might there, because it's not even determined sexual education causes more sex, many kids who are educated about the risks of sex are terrified of the consequences and abstain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28641225</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1247172540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah well unfortunately you just made sex more appealing and made it so kid's are less likely to wait and be sensible because it's taboo which means it must be the best thing ever.
<br> <br>
Kid's need to be exposed to sex and along with the good, show them the bad, like how sex will never last as long as a woman's ability to nag and spend money like it grows on trees.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah well unfortunately you just made sex more appealing and made it so kid 's are less likely to wait and be sensible because it 's taboo which means it must be the best thing ever .
Kid 's need to be exposed to sex and along with the good , show them the bad , like how sex will never last as long as a woman 's ability to nag and spend money like it grows on trees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah well unfortunately you just made sex more appealing and made it so kid's are less likely to wait and be sensible because it's taboo which means it must be the best thing ever.
Kid's need to be exposed to sex and along with the good, show them the bad, like how sex will never last as long as a woman's ability to nag and spend money like it grows on trees.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638465</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't it about PUBLIC obscenity?</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1247161980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hm. And, while we're on it, there's nothing wrong with me setting up in public and warning people about how awful homosexuals are, is there? After all, it's free speech. It's not even obscene. Oh, wait, you call that "hate" speech and have decided that "hate" is wrong, whereas "immorality" or "obscenity" is not, thus you want free obscenity and bridled hate.</p></div><p>You have failed: It's only hate speech if you say "The Queers are ruining the soil, <em>and we should do something about them.</em>" It's still legal to say that the Queers are ruining the soil to make landing strips for Gay Martians... unless you're actually harming someone. Actually, it has to be a <em>direct</em> incitement to violence to even be prosecutable in most cases; a sort of vague, general "someone should do something about those damned queers" is usually not actionable, even if you find it objectionable.</p><p>Anyway, libel, defamation and slander are illegal, so if you want to put up a stand and hand out pamphlets that tell lies about fags, it's against the law. However, it's against the law for them to put up a stand and tell lies about <em>you</em>... under the same laws.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hm .
And , while we 're on it , there 's nothing wrong with me setting up in public and warning people about how awful homosexuals are , is there ?
After all , it 's free speech .
It 's not even obscene .
Oh , wait , you call that " hate " speech and have decided that " hate " is wrong , whereas " immorality " or " obscenity " is not , thus you want free obscenity and bridled hate.You have failed : It 's only hate speech if you say " The Queers are ruining the soil , and we should do something about them .
" It 's still legal to say that the Queers are ruining the soil to make landing strips for Gay Martians... unless you 're actually harming someone .
Actually , it has to be a direct incitement to violence to even be prosecutable in most cases ; a sort of vague , general " someone should do something about those damned queers " is usually not actionable , even if you find it objectionable.Anyway , libel , defamation and slander are illegal , so if you want to put up a stand and hand out pamphlets that tell lies about fags , it 's against the law .
However , it 's against the law for them to put up a stand and tell lies about you... under the same laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hm.
And, while we're on it, there's nothing wrong with me setting up in public and warning people about how awful homosexuals are, is there?
After all, it's free speech.
It's not even obscene.
Oh, wait, you call that "hate" speech and have decided that "hate" is wrong, whereas "immorality" or "obscenity" is not, thus you want free obscenity and bridled hate.You have failed: It's only hate speech if you say "The Queers are ruining the soil, and we should do something about them.
" It's still legal to say that the Queers are ruining the soil to make landing strips for Gay Martians... unless you're actually harming someone.
Actually, it has to be a direct incitement to violence to even be prosecutable in most cases; a sort of vague, general "someone should do something about those damned queers" is usually not actionable, even if you find it objectionable.Anyway, libel, defamation and slander are illegal, so if you want to put up a stand and hand out pamphlets that tell lies about fags, it's against the law.
However, it's against the law for them to put up a stand and tell lies about you... under the same laws.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639251</id>
	<title>Topic is on Tonight on Penn &amp; Teller with Thom</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1247165100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tonight's Penn and Teller Episode is <a href="http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/07/09/tivo-alert-penn-amp-teller-bullshit-tackles-video-game-violence" title="gamepolitics.com" rel="nofollow">supposed to tackle video game violence</a> [gamepolitics.com] tonight if you're interested.  Apparently Jack Thompson is supposed to make an appearance.  I cannot wait for them to talk to that crackpot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tonight 's Penn and Teller Episode is supposed to tackle video game violence [ gamepolitics.com ] tonight if you 're interested .
Apparently Jack Thompson is supposed to make an appearance .
I can not wait for them to talk to that crackpot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tonight's Penn and Teller Episode is supposed to tackle video game violence [gamepolitics.com] tonight if you're interested.
Apparently Jack Thompson is supposed to make an appearance.
I cannot wait for them to talk to that crackpot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28640495</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't it about PUBLIC obscenity?</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1247169600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, you can say that you think homosexuality is wrong.  Saying that homosexuals are the reason for Katrina and terrorists and that they should all be eradicated is hate speech.  See the difference?<br> <br>In any case, those on their moral high horses should probably clean up their own backyards.   You are all for going out and speaking out on the immorality of gays, but why aren't you out speaking about the immorality of cheating on your wife?  It's extremely hypocritical.  You are all for putting the people to the stake for sins you don't do, but are quite comfortable with the sins you commit every day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , you can say that you think homosexuality is wrong .
Saying that homosexuals are the reason for Katrina and terrorists and that they should all be eradicated is hate speech .
See the difference ?
In any case , those on their moral high horses should probably clean up their own backyards .
You are all for going out and speaking out on the immorality of gays , but why are n't you out speaking about the immorality of cheating on your wife ?
It 's extremely hypocritical .
You are all for putting the people to the stake for sins you do n't do , but are quite comfortable with the sins you commit every day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, you can say that you think homosexuality is wrong.
Saying that homosexuals are the reason for Katrina and terrorists and that they should all be eradicated is hate speech.
See the difference?
In any case, those on their moral high horses should probably clean up their own backyards.
You are all for going out and speaking out on the immorality of gays, but why aren't you out speaking about the immorality of cheating on your wife?
It's extremely hypocritical.
You are all for putting the people to the stake for sins you don't do, but are quite comfortable with the sins you commit every day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638623</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>jayme0227</author>
	<datestamp>1247162700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I'm not really worried. Because of the AO rating, obscene games are commercially not viable, but they are not completely banned. Even the most gruesomely violent games aren't censored, and only in extremely rare cases are overtly sexually games completely banned from being sold. I have some issues with this, but I can handle it.</p><p>The point where it would cross into being a problem for me is if they banned the <b>ownership</b> of sexual video games, which I don't believe has happened in most of the free world. So long as the development of the video game doesn't negatively affect other people (as is the case with the creation of child porn), I don't believe that the government should have any right to restrict that game's ownership.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I 'm not really worried .
Because of the AO rating , obscene games are commercially not viable , but they are not completely banned .
Even the most gruesomely violent games are n't censored , and only in extremely rare cases are overtly sexually games completely banned from being sold .
I have some issues with this , but I can handle it.The point where it would cross into being a problem for me is if they banned the ownership of sexual video games , which I do n't believe has happened in most of the free world .
So long as the development of the video game does n't negatively affect other people ( as is the case with the creation of child porn ) , I do n't believe that the government should have any right to restrict that game 's ownership .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I'm not really worried.
Because of the AO rating, obscene games are commercially not viable, but they are not completely banned.
Even the most gruesomely violent games aren't censored, and only in extremely rare cases are overtly sexually games completely banned from being sold.
I have some issues with this, but I can handle it.The point where it would cross into being a problem for me is if they banned the ownership of sexual video games, which I don't believe has happened in most of the free world.
So long as the development of the video game doesn't negatively affect other people (as is the case with the creation of child porn), I don't believe that the government should have any right to restrict that game's ownership.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638569</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>Broken scope</author>
	<datestamp>1247162460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You clearly haven't seen the DMCA.</p><p>To be able to get the game to work on their consoles you have to get their blessing or circumvent their copy protection mechanisms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You clearly have n't seen the DMCA.To be able to get the game to work on their consoles you have to get their blessing or circumvent their copy protection mechanisms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You clearly haven't seen the DMCA.To be able to get the game to work on their consoles you have to get their blessing or circumvent their copy protection mechanisms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639889</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>MsGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1247167440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Japanese seem to have no trouble delivering on this...</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eroge" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eroge</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Japanese seem to have no trouble delivering on this...http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eroge [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Japanese seem to have no trouble delivering on this...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eroge [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28660173</id>
	<title>This calls for a referencial song</title>
	<author>cyberfunkr</author>
	<datestamp>1247328660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Smut!<br>Give me smut and nothing but!<br>A dirty novel I can't shut,<br>If it's uncut,<br>and unsubt- le.</p><p>I've never quibbled<br>If it was ribald,<br>I would devour where others merely nibbled.<br>As the judge remarked the day that he<br>acquitted my Aunt Hortense,<br>"To be smut<br>It must be ut-<br>Terly without redeeming social importance."</p><p>Por-<br>Nographic pictures I adore.<br>Indecent magazines galore,<br>I like them more<br>If they're hard core.</p><p>(Bring on the obscene movies, murals, postcards, neckties,<br>samplers, stained-glass windows, tattoos, anything!<br>More, more, I'm still not satisfied!)</p><p>Stories of tortures<br>Used by debauchers,<br>Lurid, licentious, and vile,<br>Make me smile.<br>Novels that pander<br>To my taste for candor<br>Give me a pleasure sublime.<br>(Let's face it, I love slime.)</p><p>All books can be indecent books<br>Though recent books are bolder,<br>For filth (I'm glad to say) is in<br>the mind of the beholder.<br>When correctly viewed,<br>Everything is lewd.<br>(I could tell you things about Peter Pan,<br>And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man!)</p><p>I thrill<br>To any book like Fanny Hill,<br>And I suppose I always will,<br>If it is swill<br>And really fil<br>thy.</p><p>Who needs a hobby like tennis or philately?<br>I've got a hobby: rereading Lady Chatterley.<br>But now they're trying to take it all<br>away from us unless<br>We take a stand, and hand in hand<br>we fight for freedom of the press.<br>In other words,</p><p>Smut! (I love it)<br>Ah, the adventures of a slut.<br>Oh, I'm a market they can't glut,<br>I don't know what<br>Compares with smut.</p><p>Hip hip hooray!<br>Let's hear it for the Supreme Court!<br>Don't let them take it away!</p><p>-Tom Lehrer ("Smut")</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Smut ! Give me smut and nothing but ! A dirty novel I ca n't shut,If it 's uncut,and unsubt- le.I 've never quibbledIf it was ribald,I would devour where others merely nibbled.As the judge remarked the day that heacquitted my Aunt Hortense , " To be smutIt must be ut-Terly without redeeming social importance .
" Por-Nographic pictures I adore.Indecent magazines galore,I like them moreIf they 're hard core .
( Bring on the obscene movies , murals , postcards , neckties,samplers , stained-glass windows , tattoos , anything ! More , more , I 'm still not satisfied !
) Stories of torturesUsed by debauchers,Lurid , licentious , and vile,Make me smile.Novels that panderTo my taste for candorGive me a pleasure sublime .
( Let 's face it , I love slime .
) All books can be indecent booksThough recent books are bolder,For filth ( I 'm glad to say ) is inthe mind of the beholder.When correctly viewed,Everything is lewd .
( I could tell you things about Peter Pan,And the Wizard of Oz , there 's a dirty old man !
) I thrillTo any book like Fanny Hill,And I suppose I always will,If it is swillAnd really filthy.Who needs a hobby like tennis or philately ? I 've got a hobby : rereading Lady Chatterley.But now they 're trying to take it allaway from us unlessWe take a stand , and hand in handwe fight for freedom of the press.In other words,Smut !
( I love it ) Ah , the adventures of a slut.Oh , I 'm a market they ca n't glut,I do n't know whatCompares with smut.Hip hip hooray ! Let 's hear it for the Supreme Court ! Do n't let them take it away ! -Tom Lehrer ( " Smut " )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Smut!Give me smut and nothing but!A dirty novel I can't shut,If it's uncut,and unsubt- le.I've never quibbledIf it was ribald,I would devour where others merely nibbled.As the judge remarked the day that heacquitted my Aunt Hortense,"To be smutIt must be ut-Terly without redeeming social importance.
"Por-Nographic pictures I adore.Indecent magazines galore,I like them moreIf they're hard core.
(Bring on the obscene movies, murals, postcards, neckties,samplers, stained-glass windows, tattoos, anything!More, more, I'm still not satisfied!
)Stories of torturesUsed by debauchers,Lurid, licentious, and vile,Make me smile.Novels that panderTo my taste for candorGive me a pleasure sublime.
(Let's face it, I love slime.
)All books can be indecent booksThough recent books are bolder,For filth (I'm glad to say) is inthe mind of the beholder.When correctly viewed,Everything is lewd.
(I could tell you things about Peter Pan,And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man!
)I thrillTo any book like Fanny Hill,And I suppose I always will,If it is swillAnd really filthy.Who needs a hobby like tennis or philately?I've got a hobby: rereading Lady Chatterley.But now they're trying to take it allaway from us unlessWe take a stand, and hand in handwe fight for freedom of the press.In other words,Smut!
(I love it)Ah, the adventures of a slut.Oh, I'm a market they can't glut,I don't know whatCompares with smut.Hip hip hooray!Let's hear it for the Supreme Court!Don't let them take it away!-Tom Lehrer ("Smut")</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28640525</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't it about PUBLIC obscenity?</title>
	<author>Mr. Slippery</author>
	<datestamp>1247169780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>I thought obscenity laws were to protect someone like me, walking down the street, from seeing obscenity.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>You thought wrong. <a href="http://unreasonable.org/node/2812" title="unreasonable.org" rel="nofollow">As U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan said after putting a California couple in a cage for selling dirty pictures, "These prison sentences affirm the need to continue to protect the public from obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy material, the production of which degrades all of us."</a> [unreasonable.org] Obscenity laws are based on the insane notion that the mere existence of dirty pictures is harmful.</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>people don't want to be offended by someone telling them they are wrong to do this
or that</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>I don't much care if you merely tell me I'm wrong to do this or that. I care when you start waving guns around to enforce your idea of what's right or wrong.</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>on the other hand, they have no problem offending people that don't want to see, for example, obscenity.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Folks, it's simple: if you don't want to be offended by something you consider obscene, <b> <i>DON'T LOOK AT IT.</i> </b></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought obscenity laws were to protect someone like me , walking down the street , from seeing obscenity .
You thought wrong .
As U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan said after putting a California couple in a cage for selling dirty pictures , " These prison sentences affirm the need to continue to protect the public from obscene , lewd , lascivious or filthy material , the production of which degrades all of us .
" [ unreasonable.org ] Obscenity laws are based on the insane notion that the mere existence of dirty pictures is harmful .
people do n't want to be offended by someone telling them they are wrong to do this or that I do n't much care if you merely tell me I 'm wrong to do this or that .
I care when you start waving guns around to enforce your idea of what 's right or wrong .
on the other hand , they have no problem offending people that do n't want to see , for example , obscenity .
Folks , it 's simple : if you do n't want to be offended by something you consider obscene , DO N'T LOOK AT IT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I thought obscenity laws were to protect someone like me, walking down the street, from seeing obscenity.
You thought wrong.
As U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan said after putting a California couple in a cage for selling dirty pictures, "These prison sentences affirm the need to continue to protect the public from obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy material, the production of which degrades all of us.
" [unreasonable.org] Obscenity laws are based on the insane notion that the mere existence of dirty pictures is harmful.
people don't want to be offended by someone telling them they are wrong to do this
or that I don't much care if you merely tell me I'm wrong to do this or that.
I care when you start waving guns around to enforce your idea of what's right or wrong.
on the other hand, they have no problem offending people that don't want to see, for example, obscenity.
Folks, it's simple: if you don't want to be offended by something you consider obscene,  DON'T LOOK AT IT. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28642239</id>
	<title>Shhhhh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247133900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obscenity is bad enough as it is.  There is no need to give people like He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named ideas... even if he was disbarred...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obscenity is bad enough as it is .
There is no need to give people like He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named ideas... even if he was disbarred.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obscenity is bad enough as it is.
There is no need to give people like He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named ideas... even if he was disbarred...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638645</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1247162760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not even "a single breast being exposed during a Superbowl half-time show" but a single nipple.  You can show much of the breast on TV and in print without being called porn.  Just look at all of the bikini shots that show nearly the entire top of the model.  But show one female nipple and you're in "won't someone think of the children" territory.  I still haven't quite figured out how that small patch of skin on a female qualifies as obscene while the same patch of skin on a male is mundane.  I keep envisioning a test to see how the "think of the children" folks react.  Put a woman in a modified burka.  It would cover her from top to bottom so you wouldn't be able to tell anything about her shape but cut holes in the burka so that only the woman's nipples showed.  (Some tape may be in order to keep any breast from showing.)  Would people think this was lewd?  What if a similar woman walked around in a string bikini?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not even " a single breast being exposed during a Superbowl half-time show " but a single nipple .
You can show much of the breast on TV and in print without being called porn .
Just look at all of the bikini shots that show nearly the entire top of the model .
But show one female nipple and you 're in " wo n't someone think of the children " territory .
I still have n't quite figured out how that small patch of skin on a female qualifies as obscene while the same patch of skin on a male is mundane .
I keep envisioning a test to see how the " think of the children " folks react .
Put a woman in a modified burka .
It would cover her from top to bottom so you would n't be able to tell anything about her shape but cut holes in the burka so that only the woman 's nipples showed .
( Some tape may be in order to keep any breast from showing .
) Would people think this was lewd ?
What if a similar woman walked around in a string bikini ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not even "a single breast being exposed during a Superbowl half-time show" but a single nipple.
You can show much of the breast on TV and in print without being called porn.
Just look at all of the bikini shots that show nearly the entire top of the model.
But show one female nipple and you're in "won't someone think of the children" territory.
I still haven't quite figured out how that small patch of skin on a female qualifies as obscene while the same patch of skin on a male is mundane.
I keep envisioning a test to see how the "think of the children" folks react.
Put a woman in a modified burka.
It would cover her from top to bottom so you wouldn't be able to tell anything about her shape but cut holes in the burka so that only the woman's nipples showed.
(Some tape may be in order to keep any breast from showing.
)  Would people think this was lewd?
What if a similar woman walked around in a string bikini?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28641125</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1247172120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The big reason for that is because, whether people want to admit it or not, kids/teens are still a huge part of gaming and this is because most retailers, publishers and everyone else involved is ok with that. Kids are more likely to buy any old shit because they don't know better. This is why more and more things are marketed towards kids despite the fact kids don't have jobs and can't get credit for when they want to buy things they can't afford.
<br> <br>
This also stems from bad parenting which there still aren't enough punishments for. Bad parenting has such a huge knock-on effect on society yet, aside from beating you're kid, you'll probably get away with being a horrible parent and if you kid does do something stupid blame it on everyone except yourself and you'll get support from all the other bad parents. Unfortunately bad parents vote more often than the young and the single so their rights get trampled on and the bad parents are given priority and why not? Even corporations love bad parents because they do get the sell junk to their kids and that makes their job easier.
<br> <br>
As long as a huge portion of games are aimed at pre-teens or 13 year old boys and they're primarily sold in places like Toys-R-Us and Wal-Mart then nothing is going to change. Game publishers won't push to change this because they're happier to shovel out rehashed rubbish to prop up a flawed business model rather than spend a bit more money to innovate and yes, maybe suffer though a bad patch, making the adjustment in making gaming more of a hobby for everyone.
<br> <br>
There was nothing wrong with Mass Effect's sex scene but I actually understand, to extend, why people get upset. It's because Mass Effect will be sold right beside the likes of Nintendogs and, if given a chance sold in a shop like Toys-R-Us.
<br> <br>
This is unlike books or movies where books/movies for adults are seperate from the children's stuff. You would be hard pressed to find a place selling Playboy or Stephen King novels right beside colouring books.
<br> <br>
Games need this separation (even if it's actually insignificant like they're on opposite sides of a shop floor) so there is a clear line drawn between the kid's market and the adult's market. Publisher's won't do that because they aren't actually that bothered about selling adult games to children. Like I said, their business model is flawed and they just need to sell as many titles as possible. They don't care who buys them even if it's causing harm to their business' rep. So the industry brought it on themselves and gaming will continue to be held back for the foreseeable future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The big reason for that is because , whether people want to admit it or not , kids/teens are still a huge part of gaming and this is because most retailers , publishers and everyone else involved is ok with that .
Kids are more likely to buy any old shit because they do n't know better .
This is why more and more things are marketed towards kids despite the fact kids do n't have jobs and ca n't get credit for when they want to buy things they ca n't afford .
This also stems from bad parenting which there still are n't enough punishments for .
Bad parenting has such a huge knock-on effect on society yet , aside from beating you 're kid , you 'll probably get away with being a horrible parent and if you kid does do something stupid blame it on everyone except yourself and you 'll get support from all the other bad parents .
Unfortunately bad parents vote more often than the young and the single so their rights get trampled on and the bad parents are given priority and why not ?
Even corporations love bad parents because they do get the sell junk to their kids and that makes their job easier .
As long as a huge portion of games are aimed at pre-teens or 13 year old boys and they 're primarily sold in places like Toys-R-Us and Wal-Mart then nothing is going to change .
Game publishers wo n't push to change this because they 're happier to shovel out rehashed rubbish to prop up a flawed business model rather than spend a bit more money to innovate and yes , maybe suffer though a bad patch , making the adjustment in making gaming more of a hobby for everyone .
There was nothing wrong with Mass Effect 's sex scene but I actually understand , to extend , why people get upset .
It 's because Mass Effect will be sold right beside the likes of Nintendogs and , if given a chance sold in a shop like Toys-R-Us .
This is unlike books or movies where books/movies for adults are seperate from the children 's stuff .
You would be hard pressed to find a place selling Playboy or Stephen King novels right beside colouring books .
Games need this separation ( even if it 's actually insignificant like they 're on opposite sides of a shop floor ) so there is a clear line drawn between the kid 's market and the adult 's market .
Publisher 's wo n't do that because they are n't actually that bothered about selling adult games to children .
Like I said , their business model is flawed and they just need to sell as many titles as possible .
They do n't care who buys them even if it 's causing harm to their business ' rep. So the industry brought it on themselves and gaming will continue to be held back for the foreseeable future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big reason for that is because, whether people want to admit it or not, kids/teens are still a huge part of gaming and this is because most retailers, publishers and everyone else involved is ok with that.
Kids are more likely to buy any old shit because they don't know better.
This is why more and more things are marketed towards kids despite the fact kids don't have jobs and can't get credit for when they want to buy things they can't afford.
This also stems from bad parenting which there still aren't enough punishments for.
Bad parenting has such a huge knock-on effect on society yet, aside from beating you're kid, you'll probably get away with being a horrible parent and if you kid does do something stupid blame it on everyone except yourself and you'll get support from all the other bad parents.
Unfortunately bad parents vote more often than the young and the single so their rights get trampled on and the bad parents are given priority and why not?
Even corporations love bad parents because they do get the sell junk to their kids and that makes their job easier.
As long as a huge portion of games are aimed at pre-teens or 13 year old boys and they're primarily sold in places like Toys-R-Us and Wal-Mart then nothing is going to change.
Game publishers won't push to change this because they're happier to shovel out rehashed rubbish to prop up a flawed business model rather than spend a bit more money to innovate and yes, maybe suffer though a bad patch, making the adjustment in making gaming more of a hobby for everyone.
There was nothing wrong with Mass Effect's sex scene but I actually understand, to extend, why people get upset.
It's because Mass Effect will be sold right beside the likes of Nintendogs and, if given a chance sold in a shop like Toys-R-Us.
This is unlike books or movies where books/movies for adults are seperate from the children's stuff.
You would be hard pressed to find a place selling Playboy or Stephen King novels right beside colouring books.
Games need this separation (even if it's actually insignificant like they're on opposite sides of a shop floor) so there is a clear line drawn between the kid's market and the adult's market.
Publisher's won't do that because they aren't actually that bothered about selling adult games to children.
Like I said, their business model is flawed and they just need to sell as many titles as possible.
They don't care who buys them even if it's causing harm to their business' rep. So the industry brought it on themselves and gaming will continue to be held back for the foreseeable future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28642719</id>
	<title>Obligatory...</title>
	<author>KingAlanI</author>
	<datestamp>1247135760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" I'd rather have my son watch a video of two people making love than two people trying to kill one another"<br>My Carlin the comedic genius rest in peace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'd rather have my son watch a video of two people making love than two people trying to kill one another " My Carlin the comedic genius rest in peace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" I'd rather have my son watch a video of two people making love than two people trying to kill one another"My Carlin the comedic genius rest in peace.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638839</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't it about PUBLIC obscenity?</title>
	<author>johnsonav</author>
	<datestamp>1247163600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You have failed: It's only hate speech if you say "The Queers are ruining the soil, and we should do something about them."</p></div><p>Now IANAL, but I believe in the US, that is still protected speech.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Actually, it has to be a direct incitement to violence to even be prosecutable in most cases; a sort of vague, general "someone should do something about those damned queers" is usually not actionable, even if you find it objectionable.</p></div><p>Speech, of that nature, can only be deemed illegal if it passes the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg\_v.\_Ohio" title="wikipedia.org">Bandenburg Test</a> [wikipedia.org]. The speech must be, "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."</p><p>If fact, I think it would be legal to say something like: "We should kill all the gays." But, it would be illegal to say something like: "We should kill him [pointing to gay guy in the crowd], right now." Even then, for the speech to be illegal, it would have to be "likely" that it would incite the lawless actions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have failed : It 's only hate speech if you say " The Queers are ruining the soil , and we should do something about them .
" Now IANAL , but I believe in the US , that is still protected speech.Actually , it has to be a direct incitement to violence to even be prosecutable in most cases ; a sort of vague , general " someone should do something about those damned queers " is usually not actionable , even if you find it objectionable.Speech , of that nature , can only be deemed illegal if it passes the Bandenburg Test [ wikipedia.org ] .
The speech must be , " directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action .
" If fact , I think it would be legal to say something like : " We should kill all the gays .
" But , it would be illegal to say something like : " We should kill him [ pointing to gay guy in the crowd ] , right now .
" Even then , for the speech to be illegal , it would have to be " likely " that it would incite the lawless actions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have failed: It's only hate speech if you say "The Queers are ruining the soil, and we should do something about them.
"Now IANAL, but I believe in the US, that is still protected speech.Actually, it has to be a direct incitement to violence to even be prosecutable in most cases; a sort of vague, general "someone should do something about those damned queers" is usually not actionable, even if you find it objectionable.Speech, of that nature, can only be deemed illegal if it passes the Bandenburg Test [wikipedia.org].
The speech must be, "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
"If fact, I think it would be legal to say something like: "We should kill all the gays.
" But, it would be illegal to say something like: "We should kill him [pointing to gay guy in the crowd], right now.
" Even then, for the speech to be illegal, it would have to be "likely" that it would incite the lawless actions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>grumbel</author>
	<datestamp>1247161260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The lack of sex has little to do with first amendment as its pretty much all based on the self censorship the industry is doing via the ESRB.</p><p>A game that contains sex gets rated AO by the ESRB and AO means that it won't be allowed to make it on either Nintendo's, Sony's or Microsoft's console. There is still the PC market, but Walmart and other shops won't carry AO either. So AO pretty much results in a game that you can't sell, so everybody avoids it as good as they can, meaning no sex in games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The lack of sex has little to do with first amendment as its pretty much all based on the self censorship the industry is doing via the ESRB.A game that contains sex gets rated AO by the ESRB and AO means that it wo n't be allowed to make it on either Nintendo 's , Sony 's or Microsoft 's console .
There is still the PC market , but Walmart and other shops wo n't carry AO either .
So AO pretty much results in a game that you ca n't sell , so everybody avoids it as good as they can , meaning no sex in games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lack of sex has little to do with first amendment as its pretty much all based on the self censorship the industry is doing via the ESRB.A game that contains sex gets rated AO by the ESRB and AO means that it won't be allowed to make it on either Nintendo's, Sony's or Microsoft's console.
There is still the PC market, but Walmart and other shops won't carry AO either.
So AO pretty much results in a game that you can't sell, so everybody avoids it as good as they can, meaning no sex in games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638557</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>Xygon</author>
	<datestamp>1247162400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>God of War wasn't AO either, and you had to pound out a sex scene rhythm at one point... not just all sex is AO and removed, just explicit and graphic sex.</htmltext>
<tokenext>God of War was n't AO either , and you had to pound out a sex scene rhythm at one point... not just all sex is AO and removed , just explicit and graphic sex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God of War wasn't AO either, and you had to pound out a sex scene rhythm at one point... not just all sex is AO and removed, just explicit and graphic sex.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638505</id>
	<title>TOS clauses rule out real obscenity...</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1247162160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TOS clauses of most ISPs rules out the distribution of genuinely obscene content.  It is censorship, and in fact, many governments actually do censor this stuff as well.</p><p>I mean, if you go by the old rules of what is obscene, sex and violence, obviously, that's not too bad these days and won't get you into trouble.  But if you put together a cartoon swastika game for children that features a character running around tossing minorities into concentration camps where you can dehumanize, torture and exterminate them, all while beating the crap out of its wife until she creates babies for the fatherland and streudel for the tummy, that might get you into some trouble.</p><p>In Germany, you would go to jail, for sure.  In the USA, I think you would probably be banned by most ISPs, be put on a number of terrorist watch lists by the government, get sued by the ACLU, ripped by Al Sharpton, and worst of all, you would get modded as a troll on Slashdot.   In the UK, you would probably find a dozen cameras in your house, and a ton of condemnation from the BBC and parliament, unless you were islamic, in which case, it would be ok.  In Iran they would probably cheer you and in Israel Mossad would probably have more than a word with you. For some reason, I think Canada would argue you had the right to host but they would probably bend over backwards to paint you as an American.</p><p>People that actually had the game would suddenly find themselves subject to any sort of hate crimes laws. So, if you punched someone in the face, without the game, it might be a simple assault. But, if you had the game and punched someone else in the face, that would likely be a hate crime and you would wind up in prison.</p><p>So.... in reality, there's still tough anti-obscenity laws out there.  It's just that, liberal nations have made it taboo to hate people, just as much as conservative regimes once made it taboo to talk about gratuitous violence and sexuality.  If you really wanted to make sure you covered all the bases, you could probably make the swastika concentration camp game into an ultra violent porno.  That way, liberals and conservatives would be thoroughly offended, and yes, you would be obscene by anyone's definition!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TOS clauses of most ISPs rules out the distribution of genuinely obscene content .
It is censorship , and in fact , many governments actually do censor this stuff as well.I mean , if you go by the old rules of what is obscene , sex and violence , obviously , that 's not too bad these days and wo n't get you into trouble .
But if you put together a cartoon swastika game for children that features a character running around tossing minorities into concentration camps where you can dehumanize , torture and exterminate them , all while beating the crap out of its wife until she creates babies for the fatherland and streudel for the tummy , that might get you into some trouble.In Germany , you would go to jail , for sure .
In the USA , I think you would probably be banned by most ISPs , be put on a number of terrorist watch lists by the government , get sued by the ACLU , ripped by Al Sharpton , and worst of all , you would get modded as a troll on Slashdot .
In the UK , you would probably find a dozen cameras in your house , and a ton of condemnation from the BBC and parliament , unless you were islamic , in which case , it would be ok. In Iran they would probably cheer you and in Israel Mossad would probably have more than a word with you .
For some reason , I think Canada would argue you had the right to host but they would probably bend over backwards to paint you as an American.People that actually had the game would suddenly find themselves subject to any sort of hate crimes laws .
So , if you punched someone in the face , without the game , it might be a simple assault .
But , if you had the game and punched someone else in the face , that would likely be a hate crime and you would wind up in prison.So.... in reality , there 's still tough anti-obscenity laws out there .
It 's just that , liberal nations have made it taboo to hate people , just as much as conservative regimes once made it taboo to talk about gratuitous violence and sexuality .
If you really wanted to make sure you covered all the bases , you could probably make the swastika concentration camp game into an ultra violent porno .
That way , liberals and conservatives would be thoroughly offended , and yes , you would be obscene by anyone 's definition !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TOS clauses of most ISPs rules out the distribution of genuinely obscene content.
It is censorship, and in fact, many governments actually do censor this stuff as well.I mean, if you go by the old rules of what is obscene, sex and violence, obviously, that's not too bad these days and won't get you into trouble.
But if you put together a cartoon swastika game for children that features a character running around tossing minorities into concentration camps where you can dehumanize, torture and exterminate them, all while beating the crap out of its wife until she creates babies for the fatherland and streudel for the tummy, that might get you into some trouble.In Germany, you would go to jail, for sure.
In the USA, I think you would probably be banned by most ISPs, be put on a number of terrorist watch lists by the government, get sued by the ACLU, ripped by Al Sharpton, and worst of all, you would get modded as a troll on Slashdot.
In the UK, you would probably find a dozen cameras in your house, and a ton of condemnation from the BBC and parliament, unless you were islamic, in which case, it would be ok.  In Iran they would probably cheer you and in Israel Mossad would probably have more than a word with you.
For some reason, I think Canada would argue you had the right to host but they would probably bend over backwards to paint you as an American.People that actually had the game would suddenly find themselves subject to any sort of hate crimes laws.
So, if you punched someone in the face, without the game, it might be a simple assault.
But, if you had the game and punched someone else in the face, that would likely be a hate crime and you would wind up in prison.So.... in reality, there's still tough anti-obscenity laws out there.
It's just that, liberal nations have made it taboo to hate people, just as much as conservative regimes once made it taboo to talk about gratuitous violence and sexuality.
If you really wanted to make sure you covered all the bases, you could probably make the swastika concentration camp game into an ultra violent porno.
That way, liberals and conservatives would be thoroughly offended, and yes, you would be obscene by anyone's definition!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639727</id>
	<title>Only small amounts of sexual content?</title>
	<author>SebaSOFT</author>
	<datestamp>1247166840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[quote]The other major reason is the vast majority of video games sold in the United States have only small amounts of sexual content thanks to the Electronic Software Rating Board.[/quote]<br>Did you play GTA4? Even next batman game has nudity!!!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ quote ] The other major reason is the vast majority of video games sold in the United States have only small amounts of sexual content thanks to the Electronic Software Rating Board .
[ /quote ] Did you play GTA4 ?
Even next batman game has nudity ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[quote]The other major reason is the vast majority of video games sold in the United States have only small amounts of sexual content thanks to the Electronic Software Rating Board.
[/quote]Did you play GTA4?
Even next batman game has nudity!!!
!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638337</id>
	<title>beware</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247161500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When people decide to get violence removed/banned/controlled in video games, get ready for millions of gamers to call for the same treatment of books, film, TV, and the most violent of all, the news.</p><p>Be a parent, not a fascist.  Freedom is hard if you cant govern yourself, but at least you have options.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When people decide to get violence removed/banned/controlled in video games , get ready for millions of gamers to call for the same treatment of books , film , TV , and the most violent of all , the news.Be a parent , not a fascist .
Freedom is hard if you cant govern yourself , but at least you have options .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When people decide to get violence removed/banned/controlled in video games, get ready for millions of gamers to call for the same treatment of books, film, TV, and the most violent of all, the news.Be a parent, not a fascist.
Freedom is hard if you cant govern yourself, but at least you have options.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639667</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1247166600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree that we are too concerned about nudity.  It's bizarre that the 70's were more open and accepting of nudity in film, for instance, that the 2000's are.<br> <br>

However, you can't directly compare it to violence.  Explicit sex is media is frowned upon for entirely different reasons than violence.  I'm not worried about my son, my daughter, or 99.9\% of anybody else's kids wanting to go out and commit murder because they see it in a game.  However, sex is a temptation.  The kids would be weird if they DIDN'T want to go out and have sex... or lock themselves up in their bedroom and watch sex all day.<br> <br>

Yeah, I think it's too restrictive.  I don't see anything wrong with a child seeing a breast.  But in fairness, the current stigma is not because sex is considered WORSE than violence.  It's considered more SEDUCTIVE than violence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that we are too concerned about nudity .
It 's bizarre that the 70 's were more open and accepting of nudity in film , for instance , that the 2000 's are .
However , you ca n't directly compare it to violence .
Explicit sex is media is frowned upon for entirely different reasons than violence .
I 'm not worried about my son , my daughter , or 99.9 \ % of anybody else 's kids wanting to go out and commit murder because they see it in a game .
However , sex is a temptation .
The kids would be weird if they DID N'T want to go out and have sex... or lock themselves up in their bedroom and watch sex all day .
Yeah , I think it 's too restrictive .
I do n't see anything wrong with a child seeing a breast .
But in fairness , the current stigma is not because sex is considered WORSE than violence .
It 's considered more SEDUCTIVE than violence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that we are too concerned about nudity.
It's bizarre that the 70's were more open and accepting of nudity in film, for instance, that the 2000's are.
However, you can't directly compare it to violence.
Explicit sex is media is frowned upon for entirely different reasons than violence.
I'm not worried about my son, my daughter, or 99.9\% of anybody else's kids wanting to go out and commit murder because they see it in a game.
However, sex is a temptation.
The kids would be weird if they DIDN'T want to go out and have sex... or lock themselves up in their bedroom and watch sex all day.
Yeah, I think it's too restrictive.
I don't see anything wrong with a child seeing a breast.
But in fairness, the current stigma is not because sex is considered WORSE than violence.
It's considered more SEDUCTIVE than violence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639545</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't it about PUBLIC obscenity?</title>
	<author>thisnamestoolong</author>
	<datestamp>1247166240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"IMO, there's a double standard for "moral legislation." On one side, people don't want to be offended by someone telling them they are wrong to do this or that; on the other hand, they have no problem offending people that don't want to see, for example, obscenity."<br> <br>

Where in America is this happening? There is no right to not be offended, and I would not try to create one. If I say something which is offensive, people have the right to not hear it. If I am forcing them to hear it, it becomes illegal but only because it would either be harassment or disturbing the peace, not because the content was offensive.<br>
Conversely, if something offends me (very little does, especially now that Jerry Falwell is worm food), I will simply not listen to it. It is very simple, and everyone's rights are protected.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" IMO , there 's a double standard for " moral legislation .
" On one side , people do n't want to be offended by someone telling them they are wrong to do this or that ; on the other hand , they have no problem offending people that do n't want to see , for example , obscenity .
" Where in America is this happening ?
There is no right to not be offended , and I would not try to create one .
If I say something which is offensive , people have the right to not hear it .
If I am forcing them to hear it , it becomes illegal but only because it would either be harassment or disturbing the peace , not because the content was offensive .
Conversely , if something offends me ( very little does , especially now that Jerry Falwell is worm food ) , I will simply not listen to it .
It is very simple , and everyone 's rights are protected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"IMO, there's a double standard for "moral legislation.
" On one side, people don't want to be offended by someone telling them they are wrong to do this or that; on the other hand, they have no problem offending people that don't want to see, for example, obscenity.
" 

Where in America is this happening?
There is no right to not be offended, and I would not try to create one.
If I say something which is offensive, people have the right to not hear it.
If I am forcing them to hear it, it becomes illegal but only because it would either be harassment or disturbing the peace, not because the content was offensive.
Conversely, if something offends me (very little does, especially now that Jerry Falwell is worm food), I will simply not listen to it.
It is very simple, and everyone's rights are protected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638541</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247162340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
You Americans need to relax a little bit concerning sex. I think violence is a lot worse than sex.
</p><p>
It's OK for kids to see people being machinegunned into pieces, blood and flesh everywhere, but a boobie is simply too outrageous. WTF!?!
</p><p>
Here in Europe, most movies have nudity in them but in a Hollywood movie, if you see some boobs for a fraction of a second, it's outrageous. The leg-crossing of Sharon Stone in Fatal Instinct was deemed as the sexiest thing on cinema, but truly, it's pretty standard in European movies. Of course, in American movies and series, violence is rampant, even in family-rated stuff.
</p><p>
On American TV, I've seen boobs blurred out in movies, music videos, etc. I've even seen something incredible, Naomi Watts was masturbating in Mulholland Drive, but she was only filmed from the waist up, so you could only see her arm going up and down, suggesting what she was doing. They fucking blurred her arm! How stupid is this?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You Americans need to relax a little bit concerning sex .
I think violence is a lot worse than sex .
It 's OK for kids to see people being machinegunned into pieces , blood and flesh everywhere , but a boobie is simply too outrageous .
WTF ! ? ! Here in Europe , most movies have nudity in them but in a Hollywood movie , if you see some boobs for a fraction of a second , it 's outrageous .
The leg-crossing of Sharon Stone in Fatal Instinct was deemed as the sexiest thing on cinema , but truly , it 's pretty standard in European movies .
Of course , in American movies and series , violence is rampant , even in family-rated stuff .
On American TV , I 've seen boobs blurred out in movies , music videos , etc .
I 've even seen something incredible , Naomi Watts was masturbating in Mulholland Drive , but she was only filmed from the waist up , so you could only see her arm going up and down , suggesting what she was doing .
They fucking blurred her arm !
How stupid is this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
You Americans need to relax a little bit concerning sex.
I think violence is a lot worse than sex.
It's OK for kids to see people being machinegunned into pieces, blood and flesh everywhere, but a boobie is simply too outrageous.
WTF!?!

Here in Europe, most movies have nudity in them but in a Hollywood movie, if you see some boobs for a fraction of a second, it's outrageous.
The leg-crossing of Sharon Stone in Fatal Instinct was deemed as the sexiest thing on cinema, but truly, it's pretty standard in European movies.
Of course, in American movies and series, violence is rampant, even in family-rated stuff.
On American TV, I've seen boobs blurred out in movies, music videos, etc.
I've even seen something incredible, Naomi Watts was masturbating in Mulholland Drive, but she was only filmed from the waist up, so you could only see her arm going up and down, suggesting what she was doing.
They fucking blurred her arm!
How stupid is this?
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638449</id>
	<title>Re:The main reason games don't have obscene conten</title>
	<author>cayenne8</author>
	<datestamp>1247161860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like the market is SCREAMING for someone to develop a good, highly sexual content video game.<p>
That ratings board is stil voluntary, right?</p><p>
What's to stop someone from making such a game, that will work on some or all of the platforms, and marketing and selling it independently?</p><p>
Sure, you may not get offical blessing by Sony, Nintendo or MS, and you may have to omit their trademarked names, but, surely there is no law about what you can plug into your own game unit that you own, is there? Hell sell it online, the first one out to do this would win by word of mouth selling. If the companies start bitching, just throw out the 1st amendment rights and the fair use doctrine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like the market is SCREAMING for someone to develop a good , highly sexual content video game .
That ratings board is stil voluntary , right ?
What 's to stop someone from making such a game , that will work on some or all of the platforms , and marketing and selling it independently ?
Sure , you may not get offical blessing by Sony , Nintendo or MS , and you may have to omit their trademarked names , but , surely there is no law about what you can plug into your own game unit that you own , is there ?
Hell sell it online , the first one out to do this would win by word of mouth selling .
If the companies start bitching , just throw out the 1st amendment rights and the fair use doctrine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like the market is SCREAMING for someone to develop a good, highly sexual content video game.
That ratings board is stil voluntary, right?
What's to stop someone from making such a game, that will work on some or all of the platforms, and marketing and selling it independently?
Sure, you may not get offical blessing by Sony, Nintendo or MS, and you may have to omit their trademarked names, but, surely there is no law about what you can plug into your own game unit that you own, is there?
Hell sell it online, the first one out to do this would win by word of mouth selling.
If the companies start bitching, just throw out the 1st amendment rights and the fair use doctrine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28641225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28642719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28641069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28640505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28640495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28642229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28648285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28641089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28642095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28647577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28644289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28644637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28640307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28640525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28648747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28641029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28720929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_164259_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28641125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_164259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638439
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_164259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638337
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_164259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28640495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638465
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638839
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28641089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28642229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28640525
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_164259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28640505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28640307
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_164259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638265
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639405
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638813
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28644637
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638557
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638541
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28642719
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639667
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28644289
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28641225
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28720929
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28642095
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28641029
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639617
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28648285
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28641125
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639281
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638967
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638449
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28641069
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639889
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28647577
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638569
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639865
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638663
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638287
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638645
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638547
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639461
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28648747
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638623
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28639417
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638531
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_164259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_164259.28638387
</commentlist>
</conversation>
