UO Second Age

Dole wrote:It's not surprising a game that caters to shut-ins would draw the easily offended types.

Actually, if anything it's drawn the foul mouthed idiots who've forgotten how to function in the real world. Your freedom of speech isn't being taken away because you can't spout off bigoted racist language like children. I wonder how many people OK with the racist/sexist language are white and male? Why do you think so few women play online games? I can't image the constant barrage of PMS jokes and requests for nudes are enticing thoughts for the female gamer.

Anyway, you guys do what you want, I don't care, just don't pretend like you're some persecuted minority because The Man won't let you say Whatever The Hell You Want Screw You Dad!!!!!

tits or GTFO

OP's forum name is "Bong hit". Aren't drug references against the rules here as well? I mean, I am certainly offended by drug references more so than I am by racist remarks.
If we're going to groom offensiveness out of our language we'll have nothing to say, apparently.

Donk wrote:Your freedom of speech isn't being taken away because you can't spout off bigoted racist language like children.

umm... yuh huh.

I can't help but laugh and remark on the fact that I learned A LOT new slurs when I looked at the list of words that are filtered in UO

That said, I almost never see people use racist or sexual slurs in game or on IRC. Then again, this is probably because I don't lurk nearly as much as the OP.

Oh, and I'd like to add that banning people for using racial or sexist slurs is nothing short of fascism, which is what causes events like the holocaust. This is an M Rated game. Expect an M Rated environment.

BongHit wrote:this line of thinking is exactly what made the people of Germany and America feel it was ok to let them continue.

Well, for starters, America didn't believe the holocaust was happening. Secondly, no, this line of thinking doesn't cause genocide to happen. Actions cause genocides to happen. You're treading the realm of allowing the persecution of people for their inclinations and convictions, which is nothing less than thought-crime. I will, to my dying day, support a racist man's right to feel and think the way he does but I'll be damned if he'll get away with murder or assault.

Please note the difference.

GuardianKnight wrote:If you think for a second that you have the "right" to offend anyone verbally, then you are wrong. Ever hear of "assault and battery"? Assault constitutes name calling and harassment.

Go back to North Korea. In America (and other free nations of the world), you're entitled to speaking your mind to people, no matter how lewd the manner in which you do this.

platypus wrote:OP, its people like you that are responsible for the world becoming a gigantic nanny state, where no one is allowed to voice their opinion without being punished.

QFT.

GuardianKnight wrote:At the same time you said we are supposed to be able to voice our opinion you just told people they shouldn't voice their opinion about you voicing your opinions.

You are entitled to voicing your opinion on my opinion but if your opinion is that I should be restricted from voicing my opinion, then your opinion is infringing on my opinion. You fail at logic.

GuardianKnight wrote:I once said "I wonder which airlines are better, the USA or the JAP ones....."

You must have been pretty ignorant if you didn't know the word Jap is racist.

Name calling = assault now?

Lol, keep dreaming. Some people are such pussies I can't believe they're even still alive.

Just to be clear on the definition:
(taken from freedictonary.com's legal definitions):

Assualt:
Generally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.

The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim.

Intent is an essential element of assault. In tort law, it can be specific intent—if the assailant intends to cause the apprehension of harmful or offensive contact in the victim—or general intent—if he or she intends to do the act that causes such apprehension. In addition, the intent element is satisfied if it is substantially certain, to a reasonable person, that the act will cause the result. A defendant who holds a gun to a victim's head possesses the requisite intent, since it is substantially certain that this act will produce an apprehension in the victim. In all cases, intent to kill or harm is irrelevant.

Hrmm... that makes me wonder if the word assault is being used properly in my "Anal Assault" volumes 1-3 DVD set.....

Hrmm... that makes me wonder if the word assault is being used properly in my "Anal Assault" volumes 1-3 DVD set.....

To be fair, the poster above you used a legal definition. The source of your definition is everything. The porndicktionary.com definition of assault is totally different. A dispute like this can never be settled because definition is subjective.

Which Justice was it that could not put a word definition on pornography but exclaimed "I know it when I see it"? I know that google is just a tab over, but I'm sooooo lazy...

Rendar wrote:Hrmm... that makes me wonder if the word assault is being used properly in my "Anal Assault" volumes 1-3 DVD set.....

Win!

Thread over.

SJane3384 wrote:a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim.

STRAIGHT TO THE MOON

Kordavox wrote:

Hrmm... that makes me wonder if the word assault is being used properly in my "Anal Assault" volumes 1-3 DVD set.....

To be fair, the poster above you used a legal definition. The source of your definition is everything. The porndicktionary.com definition of assault is totally different. A dispute like this can never be settled because definition is subjective.

Which Justice was it that could not put a word definition on pornography but exclaimed "I know it when I see it"? I know that google is just a tab over, but I'm sooooo lazy...

I think the difference here is usage of the word. It's like the word "sex". It can either be an action (Freeza enjoys sex with dolphins.) or a descriptive word (The sex of Matron is still in question.)

So therefore, assualt in my definition means a one-on-one threat, while Kordavox's is closer to the military definition (more like bombardment).