Go Back   Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums > General Discussion > Critical Thinking
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-26-2007, 06:41 PM   #1
Master_of_the_Faster
FFR Player
 
Master_of_the_Faster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Storm Sanctuary!
Posts: 255
Default Are Restrictions Necessary?

Are certain restrictions necessary? When I say restrictions, I mean wearing a seatbelt, ratings for video games, ratings for movies, etc. I mean if the majority of the population wore seatbelts as a habit, would we still need to have a law? I absolutely dislike laws that restrict me from doing actions that I know I could do responsibly like watching a R-rated movie alone. However, the way I see things is that if the majority of people do not tie their shoe laces and it becomes a problem, I would see why there would need to be a law passed in order for people to wear their shoe laces. Do you guys believe that this law would still need to exist if the majority of people learned to tie their shoe laces properly or drink responsibly without this law? Do you guys believe that we could just place harsher penalties for those who actually cause an injury? After all, if the teacher sees you talking, why should the entire class recieve detention? Also, do you guys believe that something like drinking responsibly could even become an action that the majority of people could eventually perform?
Master_of_the_Faster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2007, 08:01 PM   #2
Relambrien
FFR Player
 
Relambrien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Age: 29
Posts: 1,647
Send a message via AIM to Relambrien Send a message via MSN to Relambrien
Default Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

Here's a question: If the majority of people wear seat belts anyway, why is there any reason to go through the process to remove the law already in place? The law is irrelevant in that situation, assuming that if the law was repealed, the number of seatbelt-wearers wouldn't change.
Relambrien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2007, 10:00 PM   #3
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_of_the_Faster View Post
wearing a seatbelt
There is ample evidence to suggest that people not wearing a seatbelt are also more inclined to cause the injury of other people in an accident. This one isn't to save you from yourself, it is to save other people from you as well.

Quote:
ratings for video games, ratings for movies
All ratings in that manner are suggested guidelines, and a given purveyor of video games and movies is, so far as I know, perfectly allowed to ignore those ratings all they want. However plenty of parent companies and heads of chains of stores have decided to adopt the official policy of enforcing the guidelines, but I'm pretty sure that if I open my own theatre, I can show R rated movies to anybody I feel like (Though I will of course be open to the consequences of that)

Quote:
I mean if the majority of the population wore seatbelts as a habit, would you still need to have a law?
The majority of people don't commit murder as a habit, do we still need to have a law forbidding that? The purpose of laws is just as much to have a socially valid recourse to punish people behaving in socially unacceptable ways. When you make it a requirement to live somewhere that people must follow a set of rules, you can establish and maintain public order much more effectively than if you have to constantly hear cases of grievance where someone has felt their personal rights being offended.

Quote:
I absolutely dislike laws that restrict me from doing actions that I know I could do responsibly like watching a R-rated movie alone. However, the way I see things is that if the majority of people do not tie their shoe laces and it becomes a problem, I would see why there would need to be a law passed in order for people to wear their shoe laces.
Age requirements on engaging in activities are predicated on the idea that since it is the case that some people won't be sufficiently mature or responsible, it is much better for a large area like a nation to simply legislate an age where everyone becomes able to do that, because the alternative would be to investigate individually every single person every yearof their life to determine when they are or are not responsible enough. Yes some people get to feel they are being treated unfairly, but it is the only reasonable way to work across millions of people.

Quote:
Do you guys believe that this law would still need to exist if the majority of people learned to tie their shoe laces properly or drink responsibly without this law?
If a law requires people to do something that they generally don't want to do, you will never reach a point where you could simply remove the law and expect everyone to continue to obey it anyway. If you determined that since 99.999% of people don't steal, we could remove any legal injunction against stealing, and not see crime rates skyrocket, I think you're simply kidding yourself.

Quote:
Do you guys believe that we could just place harsher penalties for those who actually cause an injury?
So...we -remove- the law forbidding a certain action...and if you do the action and cause injury to someone else...we punish you...how is that -not- the same as there being a law against it with a punishment?

You're allowed to drive as fast as you want as long as you don't cause an accident? All that does is lead to more accidents. The entire purpose of legislating against things that -can- cause injury to others is to increase the chance that it -won't-

Quote:
After all, if the teacher sees you talking, why should the entire class recieve detention?
The entire class doesn't recieve detention. If there's a rule against talking however, any person who is talking (even if they happen to not be disturbing those around them in a given instance) should still be punished for breaking the rule.

Quote:
Also, do you guys believe that something like drinking responsibly would become an action that the majority of people could eventually perform?
I think the majority of people -do- drink responsibly. I also think that the knowledge that if they get too drunk, and are seen to do so, they can be punished severely, coupled with the knowledge that once they -start- to drink too much, they become more likely to -continue- to drink -way- too much contributes to that caution.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2007, 10:23 PM   #4
Relambrien
FFR Player
 
Relambrien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Age: 29
Posts: 1,647
Send a message via AIM to Relambrien Send a message via MSN to Relambrien
Default Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
The entire class doesn't recieve detention. If there's a rule against talking however, any person who is talking (even if they happen to not be disturbing those around them in a given instance) should still be punished for breaking the rule.
I'm not sure how it is in Canada, but in America, sadly such a situation as MotF described occurs quite often. When there are a large number of people in a class misbehaving (which, in a public feeder school, there are a majority of the time), often the entire class is punished because the teacher cannot discern who is misbehaving and who isn't. It happened to me several times in grades 6-8, but starting in high school I moved to a public charter school, and we generally don't have behavioral issues here.

EDIT: Let me explain a bit more about where I believe MotF is coming from, since I can relate.

Americans, especially American teenagers, have a VAST range of maturity. Even people living under nearly identical environmental conditions can be a proverbial football field away from each other in terms of maturity. The more responsible, observant, and mature teenagers are often forced to suffer under restrictions because of the large number of irresponsible, immature teenagers. The responsible group is automatically lumped in with the irresponsible group simply by virtue of age similarity, which causes resentment in the responsible population. Opinions such as MotF's are born out of this; the fact that one has to suffer for the actions of another group often causes resentment toward the ordinances and restrictions designed to "contain" the other group.

I'm actually like this fairly often, as well. There are a large number of rules and restrictions that I feel are unfair and discriminatory to people of my age; that is, I feel like ageism is a growing problem, especially toward the younger generations. Even though I recognize the need for these rules and restrictions, so that certain groups can be kept in line and protected, I feel there are modifications that can be made that offer exemptions to those who prove the restriction is unnecessary toward them.

Someone I know came up with an idea, though I never really explored it, to do this. I don't claim that it is a good idea, nor do I claim it is a bad one, since I haven't particularly thought about it. Essentially, a government organization would be established that would officially handle all applications for exemption. For instance, purchasing and M-rated game while under the age of 17 is illegal in my state. A younger teen (15 or so, most likely) could go through his parents, to this organization, and request the right to purchase M-rated games by showing evidence that he is able to responsibly choose which games he is able to healthily play. The organization would then issue something like a license stating that he is allowed to purchase M-rated games, which would then be presented when purchasing a game.

The idea can of course be modified for other laws.

The immediate problem I see with this is the scale. When you have so many people wanting to apply, how do you deal with it all? Well, the first criterion for application is a desire to do it. People who aren't as concerned with video games or who believe their parents will be willing to buy them games likely wouldn't apply. Second is the consent of your parents, so that probably eliminates a good number. I'm sure other things could be added too, for instance criminal record (anything, even a misdemeanor means ineligibility, and this is something that can be checked rapidly and easily). Still, I wonder how many people would make the cut and apply.

Last edited by Relambrien; 11-26-2007 at 10:41 PM..
Relambrien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2007, 11:03 PM   #5
Master_of_the_Faster
FFR Player
 
Master_of_the_Faster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Storm Sanctuary!
Posts: 255
Default Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Relambrien View Post
I'm actually like this fairly often, as well. There are a large number of rules and restrictions that I feel are unfair and discriminatory to people of my age; that is, I feel like ageism is a growing problem, especially toward the younger generations. Even though I recognize the need for these rules and restrictions, so that certain groups can be kept in line and protected, I feel there are modifications that can be made that offer exemptions to those who prove the restriction is unnecessary toward them.

Someone I know came up with an idea, though I never really explored it, to do this. I don't claim that it is a good idea, nor do I claim it is a bad one, since I haven't particularly thought about it. Essentially, a government organization would be established that would officially handle all applications for exemption. For instance, purchasing and M-rated game while under the age of 17 is illegal in my state. A younger teen (15 or so, most likely) could go through his parents, to this organization, and request the right to purchase M-rated games by showing evidence that he is able to responsibly choose which games he is able to healthily play. The organization would then issue something like a license stating that he is allowed to purchase M-rated games, which would then be presented when purchasing a game.

The idea can of course be modified for other laws.

The immediate problem I see with this is the scale. When you have so many people wanting to apply, how do you deal with it all? Well, the first criterion for application is a desire to do it. People who aren't as concerned with video games or who believe their parents will be willing to buy them games likely wouldn't apply. Second is the consent of your parents, so that probably eliminates a good number. I'm sure other things could be added too, for instance criminal record (anything, even a misdemeanor means ineligibility, and this is something that can be checked rapidly and easily). Still, I wonder how many people would make the cut and apply.
I've heard about this idea of testing children for maturity. I even thought about it a little but not so much. As soon as I said anything about it one time, the person who I was talking to (honestly I forgot who said this) brought up the issue of money and how such a great amount of applications should be dealt with. However, I wonder how it would be if children were allowed special priveleges if they were able to get a certain score on a test like the SATs since its a fairly common test. If they cannot receieve a certain score on the SATs then they have to wait till the age limit for certain priveleges. Perhaps something along these lines is bound to have some positive effect. It would seem reasonable for there to be a way for certain people to show their maturity and intelligence.
Master_of_the_Faster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2007, 11:05 PM   #6
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

Quote:
If they cannot receieve a certain score on the SATs then they have to wait till the age limit for certain priveleges. Perhaps something along these lines is bound to have some positive effect. It would seem reasonable for there to be a way for certain people to show their maturity and intelligence.
Maturity and intelligence have absolutely nothing to do with one another. You may find an excess or a lack of both in the same person together fairly often, but giving someone priviledges outside the academic sphere for academic achievement seems about as logical as taking them away for doing poorly in school.

Oh I'm sorry, you failed algebra, you aren't allowed to drive a car anymore?
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2007, 11:09 PM   #7
perkeyone
FFR Player
 
perkeyone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 30
Posts: 240
Default Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

intelligence isn't necessarily the way to go though.
after all... many serial killers were quite smart.
it wouldn't be wise to give smart kids the right to a fire arm. (not to suggest that they would become killers)
i know that is not what you meant by what you said, but it is a point to notice.
what sort of question/s or situation/s could possibly be used to determine maturity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
Maturity and intelligence have absolutely nothing to do with one another. You may find an excess or a lack of both in the same person together fairly often, but giving someone priviledges outside the academic sphere for academic achievement seems about as logical as taking them away for doing poorly in school.

Oh I'm sorry, you failed algebra, you aren't allowed to drive a car anymore?
lol thats kinda what i was thinking
perkeyone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2007, 12:15 PM   #8
Dark Ronin
FFR Player
 
Dark Ronin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dalmasca
Age: 32
Posts: 60
Default Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Relambrien View Post
Here's a question: If the majority of people wear seat belts anyway, why is there any reason to go through the process to remove the law already in place? The law is irrelevant in that situation, assuming that if the law was repealed, the number of seatbelt-wearers wouldn't change.
An incident actually occurred in my state. The state law for stealing a horse was death by hanging. People stopped stealing horses when cars came up so the law was just forgotten. Then a man stole a truck load of horses from some market. I can’t remember if he was hanged or not, but I do know that they later changed the law. Irrelevant laws need to be addressed. Of course on the other hand, without order there could only be chaos. Set, strict rules must exist for a population to live in a civilized manner.
Dark Ronin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2007, 02:53 PM   #9
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

It isn't even the case that set laws need to exist to keep people from misbehaving. To me, the laws need to exist to give proper legitimacy to the action of punishing the people who do misbehave.

When you have a clear, preexisting system of rules and consequences, you can appeal to the old statement that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" Anybody can sit down with a copy of their area's criminal code and read it all if they are so inclined. The ability for law to maintain public order rests in the knowledge that it can and will be applied consistantly and fairly in ways people already know about.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2007, 04:51 PM   #10
XCraigeX
FFR Player
 
XCraigeX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 27
Posts: 45
Send a message via MSN to XCraigeX
Default Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_of_the_Faster View Post
Are certain restrictions necessary? When I say restrictions, I mean wearing a seatbelt, ratings for video games, ratings for movies, etc. I mean if the majority of the population wore seatbelts as a habit, would we still need to have a law? I absolutely dislike laws that restrict me from doing actions that I know I could do responsibly like watching a R-rated movie alone. However, the way I see things is that if the majority of people do not tie their shoe laces and it becomes a problem, I would see why there would need to be a law passed in order for people to wear their shoe laces. Do you guys believe that this law would still need to exist if the majority of people learned to tie their shoe laces properly or drink responsibly without this law? Do you guys believe that we could just place harsher penalties for those who actually cause an injury? After all, if the teacher sees you talking, why should the entire class recieve detention? Also, do you guys believe that something like drinking responsibly could even become an action that the majority of people could eventually perform?

Drinking responsibly....I would like to argue on that point.

I do not think that society will be able to govern themselves properly in ways such as drinking responsibily. I think this because we seem to have manifested a beleif that if it is our choice to do something - nobody can tell us how much of it we can do. For example, young kids drinking may result in people complaining - the kids would then retaliate by saying that it is up to them how drunk they get. Do you see my point? I believe the laws are set up for everyone's piece of mind - perhaps some need to get re adjusted here and there - but i beleive the law system is quite a good one.
__________________
Reality is what you make it.
XCraigeX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2007, 08:21 PM   #11
Relambrien
FFR Player
 
Relambrien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Age: 29
Posts: 1,647
Send a message via AIM to Relambrien Send a message via MSN to Relambrien
Default Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Ronin View Post
An incident actually occurred in my state. The state law for stealing a horse was death by hanging. People stopped stealing horses when cars came up so the law was just forgotten. Then a man stole a truck load of horses from some market. I can’t remember if he was hanged or not, but I do know that they later changed the law. Irrelevant laws need to be addressed. Of course on the other hand, without order there could only be chaos. Set, strict rules must exist for a population to live in a civilized manner.
You see, in this case, one would hope that the justice system works itself out based on the current situation. Obviously, it is no longer considered acceptable to be hanged for stealing a horse, so going through with that law is complete and total idiocy. It is the judicial system's purpose to interpret the law, and they have the right to interpret such a law as "outdated" in cases like this, without actually going through all the politics of changing it.

That's the reason laws like "It is illegal to tie a giraffe to a pole" still exist; there's no reason to remove them since they have no effect either way, provided that the judicial system has even a microscopic shred of sense.
Relambrien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2007, 09:08 PM   #12
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

There's also a fine distinction between a law being "On the books" and a law being "Under active enforcement"

The only way to actually remove a law from being "on the books" would be to pass a new law striking the old one from the records, which would require printing of new copies of the criminal and legal codes, which would have to be reacquired by everyone in the professions requiring them to have ready access to an accurate set of laws.

It would be much easier to simply compile and make available a list of all laws on the books that are no longer subject to enforcement.

For all you potential lawyers in the future, there's a great project for you: Go over all the laws of your state, compile a list of those that ought to no longer apply, and make an appeal to your state supreme court to officially remove those laws from enforcement.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-5-2007, 12:44 PM   #13
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

Some are for certain purposes, but it's worth stressing that there are different ways of imposing restrictions. Voluntary restrictions will always be preferable.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-5-2007, 03:10 PM   #14
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

With one interpretation, you are volunteering for all restrictions by electing to remain a citizen of the state in question. While it is certainly the case that you might elect to live in the place that has the least laws you find distasteful, since simply living there is tacit agreement to follow the rules, you can be said to be volunteering for those restrictions in exchange for the benefits of citizenship.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-5-2007, 04:23 PM   #15
MystictheHedgehog
FFR Veteran
FFR Veteran
 
MystictheHedgehog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Memphis, TN
Age: 29
Posts: 699
Default Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

I disagree with most of what is said by the original poster, however. The grounds of the seatbelt I tend to agree with. Though it is quite pointless to remove the law at this point.

The thing that gets me with this, though. Is you have a city like Memphis, where crime is extremely heavy, people speed like crazy, wrecks are hourly depending on the intersection, and schools are no safer than an alleyway in the middle of the night. So what do the cops do? They do seatbelt checks on random streets. To me that's pointless. If you wanna save lives that's one thing. But odds are your gonna save more lives if you are watching the schools more carefully, you are pulling over the speeding cars, and doing what you can to stop crime. Not checking to see if someone is wearing a seatbelt or not and then giving a small ticket to "make him learn his lesson". Not like he won't take it off as soon as he pulls away anyway.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry DB View Post
how does that even make sense? in the beginning of time there was this 5 billion dollar machine that forced two particles to collide at the speed of light. lets re create that. DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Last edited by MystictheHedgehog; 12-5-2007 at 04:27 PM..
MystictheHedgehog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-5-2007, 04:35 PM   #16
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
With one interpretation, you are volunteering for all restrictions by electing to remain a citizen of the state in question. While it is certainly the case that you might elect to live in the place that has the least laws you find distasteful, since simply living there is tacit agreement to follow the rules, you can be said to be volunteering for those restrictions in exchange for the benefits of citizenship.
That's only true if the governing forces in question came about 100% legitimately, which no governing forces currently have to my knowledge.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-5-2007, 11:48 PM   #17
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

Well, it's true if one of these things is true:

The government came about 100% legitimately
You are under no restrictions stopping you leaving if you want to
You have what you consider to be an appropriate level of say in how the laws work

I'm not sure what you mean by "100% legitimately" I assume you are trying to mean "With 100% popular support"? Because while no elected leader currently got in unanimously, plenty have gotten in quite legitimately by the laws of the land.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-6-2007, 12:20 AM   #18
Jesterblue
FFR Player
 
Jesterblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Maryland
Age: 31
Posts: 17
Default Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

Restrictions are necessary so people learn morals and become more cautious about what might be hazardous to their health or life. If there were no restrictions ever we would probably still be cavemen.
lol
Jesterblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-6-2007, 12:54 AM   #19
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
Well, it's true if one of these things is true:

The government came about 100% legitimately
You are under no restrictions stopping you leaving if you want to
You have what you consider to be an appropriate level of say in how the laws work
No it isn't. If government mandates that certain rules must be followed on specific soil, it makes all the difference if the government has a legitimate claim on the land, or at least has entered an agreement with all the people who have this claim.

Quote:
Because while no elected leader currently got in unanimously, plenty have gotten in quite legitimately by the laws of the land.
And what makes the laws of the land legitimate?
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-6-2007, 08:28 AM   #20
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Are Restrictions Necessary?

Quote:
And what makes the laws of the land legitimate?
What makes anything legitimate then? If the laws that already exist in a nation aren't what determines whether newly elected leaders are legitimate in that nation, you must have some objectively correct "Laws" coming in from somewhere, or else you're just arguing that everything must be subjective and thus can never be "actually" true.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution