Denthor wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 01:26:
I have never understood this and probably never will. It just reeks of double standards - both are equally horrible and something noone should ever consider doing to another human. Yet somehow the majority of people have absolutely no problem justifying brutally killing someone in a game yet if its sexual violence or anything to do with kids your absolutely evil to your core for pushing the button or including it in the game?? Where is the logic in that.

It will never make any senses to me - both acts are deplorable and nothing i would ever consider doing to another human. Would i push the button just to see what happens in a game? Absolutely.

It doesn't make sense precisely because the people crying are stupid. It's just another stupid thing for stupid people to express their increasing stupidity for other stupid people to eat up and regurgitate with their big stupid mouths. Did I mention it's also stupid?

I have never understood this and probably never will. It just reeks of double standards - both are equally horrible and something noone should ever consider doing to another human. Yet somehow the majority of people have absolutely no problem justifying brutally killing someone in a game yet if its sexual violence or anything to do with kids your absolutely evil to your core for pushing the button or including it in the game?? Where is the logic in that.

It will never make any senses to me - both acts are deplorable and nothing i would ever consider doing to another human. Would i push the button just to see what happens in a game? Absolutely.

Killswitch wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 13:36:
People are making a case for portrayal and simulation of rape...

No, they're not. However, let's delve in to your weird obsession with shoving your idiosyncratic morality on society as a whole and assume that they are. How is that different than, say, The Accused? Irreversible? Baise Moi? Those movies not only simulate rape, they graphically portrayed it to a point where even a jaded asshole like me was uncomfortable. However, in doing so, they garnered Academy Awards, Golden Globes, BAFTA awards, Sundance Festival awards as well as nominations for a slew of other awards for telling powerful and compelling stories.

But I guess all those people who worked on those films, labored to bring them in to being and acted in them, people who were lauded for their efforts, were just sick, amoral anarchists tearing at the belly of the lily white purity of society?

Killswitch wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 13:36:
Sure, I would love to live in a society where freedom of expression exists, but that reality is merely a pipe dream. You can't have a free society where a criminal element exists. I am not an enemy of freedom. I do, however, recognize that there is something inherently wrong when a person tries to capitalize on forces that oppose the society in which we live.

Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Payne, John Adams, and James Madison are all in the next room and have some wonderful ideas to share with you.

Nevertheless, define "criminal". Anyone whose speech and behavior you disagree with? The funny thing is, you speak in a manner daily that even a hundred years ago would have caused you to be ostracized. The fact that you don't know that, while haranguing about the impossibility of free speech existing is, well, hilariously ironic.

Killswitch wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 13:36:
I just don't believe the government needs to sanction the portrayal and simulation of heinous crimes that have already been outlawed in society.

You don't? Holy shit! GET ON THE PHONE WITH YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS RIGHT NOW! There are people (AND COMPANIES!) making these things called "movies" that do exactly that and, oh horror of horror, they've been doing it for more than a hundred years! HOW CAN THIS SICK FILTH GO ON????

jdreyer wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 16:19:

Ozmodan wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 06:12:
Just stupid of the developer to include anything about rape in a game. Just shows that instead of just making a game that they are extremely insensitive to a very touchy subject. That would put the idiot label on them.

Yup, he should have just smashed her brains on the wall with a bat. Because everyone loves a good juicy murder, and no one is touchy about that at all.

That's always baffled me as well. You can survive a rape. A gunshot to the head at point blank range...unlikely. But one of those two things is A-OK in a video game and the other not at all.

It's highly insensitive and horrible to people who have been raped to portray that in a game, but it's not equally insensitive or horrible to people who have lost loved ones and family to acts of murder....

Statement 1:

Killswitch wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 07:25:
Are you suggesting we open the floodgates to any and all games where you play as a character engaged in the most heinous of crimes?

Let me ask you this--how do you feel about a game where you play a Nazi soldier who is personally responsible for carrying out the execution of hundreds of thousands of Jews within a German concentration camp? Your goal: kill as many Jews as possible before the Allies liberate the camp.

Or a game where you play as a self-righteous, post-9/11 hater of Muslims that is on a mission to plan and carry out the murder of dozens of innocent, law-abiding, mosque-attending American citizens in NYC?

Perhaps a game in which you move up through the ranks of the KKK, killing black Americans, with the ultimate goal of becoming Grand Dragon?

Or even a game that first simulates a chatroom where you coax a child into meeting you and then... well, I think you get the idea.

Could you possibly be insinuating that these types of games should be sold? That seemed to be what you had implied. I'm all for the right to freely express yourself, but there really needs to be a line and a democratic society has the responsibility of determining where that line is drawn.

I'm not condoning the Austrailian law. I think that, once a game is made, the cat is out of the bag. No law can exist that will prevent those with the will to acquire such a game from acquiring it. I do, however, believe that those who wish to create such games need to respect the values that represent society at large and use some discretion before deciding to develop them.

I have not played Hotline Miami. I am not making a comment based on an opinion of this particular game. I am only responding to your comment based on the allowance or diallowance of games that contain objectionable content.

Statement 2:

Killswitch wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 09:29:
I define it by societal standards. The values that democratic nations hold as a society.

Do I think Charlie Hebdo employees had it coming to them? No, of course not. They were fully in the right when they published illustrations since the the publications were not disallowed by the society in which they were published.

These two statements are in direct opposition to each other. If you defend the right of Charlie Hebdo to publish what they did, then you defend the right of someone to make a Jew gassing game, or a KKK black person killing game, or whatever. When you allow free speech, you allow these kinds of things and trust that in the marketplace of ideas, intelligent consumers will not feed them. Once you start limiting speech, it's a pretty quick ride down the slope to limiting actual political speech that people find objectionable, say about the Holocaust or KKK lynchings. And then you're living in Communist China.

Ozmodan wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 06:12:
Just stupid of the developer to include anything about rape in a game. Just shows that instead of just making a game that they are extremely insensitive to a very touchy subject. That would put the idiot label on them.

Yup, he should have just smashed her brains on the wall with a bat. Because everyone loves a good juicy murder, and no one is touchy about that at all.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 12:27:
I'm not trying to bait or antagonize you, but c'mon...try to make some cogent arguments instead of relying on logical fallacies.

If you have to specifically state you aren't trying to "antagonize or bait" someone, then you probably should use some discretion while posting. A discussion is never an argument unless you choose it to be so.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 12:27:
I'm not trying to bait or antagonize you, but c'mon...try to make some cogent arguments instead of relying on logical fallacies.

People are making a case for portrayal and simulation of rape and you think that I'm relying on logical fallacies to support an argument? I know, I'm such a terrible person for not supporting rape... please, have mercy. /s

Sure, I would love to live in a society where freedom of expression exists, but that reality is merely a pipe dream. You can't have a free society where a criminal element exists. I am not an enemy of freedom. I do, however, recognize that there is something inherently wrong when a person tries to capitalize on forces that oppose the society in which we live.

If someone wants to create a game that goes beyond the boundries of society, well, so be it from me stopping this person from doing so. Create your game and give it away to the dregs of society. I don't care. I just don't believe the government needs to sanction the portrayal and simulation of heinous crimes that have already been outlawed in society.

Killswitch wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 09:29:
I hate to play the "for the children" card...

You didn't, I already did upthread satirically when I knew that you would be doing exactly that later on.

So far you have:
Invoked Godwin's Law
Invoked the tired refrain of "for the children"
Used false equivalency
Used appeal to consequences
Used, admittedly in a subtle way, slippery slope
Used appeal to emotion

I'm not trying to bait or antagonize you, but c'mon...try to make some cogent arguments instead of relying on logical fallacies.

InBlack wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 10:06:
You are advocating censorship. Yeah got that. Bye now. Have fun talking to yourself.

Translation: "Anyone that has an opinion that differs from that of my own is not worth listening to. I will remain steadfast in my ignorance and unwilling to change regardless of any logic involved."

Bye.

Killswitch wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 09:58:

InBlack wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 09:41:
Here is another reality check for you. God doesnt exist, and yet people murder others in their millions in His name.

Yes, I know that. In fact, everyone knows that. No one is denying that. Do you understand what my contention is here or do you flagrantly disregard messages and just post a bunch of nonsense?

You are advocating censorship. Yeah got that. Bye now. Have fun talking to yourself.

InBlack wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 09:41:
Here is another reality check for you. God doesnt exist, and yet people murder others in their millions in His name.

Yes, I know that. In fact, everyone knows that. No one is denying that. Do you understand what my contention is here or do you flagrantly disregard messages and just post a bunch of nonsense?

InBlack wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 09:45:
Did you just completely disregard and miss my pont and call me a child rapist?? Its so refreshing when you dont have to argue with anyone anymore while they simply invent their own moral high ground. You dirty Alien loving moral crusader you!

You've accused me of being an alien-lover and insisted I remove my avatar. How did I disregard your point again?

InBlack wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 09:41:

Killswitch wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 09:31:

InBlack wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 09:06:
You are so fucking full of shit, now remove your Avatar because I HAVE OBJECTIONS OF A GAME WHERE A HOSTILE AI ABDUCTS AND MURDERS AN ENTIRE SHIP'S CREW INCLUDING WHOLE FAMILIES, CHILDREN, MOTHERS AND MONKEYS!!! Ohhh the humanity!!

Reality check--aliens don't exist, murderers and rapists do.

Remove your offensive Avatar or else!!

Here is another reality check for you. God doesnt exist, and yet people murder other in His name.

Show me proof that alien abductions, murders, rapes or any other extraterrestrial crimes occurred and I will have absolutely no problem with removing my avatar.

Killswitch wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 09:29:

InBlack wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 08:51:
Do you define it by your own personal standards? Are you God? Are you Better than everyone else? Do you feel that the cartoonists in Paris had it coming to them for making fun of God, Jesus and Mohammad? I find your comment on the whole offensive and would like nothing more than for it to be removed and censored. Lucky for you there is this thing called the Constitution protecting your rights to say stupid shit like that with complete impunity. Lucky bastard....

I define it by societal standards. The values that democratic nations hold as a society.

Am I God? Am I better than anyone else? Are you serious when you ask these questions? Am I God when I speak out against the rape of a child? No, I'm merely expressing the values that are held by current society. Does one have to be God to have human empathy? I wouldn't think so.

Do I think Charlie Hebdo employees had it coming to them? No, of course not. They were fully in the right when they published illustrations since the the publications were not disallowed by the society in which they were published.

You find what I said offensive? I don't see how, but it doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't even matter or what I think. What matters is the opinion of a democratic society as a whole.

"[P]rotecting your rights to say stupid shit like that with complete impunity." You don't have to remind me that there's never any shortage of people, like you, who will defend those capitalizing on products that simulate and allow others to engage in crimes such as rape and murder. I'm always glad the Constitution is there for people like you too. Don't you see, we're both victims of the democratic process?

I hate to play the "for the children" card, but by your logic anyone who rapes a child should be allowed to do so because none of us can determine moral from immoral. What you are saying is, no one should be allowed to play God so we should leave the [in]action to the individual. That isn't a society--that's anarchy. There has to be boundaries.

Oh such arguments! Did you just completely disregard and miss my pont and call me a child rapist?? Its so refreshing when you dont have to argue with anyone anymore while they simply invent their own moral high ground. You dirty Alien loving moral crusader you!

Killswitch wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 09:31:

InBlack wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 09:06:
You are so fucking full of shit, now remove your Avatar because I HAVE OBJECTIONS OF A GAME WHERE A HOSTILE AI ABDUCTS AND MURDERS AN ENTIRE SHIP'S CREW INCLUDING WHOLE FAMILIES, CHILDREN, MOTHERS AND MONKEYS!!! Ohhh the humanity!!

Reality check--aliens don't exist, murderers and rapists do.

Remove your offensive Avatar or else!!

Here is another reality check for you. God doesnt exist, and yet people murder others in their millions in His name.

harlock wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 09:32:
And what makes you the person to decide what those boundaries are? In what way are you qualified to lead human society as a whole?

I don't write laws that govern society and I'm confused as to why you would think that I do.

As I've said, society dictates what is and isn't allowable. With regards to the post I originally replied, rape is a "touchy subject" within society. I did not choose for this to be the case, although, I do posess something called empathy and I can imagine how such a crime affects its victims.

This comment was edited on Jan 16, 2015, 09:44.

Killswitch wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 09:29:
I hate to play the "for the children" card, but by your logic anyone who rapes a child should be allowed to do so because none of us can determine moral from immoral. What you are saying is, no one should be allowed to play God so we should leave the [in]action to the individual. That isn't a society--that's anarchy. There has to be boundaries.

And what makes you the person to decide what those boundaries are? In what way are you qualified to lead human society as a whole?

InBlack wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 09:06:
You are so fucking full of shit, now remove your Avatar because I HAVE OBJECTIONS OF A GAME WHERE A HOSTILE AI ABDUCTS AND MURDERS AN ENTIRE SHIP'S CREW INCLUDING WHOLE FAMILIES, CHILDREN, MOTHERS AND MONKEYS!!! Ohhh the humanity!!

Reality check--aliens don't exist, murderers and rapists do.

InBlack wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 08:51:
Do you define it by your own personal standards? Are you God? Are you Better than everyone else? Do you feel that the cartoonists in Paris had it coming to them for making fun of God, Jesus and Mohammad? I find your comment on the whole offensive and would like nothing more than for it to be removed and censored. Lucky for you there is this thing called the Constitution protecting your rights to say stupid shit like that with complete impunity. Lucky bastard....

I define it by societal standards. The values that democratic nations hold as a society.

Am I God? Am I better than anyone else? Are you serious when you ask these questions? Am I God when I speak out against the rape of a child? No, I'm merely expressing the values that are held by current society. Does one have to be God to have human empathy? I wouldn't think so.

Do I think Charlie Hebdo employees had it coming to them? No, of course not. They were fully in the right when they published illustrations since the the publications were not disallowed by the society in which they were published.

You find what I said offensive? I don't see how, but it doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't even matter or what I think. What matters is the opinion of a democratic society as a whole.

"[P]rotecting your rights to say stupid shit like that with complete impunity." You don't have to remind me that there's never any shortage of people, like you, who will defend those capitalizing on products that simulate and allow others to engage in crimes such as rape and murder. I'm always glad the Constitution is there for people like you too. Don't you see, we're both victims of the democratic process?

I hate to play the "for the children" card, but by your logic anyone who rapes a child should be allowed to do so because none of us can determine moral from immoral. What you are saying is, no one should be allowed to play God so we should leave the [in]action to the individual. That isn't a society--that's anarchy. There has to be boundaries.