It doesn't make sense to parent children. They imitate us nonetheless.
>_>

lol isnt yokai doing the same thing as devil, satan, bugs bunny or whatever u guys call him influences us to do, who knows may be the game is a new religious propaganda, all hail yokai

Normally I cringe whenever someone uses "but the children" line on why this game is bad, or that music is bad, or that professional athlete's "example" is bad....

But I have to admit after watching this year's World Series and seeing every other commercial being a drug to fix "erectile dysfunction" it did make me wonder about how many parents had to answer "Mom/Dad, what's erectile dysfunction?" since the World Series is one sporting event that I would think has lots of, shall we say, "not yet adolescents" watching.

I'm surprised the official logo wasn't "The 2015 Viagra World Series."

I had a conversation on the Steam forums regarding the Family View feature that allows parents to control which Steam games their kids play.

One poster claimed that children should be able to play any game they wish and parents that stop them are bad parents.

His main defence was "because they're not like videos". I countered that under that argument kids should be able to see any Animation they wish.

As a parent I have to judge my child's understanding and the exact nature of the game.

My 7 year old son plays UT2004 with gore turned off (not that with it turned on its overtly violent)
My eldest was playing some 18 rated games at 13, but I know she has an understanding of the content.
Second eldest however is now 13, yet I need to check content more vigorously.

I am a gamer so I know, or at least have a better understanding of content that a non gaming parent. Unfortunately I feel many non-gaming parents see age ratings as a difficultly level not content rating.

As for the OP topic of Yokia. I believe all subjects or stories can be used to discuss human nature and teach the ideas of right and wrong with your children. I my eldest would have been 7 or 8 when we discussed Pokemon slavery. It didn't stop her enjoying the game, but helps her understand the world a bit better.

The same Houston that voted for a LGBT mayor to power?

Houston people are not the abomination to LGBT that you make them to be. They are open minded enough to vote for a LGBT mayor, but won't vote for UNEQUAL right.

HERO act is not equal right, it is discriminating right where the minority right superseded the majority right. Everyone have the right to do anything they want, unless their rights affects other rights. Just like smoking, you can smoke anywhere you want, unless your smoking affect other people.

Also, if a gay look like the opposite sex, nobody cares if the person went into the opposite sex restroom. HERO law just legalize people who look obviously not of the opposite sex into the opposite sex restroom and women cannot do anything about it.

First, keeping mind that voters are not a monolithic bunch. The people who voted to overturn HERO (who, from what I understand, are only something like 18% of registered voters) are not the same ones who voted Anise Parker (think that's her name) into office.

HERO is indeed equal right. It is an anti-discrimination act very similar to what most other major cities in the US, including Ausitn and Dallas, have. Also, keep in mind that the act also provided important protections to veterans, the disabled, and those who were pregnant. Deciding to fire (or not hire) somebody is, indeed, something that affects other people (namely, the person being fired (or not hired)), and therefore is something reasonable to regulate.

Also, your claim about HERO and bathrooms is actually incorrect; the version of HERO that originally passed did not actually include language that does what you claim. (Also, what about cisgender people who look like the opposite sex?)

Thanks for the heads up, I wasn't aware of this feature. For many years I had a second account with family friendly games (originally a "wife account", but it's now where I put games for the kids).

What I found interesting is that the FAQ for this feature specifically mentions kids playing on their parent's account. This means that from Valve's point of view "personal use" also includes kids playing the games on a parent's account.

How do you know voter who voted for Anise does not vote against HERO?

I thought Houston HERO voting is specifically on LBGT washroom, and not veterans, disabled, pregnant? I don't see a lot of people oppose for some protection to be granted to veterans, disabled, pregnant as opposed to "Bathroom Ordinance". Trampling other people rights does not seems equal to me.

For cisgender who look like the opposite sex, there is no problem, because when someone stop them, they can produce their identity card or the like to proof it.
It become a problem when someone who does not look like using the correct washroom, and have no proof to beck it up, can still enter said washroom and no legal action can be taken on them.

Well, you were misled by the rather nasty and transphobic campaign that also led many voters to vote against the ordinance.

Regarding your identity card argument, what if the person happens not to be carrying her identity card with her, or if she doesn't have a card? (Remember, people aren't born with identity cards; children, especially, can't be expected to have them.)

Also, does it matter if someone who doesn't quite look like she belongs in that restroom enters it, uses it, and does not attempt to rape people or do anything else bad?

I can point out that people claiming to be transgender in order to gain access to bathrooms to sexually assault people does not happen. What does happen is that transgender people have been the victims of assault when they are just trying to use the bathroom.

That's an easy one. Just show them this.

Problem it, LGBT always claim those that does not support their thinking as nasty and transphobic instead of looking at their own ideals and see what is the issue.

If the bathroom ordinance is about letting people who WENT FOR THE SURGERY TO REMOVE THEIR PARTS AND LOOK LIKE A WOMEN TO BE ALLOWED TO USE THE WOMEN WASHROOM, I WILL SAY YES.

But that's just me and I am sure there will still be resistance, I am also sure that the resistance will be smaller. It make it easy to separate those that enter the women restroom in ill will.

Victims of assault can just bring the oppressor to court, just like any rape case. And how widespread are the crazies that assault people in bathroom?

I don't know about your country, but my country can arrest me under suspicion of illegal immigrant if I don't have identification to proof it.

If someone underwent surgery to remove their part and look like a women, who would stop the person from entering the women bathroom?
If someone still have their parts, but made enough effort to look like a women and does not proclaim to the world their gender, use the women bathroom, who would know enough to stop the person?
If someone still have their parts but failed to look like a women, sorry, the person have to use the men bathroom because we cannot have people entering the women bathroom just by proclaiming that they are a women and does not look like one.

But the LGBT community prefer to attack anyone that does not follow their ideals instead of thinking what is wrong with their ideas and why the state that can accept a LGBT mayor does not accept their ideals. Easy "us or them mentality".

Why should a transgender person's surgical status (which is private medical information, by the way, and very rude to ask about) matter here?

Also, what about trans men who still have their female parts but, due to hormone replacement therapy, have developed masculine features such as a beard and big muscles? Should they be forced to use the women's roome?

Again, I reiterate that HERO *was not a bathroom ordinance*; it was just a non-discrimination ordinance like most major cities have.

If someone who look like a women enter the women bathroom, there is usually no problem.

But if someone don't think the person is a women and alert the police, the person have something to fall back on. No rapist in their right mind would remove their parts to enter the women washroom.

If transman look like a man and keep quite about it, who it is to know better? Only proclaiming it to the world will give them problem.

Then why people want to link it to the bathroom ordinance? From what I see, it is a discriminating ordinance by removing women rights to protect themselves. If it is done in a way that does not diminish women rights, then will it have ground to stand on.

Don't you think that is what the LGBT community should be focusing on to do push their agenda instead of simple bashing people that does not agree with their ideas, regardless of their idea is good or bad?

What exactly does this have to do with yokai and children?

HERO was not a bathroom ordinance! How many times do I need to say this to get my point across?

In fact, HERO actually included sex as one of the protected classes, along with things like pregnancy status.

The reason some were linking it to the bathroom ordinance is that they wanted the ordinance to fail, and they did so by creating a scare that was not actually part of the bill. In doing so, they did so at the expense of transgender women; expect to see more transphobic hate crimes and transgender people committing suicide as a result of the nasty campaign. (This reminds me of what happened with California's Proposition 8.)

If you really "think of the children", you need to think of all the children, including LGBT children, who are commonly bullied by classmates and adults (and sometimes their own parents).