AoC: Does anyone play this game?

[Wormphlegm]

The biggest thing is that people have difficulty seeing the difference between art, and porn.

Well then, the Louvre in Paris is a porn museum... because it's loaded with nude paintings and sculptures.

As is every other major art museum in the world. So I guess every art museum is really a porn museum, eh..?

People need to grow the fuck up, and stop treating nudity as if it were "dirty." That's what they need to do.

It's mostly religious dogma that lends to that viewpoint, and in that, mostly north american religion.
In europe, it's not uncommon for women to go topless on the beaches.

Also:
You left New York at the wrong time, they've legalised women being topless in NYC.

[ChaosArcher]

The biggest thing is that people have difficulty seeing the difference between art, and porn.

Well then, the Louvre in Paris is a porn museum... because it's loaded with nude paintings and sculptures.

As is every other major art museum in the world. So I guess every art museum is really a porn museum, eh..?

People need to grow the fuck up, and stop treating nudity as if it were "dirty." That's what they need to do.

It's mostly religious dogma that lends to that viewpoint, and in that, mostly north american religion.
In europe, it's not uncommon for women to go topless on the beaches.

Also:
You left New York at the wrong time, they've legalised women being topless in NYC.

Unfortunately, it seems we as a society are a long way of before realizing nudity is art.

On a side note: Wormphlegm, this is the first that I am hearing about NYC, please elaborate.

-ChaosArcher

[Wormphlegm]

Topless Women in Public Not Breaking the Law, Says NYPD

    Hannah Ridge
    in
    Politics
    2 weeks ago

Mic this! 48   

    286034

    2589

submit to reddit
2226
topless, women, in, public, not, breaking, the, law,, says, nypd,

Topless Women in Public Not Breaking the Law Says NYPD

Ladies of New York, you are free to walk bare-breasted through the city! New York City's 34,000 police officers have been instructed that, should they encounter a woman in public who is shirtless but obeying the law, they should not arrest her. This is a good step towards gender parity in public spaces.

This decision means that breast exposure is not considered public lewdness, indecent exposure, or disorderly conduct. It also notes that, should a crowd form around a topless woman, the officer should instruct the crowd to disperse and then respond appropriately if it does not. Relative coverage is no longer a factor.

This policy shift comes after several years of litigation and protest. In the 1992 case People v. Ramona Santorelli and Mary Lou Schloss, the New York Court of Appeals ruled in favor of two women who were arrested with five others for exposing their breasts in a Rochester park, holding the law void as discriminatory.  The ruling was put to the test in 2005, when Jill Coccaro bared her breasts on Delancey Street in New York, citing the 1992 decision, and was detained for twelve hours. She subsequently successfully sued the city for $29,000.

In 2007, Go Topless, a national organization supporting gender equality in shirtlessness laws, established Go Topless Day. Dozens of women protest – often topless – in thirty cities around the United States, promoting equal rights to be shirtless. Protests usually include chants of "Free your breasts.  Free your minds" and a song "Let 'em Breathe" to the tune of the Beatles' "Let it Be."

While some who have witnessed these events have suggested that "[t]his is extreme liberalism and why America's in decline" or "t's degrading to women," others have been supportive. One man even said he would encourage his wife to join them.

Though bare-breasted women might shock the sensibilities of some in the public, it is encouraging to see the police responding positively to gender bias, even on such a seemingly small scale. After all, no one thinks twice about a man shirtless on a summer day. However, the female nipple or chest is still considered "lewd." By reminding its officers of this, the NYPD is publicly declaring that it will no longer perpetuate unconstitutional gender discrimination, a standard to which all law enforcement should be held and a decision for which it should be applauded.

Footage of the protesters can be found here (NSFW)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JZ7s2LwJZo

[Wormphlegm]

Here's another article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/nyregion/a-police-roll-call-reminder-women-may-go-topless.html

[Tessera]

Yah... that's old news to New Yorkers. On this board, we were talking about topless chicks in NYC a few years ago.

I think it's somewhere down in "News And Current Events," if memory serves. Or possibly in the "Off Topic" section.

Anyway, it hasn't suddenly become legal for women to go topless in NYC. They've had that legal right for more than 20 years.
What has actually happened is that the POLICE have finally acknowledged women's rights in NYC, and are no longer arresting
any women who choose to go topless in public. Which is, of course, a good positive step in the right direction.

[Wormphlegm]

I'm of the opinion that people should be allowed to walk around butt ass naked if they so choose.
As long as you're not fucking in public, or being creepy, who cares?

[Tessera]

I don't even care of people are fucking in public. So long as they don't spray any jizz on my picnic basket, then I could care less what they're doing over there.

Everybody needs to grow the fuck up. Sex is one of the more wonderful parts of being a human being. There is nothnig "dirty" or "lewd" or "shameful" about it.

[Wormphlegm]

I just don't wanna see fat people humping.

[ChaosArcher]

Thank you Wormphlegm  for the links.


-ChaosArcher

[Tessera]

I just don't wanna see fat people humping.

Then duh... look the other way, dude.

But never, ever try to tell other people how to live. Especially when they aren't harming anyone else.

[Wormphlegm]

The thing is, people are assholes.

If fucking in public was legal, you'd have people standing right in front of everyone at the beach(for example) where you can't look away, unless you're not looking at the ocean.

[Tessera]

Who cares..?

Does seeing other people having sex scare you..?

When other people are enjoying sex together, is it harming you in some way..?

This is your species. Sex is one of the ways that we enjoy being with each other.
We're humans. This is what we do. It's a good thing. It's fun. It's instinctive.

So I ask again... who cares..?

[Wormphlegm]

Dude, I worked in a porn store. Like I said before.

Seeing people fucking isn't my idea of a good time, because I'd rather be the one doing the fucking.

[Tessera]

I'd rather be the one doing the fucking.

So what's stopping you..? 

Anyway, we've strayed too far off-topic here. Let's get back to AoC.

[Wormphlegm]

I'd rather be the one doing the fucking.

So what's stopping you..? 

I'd just finished having sex when I made that post.

Anyway, we've strayed too far off-topic here. Let's get back to AoC.

Okay doke, last off-topic post from me then.

[Al2]

 I remembered way back when AoC was announcement on cardboard on a video games store, and that's even before the preliminary player tests, and then somehow I knew this game will somehow made the players unhappy and have issues like censorship, the game not being what Conan connoisseurs what might expect, and not being mature enough. Maybe this was a projection based on common sense and the trends on video games and maybe that video games are being perceived as something for children, like cartoons are often portrait, the game being rated thing and maybe based on past occurrences on which people have complained about games before. Then it turned out to be so, but even more profound than I have imagined to be. Now I want to test drive this game and I can't download it from their website. It seems I have to buy a physical copy. And for the record the company Fun Com and their logo with the flag sounds like they care more or only for the monies and less from the quality of what they make. Their other game Anarchy Online is giving me the impression that if I play a Bureucrat class, I get my own office with robots as my office assistance, but I read it is grindy. So I think that game is all about combat, grinding and instances of missions and not a simulation on human dynamics like economy, collaboration, a living city and, you know, things apart from combat.

Is there's a way to download AoC and their expansion that doesn't require torrents? As they depend on other people downloading it and it is 18GBs

[Wormphlegm]

The biggest thing is that people have difficulty seeing the difference between art, and porn.

Well then, the Louvre in Paris is a porn museum... because it's loaded with nude paintings and sculptures.

As is every other major art museum in the world. So I guess every art museum is really a porn museum, eh..?

People need to grow the fuck up, and stop treating nudity as if it were "dirty." That's what they need to do.

Because I feel like spurring a discussion with someone who has a brain:

Explain to me how this is artistic:
I'd post the image directly, but it's large, and extremely NSFW.
http://i.imgur.com/36yBMi6.png

[Tessera]

Explain to me how this is artistic:

First, explain to me how this is not:




You're indulging in silly internet games. Just because you can search the web and find something offensive, that doesn't score any points for you in this debate. What I said about nudity is still valid. You don't see me, or any other competent artist, producing the sort of idiotic crap that you posted a link to... so then, what's you're point..?

Exceptions do not invalidate the rules... that's why we call them "exceptions." So to bring up an exception, as if it somehow makes any sort of valid point, is effectively worthless. If I say "Most human beings like to eat meat on occasion," and you counter that with something like "BUT NO..!!! My best friend is a vegetarian and he never eats meat..!!!" did you somehow invalidate my assertion..? No, because regardless of your goofy friend the vegetarian, the fact remains that most human beings DO like to eat meat. So I repeat: exceptions do not invalidate the rules, hence it makes no sense to cite them, except to obfuscate whatever point it is that you are trying to make.

Now, if more people would get that simple concept through their thick skulls, then we'd all have a lot less of these silly debates on the internet, eh..?