PDA

View Full Version : I lack both the nerve and imagination to make this up.



Doug_Thompson
02-14-2006, 11:02 PM
The Sex Workers Outreach Project USA (http://www.swop-usa.org/) has condemned Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas for allowing players to act out the murder of prostitutes, allowing the lead character in the game to get his money back.

While this may seem severely off topic, we all (well, most of us) do play games other than IL-2. Even in this game, aircrew are shot down in flames on a routine basis.

FlatSpinMan
02-14-2006, 11:08 PM
I understand your point Doug, but don't tell me you haven't taken to strafing vehicles and bombing towns in your area WAAAAY more than you used to before you got hooked on IL-2?I don't think I'm the only guilty culprit.
IL-2 made me commit genocide.

slo_one23
02-14-2006, 11:19 PM
this is kinda like a similar topic that my church just wouldnt drop it was about kids ready and watching the harry potter movies nad books i myself havent watched or read them and neither had the eople that were gripeing bout it they think its satanic worship and that if you read your gonna start doin what the book does ... well i dont think if i red the book that i would start waving a wand and tryin to make brooms dance or sumthin and well the same thing about that game and this one i might add.
i realy doubt im gonna build a p-47 and go traff wal-mart or sumthing and well i dont think anyone else has either .although last year sum moron broke a display case weilding a samari sword and bb gun in local walmart

x6BL_Brando
02-15-2006, 12:48 AM
The persecution of witches stems from the deep-rooted misogyny of the Christian Church - the supposed inferiority of women - and the aim of rooting out any opposition to their dogma by labelling disbelievers as 'pagans' and 'devil-worshippers'. I'm not saying that the Christians are alone in that attitude - it's just not so pronounced since most of the Western countries became more secular as the centuries past.

The difference between shooting down enemy aircraft and killing women for 'fun' is immense however you rationalise it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Tooz_69GIAP
02-15-2006, 03:59 AM
Now, the use of prostitutes in the Grand Theft Auto games is an essential part of the game. They replenish your health after escaping from deadly shootout where you whacked some latinos, or some yakuza, or summit, and then, if this particular little lady has been busy recently, you whack her over the head a few times with a baseball bat, and she gives you loads of cash for very little effort!!

These virtual ladies of the night serve an essential purpose!!!

Friendly_flyer
02-15-2006, 04:22 AM
Though I hardly think it's harmfull, it is still exceedingly poor taste.

AustinPowers_
02-15-2006, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
Now, the use of prostitutes in the Grand Theft Auto games is an essential part of the game. They replenish your health after escaping from deadly shootout where you whacked some latinos, or some yakuza, or summit, and then, if this particular little lady has been busy recently, you whack her over the head a few times with a baseball bat, and she gives you loads of cash for very little effort!!

These virtual ladies of the night serve an essential purpose!!!

LMAO

too true.. although if she got me to 125 I'd usually be a gentleman and let her live. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SeaFireLIV
02-15-2006, 06:33 AM
Well, its probably a feminazi-based lobby. On a similar, but more serious note, did you know that feminists don`t believe that a woman can falsely accuse a man of rape? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Enforcer572005
02-15-2006, 06:38 AM
why just reading this post makes me wanna go find a ******...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif.

Cant afford it though....need saddle bags for my moped and a new digital camera......so i can ride around and take pictures of prostitutes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Whats scarey is that these puritans will empower govt to censor our sims to the point that Rosie Odonell has to approve of them; politicos will do anythng to make fools feel warm and gooey to harvest political capitol.

The latest crusade of the fanatics in Georgia (USA) is to throw high school boys in prison for a miniimum of 25 years for messing wiht the girls.....in statea legislature, and will pass. No corroborative evidence is needed (the only category of crime in this state that needs no evidence). This happens in a state where the attorney general (Thurbert Baker) says that "the constitution doesnt apply to Ga." and they can do "whatever we want". So Seafire is right about thier attitude, as it is the official one of the state of Ga. in many instances. All they need for evidence is a copy of a playboy magazine found in your house to show you have "lustful inclinations"-fully approved by the state supreme court up to the federal appeals courts. Floyd co. made world news for doing that to a kid recently-making a movie about it. Home of the free.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Nobody is safe from the righteous rage of the do-gooders and religious fanatics. This kind of nonsense snowballs from nothing into a southpark movie.

knightflyte
02-15-2006, 07:54 AM
I have mixed feeling on both sides of the issue.

I DON'T think kids under 16 should be able to play it.... I also think most parents don't realize what their kids play.

I'd not want the game censored... But I am shocked at how young some of the kids are who play the game. I used to work in a video store. A few of the kids looked about 10 or 11..... most about 14.

There's a HUGE HUMOUNGOUS difference between simulating shooting planes in a dogfight, and pulling a prostitute out of a car after a hum job and beating her senseless.

There's a certain gratuitousness in the latter that borders on psychotic.... if not downright erases the border.

I've played GTAIII. There ARE great game play elements in it..... was the violence too much? That's a personal matter for each to decide. I found a lot of the gratuitous violence unnecessary. In other words it wouldn't have been a worse game without the OVERBOARD gratuitousness.

Again, I wouldn't call for censoring or banning the game. I would like parents to be more responsible though (or at least informed about what's in a game before they buy of rent for their kids).

x6BL_Brando
02-15-2006, 08:29 AM
I don't feel like a do-gooder or a fanatic, I just object to seeing women portrayed as property and targets (by the owners of the 'virtual copyright') and the spreading of a very tasteless - and possibly dangerous - attitude towards '******s' and women in general.

It's also painful to see men colluding with such nastiness and upholding the meagre values of the creators of such a game. They know there is nothing to prevent youngsters getting hold of this and being subverted by it. Upholding the myth that "they only do it because they like sex" is immature, and betrays the fact that the reality of the sex trade is unknown to them or conveniently ignored for the sake of their self-gratification.

I'm not a fundamentalist religionist in the sense of Pat Roberts or some Afghan ayatollah - but I have brought up daughters, and I have seen the results of these demeaning attitudes from 'men'. Promoting violence towards women, and then rewarding the do-er with points, is not at all 'manly' - it's just the opposite. No matter how many '******s' anyone may have 'banged', virtual or living, to convince themselves otherwise http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

jds1978
02-15-2006, 09:03 AM
the Authoritarian impulse is alive and well in both ends of the political spectrum.

i find little difference between Pat Roberts and the ultra left PC crowd.

Doug_Thompson
02-15-2006, 09:04 AM
I thought I'd seen it all. One has to admit that the Outreach Project has an issue here, however.

I should play GTA before commenting further. Oh well ...

My understanding is that you can kill just about anybody in GTA.

Killing people trying to kill you or members of your "side" €" No problem.

Killing business rivals or targets designated by your boss €" Not my idea of fun, but definitely part of this game.

Killing bystanders €" That's rather worrisome, but at least it's equal-opportunity.

Killing a prostitute after she restores your "health" €" You have an incentive to hunt people down here. She's not a rival. She's not a threat. You are given an incentive to seek her out and pay for her services. You are then given incentive to kill her. At the very least, you get your money back.

This is reprehensible. Is there no chance in this game that she'll fill your face with pepper spray and stab you to death, or that her pimp will hunt you down and kill you?

==========

I also agree that it's absolutely amazing what parents will let their kids play.

Viper2005_
02-15-2006, 09:05 AM
The difference between shooting down enemy aircraft and killing women for 'fun' is immense however you rationalise it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

I would beg to disagree.

Given that this is primarily an American issue, I will base my argument upon the Declaration of Independence, which if memory serves has a nifty little passage in it which says something like:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Thus everybody has an equal right to life, irrespective of their occupation.

As for the question of motive, I would put it to you that irrespective of the motive for a killing, the dead are equally dead. Indeed I would put it to you that death is the ultimate equality.

As for the question of gender, I take the view that the concept of "mankind" implicitly referred to in the Declaration applies to both genders. If it didn't then, it most certainly does today given that we have universal suffrage and various items of legislation outlawing sexual discrimination.

Doug_Thompson
02-15-2006, 09:20 AM
Viper2005_

I think there's a big difference between a game where you're shooting at someone that shoots back and which will kill you, bomb one of your cities or shoot down you squadron-mates if you don't kill him.

That being said, however, I wish I could remember the columnist who made this point recently:

Wargames where you use state-sanctioned violence to kill -- no protests from the left or right.

"Cops and Robbers" or "anti-terrorist" games where you use state-sanctioned violence to kill, and where victims were often portrayed in vicious ethnic stereotypes -- no protest.

Games were you wipe out whole species of sentient aliens and reduce their home planets to radioactive dust €" no protest.

Games where you can shoot people while portraying a criminal €" everybody protests.

Games aspects where you don't kill anybody but can have consentual, heterosexual sex with another adult character if you download some code €" Everybody loses their minds.

Viper2005_
02-15-2006, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
Viper2005_

I think there's a big difference between a game where you're shooting at someone that shoots back and which will kill you, bomb one of your cities or shoot down you squadron-mates if you don't kill him.

I think that you're talking about mitigating circumstances there rather than about some kind of fundamental difference in the actual action (killing) itself.


Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:

That being said, however, I wish I could remember the columnist who made this point recently:

Wargames where you use state-sanctioned violence to kill -- no protests from the left or right.

"Cops and Robbers" or "anti-terrorist" games where you use state-sanctioned violence to kill, and where victims were often portrayed in vicious ethnic stereotypes -- no protest.

Games were you wipe out whole species of sentient aliens and reduce their home planets to radioactive dust €" no protest.

Games where you can shoot people while portraying a criminal €" everybody protests.

Games aspects where you don't kill anybody but can have consentual, heterosexual sex with another adult character if you download some code €" Everybody loses their minds.

Quite. I think it says something about society, especially American society, wherein the contrast appears rather more pronounced than in the UK.

Tooz_69GIAP
02-15-2006, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
This is reprehensible. Is there no chance in this game that she'll fill your face with pepper spray and stab you to death, or that her pimp will hunt you down and kill you?


Well, if you just attempt to beat her up without a weapon, she will fight back. As will any other bystander who you attempt to mug either for cash, or a weapon they have. It's not like people will just let you beat em up. Also, in the game, people will run you over, also, some might chase you if you beat someone up. At times I'v had 3 or 4 people chasing me, and sometimes catching me and beating the cack outta me!

Also, you have to be careful about where you do your dirty deed, as if you are seen, or do it in an exposed area, your wanted level rises, and so you are at risk of being busted, which, if it happens, means you lose all fo your weaponry and good deal of your cash. So it is balanced to an extent!

Anyway, I always find the best way of disposing of unwanted people is to throw a molotov cocktail on em!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

LEBillfish
02-15-2006, 11:10 AM
Yadda yadda yadda.....blah blah blah.....What I'm reading here not there......

There is a HUGE difference that only those "desperately trying" to impress others they are "cold, tough, bad guys" (who if they really were would not want anyone to know).....Or those trying to make a joke in poor taste are not commenting on.

It's just a game, sure........yet one that promotes harming "innocents" for no reason other then personal gain...........Anyone who fails to see the difference in that and the "fantasy" of fighting for a believed just cause (as each side felt it was) in a war simulation either is a ******, too young to make any sensible choices, or so pathetically depraved they need to experience r/l some of what they are dishing out in these games.

Yet it's a lot of talk.........about stupid computer games. So why not instead do something worthwhile, against the grain of society being you're all such hard core cold rebels.......and find out what you can do to support and help that organizations efforts?.

Or what........does the thought of a legalized sex industry leave some feeling threatened?......Yadda yadda yadda.....blah blah blah.....What I'm reading here not there......

There is a HUGE difference that only those "desperately trying" to impress others they are "cold, tough, bad guys" (who if they really were would not want anyone to know).....Or those trying to make a joke in poor taste are not commenting on.

It's just a game, sure........yet one that promotes harming "innocents" for no reason other then personal gain...........Anyone who fails to see the difference in that and the "fantasy" of fighting for a believed just cause (as each side felt it was) in a war simulation either is a ******, too young to make any sensible choices, or so pathetically depraved they need to experience r/l some of what they are dishing out in these games.

Yet it's a lot of talk.........about stupid computer games. So why not instead do something worthwhile, against the grain of society being you're all such hard core cold rebels.......and find out what you can do to support and help that organizations efforts?.

Or what........does the thought of a legalized sex industry leave some feeling threatened?......

Doug_Thompson
02-15-2006, 11:34 AM
LEBillfish;

Not exactly on-point, but somewhere in the neighborhood. (http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/08/27/DougThompson/327758.html)

You make a good point, which I'll elaborate on. You could kill prostitutes in this game from day one, and nobody raised a big stink about that. Then the "Hot Coffee" mod appeared. Nobody got hurt but all h*ll broke loose.

Which is where this relates to your point, LEBillfish: We're so freaked out by sexuality in this country, many of us haven't even thought of the issues raised by sex work. I didn't know of this organization before I saw a news clip about this issue on Gamespot.

crazyivan1970
02-15-2006, 11:36 AM
I am not sure why you posted it here mate... so far it`s ok...but if it gets ugly.. i`ll lock it.

Doug_Thompson
02-15-2006, 11:39 AM
Fair and just, crazyivan. If it starts getting ugly, I'll send an alert.

horseback
02-15-2006, 11:52 AM
If I caught my soon-to-be thirteen year old son playing this 'game,' the disk would be broken and scattered to the winds, his game console would be locked away for a minimum of a month, and his skinny little butt would glow in the dark for a day or two. It's sending him a message that I will not tolerate.

We are social creatures. All of us, to a certain degree, require feedback from our fellow humans in the form of approval/respect in order to guide our behavior. To be honest, young people (especially males) from the ages of about 10 to 30 are VERY susceptible to outside influences (don't give me that 'adult' crud; studies indicate, and my lifelong observation has been that 'boyhood' for far too many lasts far too long).

The attitude that there is no right or wrong, true or false, that morality is 'adjustable' has had some very unfortunate effects on western society.

Allowing these malleable souls to even consider this kind of 'social philosophy' as entertainment is simply destructive. Too many people lack the moral/ethical base to see this sort of thing as make believe, and may think that under the right circumstances, it might be fun to 'try.'

The idea that might makes right and that the strong therefore have a right to exploit the weak can only lead us back to another Dark Age.

Not on my watch.

cheers

horseback

Viper2005_
02-15-2006, 12:04 PM
It's just a game, sure........yet one that promotes harming "innocents" for no reason other then personal gain...........Anyone who fails to see the difference in that and the "fantasy" of fighting for a believed just cause (as each side felt it was) in a war simulation either is a ******, too young to make any sensible choices, or so pathetically depraved they need to experience r/l some of what they are dishing out in these games.

I think you're missing the point here. The criminal at the heart of GTA is also fighting for what he believes to be a just cause - his own personal gain. It's just a different value set.

At the end of the day it's very rare to find a person who will regularly do something which they believe to be wrong. Usually people who do things which the wider population believe to be evil will themselves feel that their actions are justified.

Killing people in the context of a war is more socially acceptable than killing people outside of that context, but it is no different; they are still dead.

People die as a result of biology, physics and chemistry, none of which know anything of context. The universe doesn't care about "why".


To be honest, young people (especially males) from the ages of about 10 to 30 are VERY susceptible to outside influences (don't give me that 'adult' crud; studies indicate, and my lifelong observation has been that 'boyhood' for far too many lasts far too long).

Which is perhaps why the armed forces of most nations are mostly made up of males from about the ages of 10-30; recently in the civilised world we've upped the minimum age somewhat, but they still use child soldiers in Africa.


The attitude that there is no right or wrong, true or false, that morality is 'adjustable' has had some very unfortunate effects on western society.

The idea that there is one universal truth, and one fixed concept of "right" has also had some rather unfortunate effects upon Western society; you can start with the Crusades and work your way forward...

I think that the sooner people understand that the world isn't a simple place, the sooner they might start feeling inclined to ask questions first and shoot later.


The idea that might makes right and that the strong therefore have a right to exploit the weak can only lead us back to another Dark Age

Totally agree. Unfortunately human nature has self destructive tendencies, as is well demonstrated by the foreign policies of various nations.

Doug_Thompson
02-15-2006, 12:15 PM
In a belated attempt to make this topic relevant to an IL-2 forum:

How is violence in a wargame different or at least not as reprehensible as game violence in other settings?

I understand where you're coming from, Viper2005_, but don't agree. The killing in GTA is antisocial. Killing for personal gain is against the law in most societies for good reason. Killing in IL-2 simulates the type of fighting that, in theory, allows a particular society to exist. The facist government of Germany, for instance, did not survive the war. The communist government of the Soviet Union did, for a long time.

For a long time in this game, I would only fly Soviets. They were fighting for survival.

On another, more abstract level, I'm probably not going to go out and try to mimick the behavior I display in IL-2 against bystanders, because nobody's going to provide me with a high-powered fighter plane nor train me to use it.

Viper2005_
02-15-2006, 12:17 PM
It all depends upon your definition of society.

Wars may serve to defend national societies, but they are extremely antisocial in the context of humanity as a whole...

UberPickle
02-15-2006, 12:20 PM
I've played GTA and I really thought it was horrible. granted. But have any of you played Operation Flashpoint, Or the expansion Resistance?

The Russians run around excuting people and it's shown in-game! That game is only so scary because of the realism and horror that the game does so realistically with the burned out convoys and the piles of bodies you could make in the mission editor (i've actually made a mission where you are on the back of a truck and your driving past an area the Russian had recently visited out of paranoia and killed every one).

Flashpoint, in reality should be rated AO, but some points of the game dont allow it to be. I honestly think the game rating system should be tweaked a bit (I mean, on the Smolmnsk QMB vs. Armor on the allied side, when you drop bombs on the first convoy it blows up houses sometimes).

Doug_Thompson
02-15-2006, 12:29 PM
I'm looking at this from more of an individual level.

All sorts of people are willing to fight in wars, to risk being killed and to kill €" which is not an easy thing to do, and which have lifelong consequences for the victors €" who are not willing to kill a prostitute to save a few dollars.

I see nothing in common between the two, other than that somebody has died. You talk about that as the be-all, end-all result: Somebody died.

Not all deaths are the same. If I rush into a burning car and save my child, dying in the process, that's not the same thing as letting my child die and crying about it later, even at the most basic, biological, survival-of-the-species level.

P.S. No, haven't tried Flashpoint. Doesn't sound like I will, either.

Tooz_69GIAP
02-15-2006, 12:29 PM
Okay, in IL-2 you are able to many things, among them are:

Shoot pilots floating in their chutes - they don't even have a handgun to defend themselves with.

You can attack all manner of vehicles and trains, some of a non military nature, and you see virtual soldiers scatter all over the place from their vehicles in a state of virtual panic. And you can shoot these men.

You can attack and destroy ambulances which clearly indicate the red cross on their roof tops.

You can attack and destroy civillian shipping, which have no way of defending themselves.

You can target specifically the virtual pilots in their aircraft. I have often dont this, and when manning a gunners station on a bomber, it is the cockpit I aim for as it is the quickest way of getting a kill. And at times I have a perfect deflection shot to the cockpit, and these have resulted in deliberate pilot kills.

Yes, it's a war simulation, but where does the difference lie here? You are deliberately attempting to kill people, and as many as you possibly can, and in this game, it's not to simulate fighting the good cause, but the vast majority do it for the K/D ration, or to get the most points in the DF server, or something.

I personally see no difference. However, I am enlightened enough, and educated enough, and, I fell, intelligent enough to differentiate reality from the virtual world. Just because I have killed probably thousands upon thousands of virtual people in games like IL-2, GTA, Half Life, Call Of Duty, Medal of Honour, or any of the many many shoot em ups I've played most certainly DOES NOT mean I am going to go out and kill a bunch of folk in real life.

And my sense of morality and social decency, however you might define what that is, wont be warped and mutated into something anti-social and psychotic as a result of being to exposed to these media types.

And Horseback, I'm not one to push into other people's business, but would you really teach your son the wrongs of violence by meteing out violence? That just sounds rather odd to me.

Doug_Thompson
02-15-2006, 12:38 PM
And Horseback, I'm not one to push into other people's business, but would you really teach your son the wrongs of violence by meteing out violence?


While I'm sure horseback can speak for horseback, I'll respond to that before shutting up and letting somebody else post.

The kid would live. He wouldn't even hurt very long. I might not spank the kid, but he'd lose that console for more than a month. I'll tell you right now which one a normal 13 year old would prefer €" the shorter punishment.

NonWonderDog
02-15-2006, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
Too many people lack the moral/ethical base to see this sort of thing as make believe, and may think that under the right circumstances, it might be fun to 'try.'

Personally, I've never, EVER, heard of anyone killing hundreds of people with tens of RPG rounds in order to get the national guard called on them, stealing a tank, and rampaging through the countryside shooting every car in sight on their way to Area 51, where they plan on stealing the government's super-secret jetpack technology.

Not even after GTA's been out long enough to "subvert" our youth.

I don't really think there is a single sane person on Earth above the age of 5 that can't see that this is all make-believe. As for the criminally insane... we really shouldn't have to worry about upsetting the criminally insane with our video games.

Now, don't get me wrong, GTA's attitude and language certainly won't teach kids anything good. It might make them into irritable little bastards, but I really don' think it will turn them into mass murderers.


I think this has just turned into another useless "nature v. nurture" debate. Damn.

horseback
02-15-2006, 01:36 PM
Personally, I've never, EVER, heard of anyone killing hundreds of people with tens of RPG rounds in order to get the national guard called on them, stealing a tank, and rampaging through the countryside shooting every car in sight on their way to Area 51, where they plan on stealing the government's super-secret jetpack technology. It wasn't so long ago that a nutcase stole a National Guard M60A1 tank, and drove it down I-805 here in San Diego crushing everything in his path, or that a car thief (name the major city) has 'accidentally' killed a few innocents while 'attempting to escape' (which I think had more to do with the notoriety of being on TV), or that a disturbed individual in Santa Barbara took out a neighbor and a bunch of former co-workers.

I won't speculate on the motives of the first and third examples, but a connection to Area 51 is not out of the question.

These things were much rarer thirty or forty years ago, when personal responsibility was emphasized, and right and wrong were more clearly defined. The 'average person' may not be susceptible to the influences of these things in an overt way, but dealings with our fellow human beings have co****ned considerably since the sixties, and shows no sign of becoming more civil.

In that sort of atmosphere, the potentially unhinged are MUCH more likely to act out their neuroses, and society is going to pretend that it's not their fault, which will lead to more nutcakes doing their things.

cheers

horseback

SeaFireLIV
02-15-2006, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
If I caught my soon-to-be thirteen year old son playing this 'game,' the disk would be broken and scattered to the winds, his game console would be locked away for a minimum of a month, and his skinny little butt would glow in the dark for a day or two. It's sending him a message that I will not tolerate.

cheers

horseback

Well of course, it goes without saying (or maybe it should be said). I`d do the same if I caught my 14 year old daughter with it.

Of course, that doesn`t mean i`d demand that GTA was banned, or censored, just restricted to ADULTS. The parents have a responsibilty to check what their kids are playing on their PCs.

LEBillfish
02-15-2006, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
I think you're missing the point here. The criminal at the heart of GTA is also fighting for what he believes to be a just cause - his own personal gain. It's just a different value set.

I've heard that sort of logic often....Puuuuuleeease.....Throw away your book of "I'm ok, You're ok" and lets talk sensibly. Based upon your comment above, if I choose to visit grammer schools and slaughter all therein "it's not wrong....as my values are just different, I'm just being me".

That's quite simply a load of B.S. only utilized by those wishing to justify their own immoral actions.

Now don't get me wrong, wanna do drugs till your brain melts great, wanna put a gun to your own head and pull the trigger peachy, wanna turn tricks in some back alley for $5 a pop more power to ya........Want to hurt "someone else" for your own personal gain or "value set".....Well, what capital punishment is for.

Now the Governments that start wars may do so for their own personal gain......Yet those since the days of Barbarian raiders who have to fight in them don't. There the difference.....and it should not take explaining all the reasons soldiers fight willingly or not.

Frankly, soldiers in virtually ALL nations who carry the value set of GTA no one wants....They may use them, yet lose them ASAP.

and anyone who gets excited about the prospect of war to simply cause harm be it in a game or real life OR living a life like GTA game or real......Quite simply needs to experience all he wants to dish out......conversely.

Therein the problem.......as youth becomes desensitised to it and then if given the opportunity may act......Granted, when it becomes real "after the fact" they may go..."uhhh" as the real life horror of it sets in, but then it's too late, deeds done, just another example to desensitise others further.

Frankly I doubt there are few who fly a sim like this who think its "cool" to kill others. In fact I'd bet many even though liking being the victor when they tink on it don't care for what the actual outcome is.....

You're trying to compare honorable soldiers who risk their life to serial killers who go after innocent helpless victims......anyone who doesn't see the difference.....Well, dail 911, there is someone there who can explain it.

Doug_Thompson
02-15-2006, 02:03 PM
This is a stressful topic, folks, but Ivan's already given us one warning.

Moral people have disagreed on this. Early Popes declared Holy War and Crusade. Eastern Orthodox never waivered (as I understand it) that killing somebody, even in battle, was a sin. Killing in battle was deemed a necessary sin for which the Orthodox Church was willing to provide absolution.

Max.Power
02-15-2006, 02:26 PM
I think the main issue here is that it's very hard to relate to the situations in this game. It's not as if one of us will learn habits from this game and then go out and blast the wings off of some poor schmuck's P-51, then blast his parachute as he floats down from 6km with a smile on our faces.

The Grand Theft Auto series may have its place in the realm of interactive media, but not in the hands of children. I was brought up on videogames (around the time that 16 bit systems were just coming out). I'm lazy, obese, and my eyes are square like TV's, but I still have a well defined social conciousness. Game architecture was different back then. Games would punish you for losing, and you'd have to start all over again. The games that come out now-o-days are more like a very addictive project. There is no real way to lose. You just build and build, spinning your wheels and being constantly rewarded. If you don't do something right, you can always try again. This sort of thing is insidious in that it rewards you for playing, not for winning or for playing well. So, if you want to beat up ******s, it rewards you. Drive a car through a group of people? Rewards... etc, ad nauseum. Game designers know what's addictive. Couple that with these strikingly antisocial themes, and you get kids who kill cops and then say, "Life is like a game, you gotta die sometime."

Obviously, this kid has no idea what he's talking about. Society, parents, and perhaps, least of all, game designers failed him. They failed him miserably. They failed first to teach him proper behaviour and values, and failed second to identify that there is something terribly wrong with him. It's as if his only source of input was the games he played. I'm not saying that the games are solely responsible for his behaviour, or the behaviour of any other sociopath- but some media has been rendered objectionable for children long before video games were ever even thought of. It is widely agreed upon that children's minds are vulnerable, and it is best left until they have the brain/mental/social development to handle adult themes. I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be true of electronic/interactive media.

SeaFireLIV
02-15-2006, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by Max.Power:
It is widely agreed upon that children's minds are vulnerable, and it is best left until they have the brain/mental/social development to handle adult themes. I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be true of electronic/interactive media.

Agreed, and those that disagree are deluded. young children are like sponges. they`ll soak up anything and blur the line between fantasy and reality. Allow that to go into adulthood and you`ll have problems.

Teach them right from wrong first until they know it backwards, then, when they`ve reached adulthood you can release them out into the world, knowing that you`ve provided the bedrock that will greatly reduce any criminal acts against their fellow men.

Viper2005_
02-15-2006, 03:05 PM
I've heard that sort of logic often....Puuuuuleeease.....Throw away your book of "I'm ok, You're ok" and lets talk sensibly. Based upon your comment above, if I choose to visit grammer schools and slaughter all therein "it's not wrong....as my values are just different, I'm just being me".

My point was that most people who commit crimes do not think that what they are doing is wrong, not that that justifies their actions. I am simply saying that people who do terrible things generally do them because they don't think that they're terrible (if they even think about them at all!).



Now the Governments that start wars may do so for their own personal gain......Yet those since the days of Barbarian raiders who have to fight in them don't. There the difference.....and it should not take explaining all the reasons soldiers fight willingly or not.

Actually those who fight in armies and navies have enjoyed the spoils of war for centuries; it is only quite recently, with the introduction of standing conscript armies, that pay has taken priority over prize money. Indeed various treaties associated with Prize Warfare are still in force today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Prize_warfare

During the Napoleonic wars a Royal Navy Captain could make a killing if he was successful. His crew would also benefit and as a result he would gain the best hands. Many a fortune was made off the back of captured shipping. Indeed nations would often issue Letters of Marque which effectively allowed the rich to run their own private Navies preying upon the enemy's shipping. This was a very profitable business.


Frankly, soldiers in virtually ALL nations who carry the value set of GTA no one wants....They may use them, yet lose them ASAP.

I would refer you to Africa, wherein there is a lot of this sort of thing about, much of it perpetrated by brutalised child-soldiers. The dividing line between "army" and "gang" is quite an indistinct one, especially in the "less civilised" parts of the world.


and anyone who gets excited about the prospect of war to simply cause harm be it in a game or real life OR living a life like GTA game or real......Quite simply needs to experience all he wants to dish out......conversely.

I think the technical description of that would be sadism. I don't think that even most gangsters are sadistic; they simply value their profits above human life and suffering.

Much like many large companies, with the tobacco and firearms industries springing directly to mind.


You're trying to compare honorable soldiers who risk their life to serial killers who go after innocent helpless victims

I'm afraid that the real world just isn't that black and white, as is well illustrated by the various scandals in Iraq at present. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Whilst one should never condone violence, it is good strategy to know your enemy, which in this case, given that violence itself is the enemy, means knowing why people are violent towards one another.

Shifting up the list of replies a bit:


Not all deaths are the same. If I rush into a burning car and save my child, dying in the process, that's not the same thing as letting my child die and crying about it later, even at the most basic, biological, survival-of-the-species level.

Well again that depends how you look at it doesn't it. Either way somebody is dead. It is generally more socially acceptable that the former should happen than the latter; but the effects are likely to be similarly tragic either way. Either a child without a parent or a parent without a child.

The heroic death might win a posthumus medal, but that would be of very little help to the child in the years ahead. Of course the advantage of being a hero in this context is that you wouldn't have to live with the after effects!

*Edit* <span class="ev_code_GREEN">Heck I sound like real hippy! </span>

Stackhouse25th
02-15-2006, 03:14 PM
Trash will always BE TRASH. Who cares

Treetop64
02-15-2006, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Well, its probably a feminazi-based lobby. On a similar, but more serious note, did you know that feminists don`t believe that a woman can falsely accuse a man of rape? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Someone sure told my ex-wife about that. However, it didn't fly in court, though.

...it didn't fly because she was on a conveyor. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif



P.S. - Hey, we have new friends in the emoticon lobby!

Doug_Thompson
02-15-2006, 03:21 PM
Well again that depends how you look at it doesn't it. Either way somebody is dead. It is generally more socially acceptable that the former should happen than the latter; but the effects are likely to be similarly tragic either way. Either a child without a parent or a parent without a child.


Can't agree with you there, Viper. The only people to whom absolute loyalty is owed are our children, because they didn't ask to be brought into this world.

Viper2005_
02-15-2006, 03:27 PM
Oh I'm not saying that any parent would do anything different; I'm just saying that in the scenario which you describe the result is tragic either way.

horseback
02-15-2006, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
And Horseback, I'm not one to push into other people's business, but would you really teach your son the wrongs of violence by meteing out violence? That just sounds rather odd to me. Tooz, in the last 5 years, my 12 year old has been spanked about four times; I have NEVER struck him in the face, or publicly humiliated him (at least intentionally-parents unknowingly cause their children embarrassment all the time-mine still do) or cursed him. I set very clear guidelines, explain (insofar as I think he can understand) why I set them, and the penalty is predictable. I usually ask questions first unless the violation is made in my sight.

The absolute worst he's received is three swats (bare handed) on his bare backside, and The Lecture, which is centered around willful disobedience to established guidelines.

However, each child is a unique individual, and some forms of discipline work better with one individual than they might with another. My son is a classic strong willed child, and time-outs, loss of privileges or treats, no TV, all the usual 'enlightened' punishments are like water off a duck's back.

A few hour's discomfort from a smarting bottom has proven very effective for him, coupled with the occasional physically unpleasant or hard chore. I made a point of trying to remember what forms of punishment worked best for me and my siblings, and noted that one of my brothers was 'convinced' best by isolation, the other by deprivation of something he loved, my sister by The Lecture ("Honey, you've really let Daddy down..." never failed to induce tears of nauseatingly true repentance), and hard-headed old me, by spanking.

Everything else was simply an opportunity/excuse to sulk and rationalize about how I was right & everyone else was wrong.

My younger son is very much like me in this respect, while The Lecture works much better with his older brother.

In the appropriate context, it's not violence, it's a penalty.

cheers

horseback

Doug_Thompson
02-15-2006, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Oh I'm not saying that any parent would do anything different; I'm just saying that in the scenario which you describe the result is tragic either way.

Hmmm. One situation. Two choices. One near-universal response €" "I'm not saying that any parent would do anything different" €" but "tragic either way."

While I'm aware that truth-value doesn't depend on either observed response or anthropology, I'm going to violate strict logical rigor here and argue that not all tragedies are equal. Nor are all deaths.

moksha
02-15-2006, 04:27 PM
I sit with my 13 yo and my 9 yo and we play GTA in all its glory. It's a fantastic game, full of humour & I'm glad my kids enjoy it.
No swipe at anyone posting above btw, just saying imo it's completely harmless for someone who is not a nutcase to begin with.

MLudner
02-15-2006, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by jds1978:
the Authoritarian impulse is alive and well in both ends of the political spectrum.

i find little difference between Pat Roberts and the ultra left PC crowd.

Well, I'll be dam-ned! For the most part http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Beuf_Ninja
02-15-2006, 06:02 PM
The Grand Theft Auto series of games were developed and produced by rockstar north, a company that operates out of Glasgow Scotland I am proud to say, as a Scot. The games appeal is the same as any other games appeal, in that you are able to do things that you can't do in real life. These games since the third iteration and up have tried to parody Hollywoods portrayl of the gangsters. The games are dark in nature and humour and is TOTALLY unsuitable for anyone under the age of 18 and probably a few over that age aswell. You character in the game is not a hero, you are a thug, not someone anyone of us would actually want to be. The dark humour element comes from the fact that prostitution and the brutalisation of woman does go on in real life and is reflected in this "game", again remember the tapestrey of this game is woven from films not suitable for children therfore yeilding a product that is similarly dark. It is the players choice wether or not to commit these acts within the game and as others have stated before all criminal activities in the game have consequence.

The real question however is, does the ability to carry out these actions within a game "normailise" the acts to potential offenders, my honest opinion is that it probably does encourage them. The second question is, would such people not commit these horrible acts without stimuli like media, video and interactive video? My opinion is that horrible people do horrible things with or withput encouragment.

SeaFireLIV
02-15-2006, 06:39 PM
Horseback, you are a good father. At least you have the right idea and don`t buy into the soft-attitude that leaves teenagers mugging old women and others for the `kick`.

Max.Power
02-15-2006, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Well, its probably a feminazi-based lobby. On a similar, but more serious note, did you know that feminists don`t believe that a woman can falsely accuse a man of rape? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Horse ****. This is a classical strawman argument, and a gigantic false generalization. Perhaps a radical feminist once said something like that. There is a lot of different feminist philosophies. To lump them all into a category with this quote at the top is lunacy. It's like saying that all black people live in the ghetto.... the SAME ghetto.

x6BL_Brando
02-15-2006, 07:09 PM
My opinion is that horrible people do horrible things with or withput encouragment.


But you do need to follow through with how they became horrible in the first place. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Beuf_Ninja
02-15-2006, 07:16 PM
But you do need to follow through with how they became horrible in the first place.

Nature or nurture? That seems to be the question with every aspect of human nature. It's rare the the nuturing is done in a totally genetic-parent-influence-free environment so the answer hasn't been easy to definitively give. My humble opinion is that violence and hatred is in the genes, but good parenting can negate these traits.

Targ
02-15-2006, 07:17 PM
Beuf_Ninja
I agree with what Beuf_Ninja posted as it sums up very well how I feel as well.
Free will and choice is alive and well in this country dispite those who would try and control us.
Oh and lets keep this civil or this thread will get deleted and the offending posters banned http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Targ
02-15-2006, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by x6BL_Brando:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My opinion is that horrible people do horrible things with or withput encouragment.


But you do need to follow through with how they became horrible in the first place. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are plenty of horrible people in the world and given the opprtunity they would prove it. No video game or movie needed to prove that at all.

SeaFireLIV
02-15-2006, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by Max.Power:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Well, its probably a feminazi-based lobby. On a similar, but more serious note, did you know that feminists don`t believe that a woman can falsely accuse a man of rape? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Horse ****. This is a classical strawman argument, and a gigantic false generalization. Perhaps a radical feminist once said something like that. There is a lot of different feminist philosophies. To lump them all into a category with this quote at the top is lunacy. It's like saying that all black people live in the ghetto.... the SAME ghetto. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

really? max power? perhaps not every feminist believes that a woman cannot lie about rape, but believe you me, they`re not about equality, or fairness. GOOD MEN have been destroyed by BAD FEMINISTS who have used feminism as a way to get what they want.

Men have been battered and put down for too long for just being MEN, our greatest stupidity is that we don`t band together and work for OUR OWN RIGHTS trusting in some stupid naive manner to join the feminists against ourselves! It`s time we stood up and DEFENDED ourselves, not to be afraid of saying, "So waht i`m macho! So waht, I opened the door for you, So what, I`m a chauvinist pig- GOOD!. So waht i`m a decent straight forward bloke.

Y`know decent women know how feminism has gone too far and some will even be brave enough to say. I read an account where even a radical feminist complained how bad it was. She visited a school and sat at the back while she watched a female teacher teach a mix group of boys and girls. The Feminist noticed how the female teacher continuously put the boys down about their history as men, while always buoying the girls. At the end of the lesson, the boys left feeling like **** and down...

This is just one example. Serious, overly harsh laws regarding child support and rape are designed to punish men. It doesn`t care whether themen are innocent are guilty, the laws just assume the female accuser must be correct. The pendulum has gone too far so that great miscarriages of justice are made against good people.

People like you, max power are part of the problem for men and you just continue dividing men and helping put us down and yourself (if you are a man). You`ll probably argue away foolish for the feminists, but when they turn on you and crush you then you`ll realise what`s REALLY HAPPENING to the state!

You should be ashamed to call yourself a man, if you are one.Rant off.

Beuf_Ninja
02-15-2006, 07:32 PM
really?... what`s REALLY HAPPENING to the state!


Quite a rant indeed. Sounds a little strong for me, no offence, I think feminism will have long term and far reaching consequences that may or may not be to the benefit of all society at large. But things such as these cannot be discussed in public, if mens clubs weren't against the law it might be possible to hypothosise about the logical ends of the current trends in social reorganisation.

SeaFireLIV
02-15-2006, 07:33 PM
And don`t even compare BLACK PEOPLE to the feminism issue. that`s the same **** my female lecturer tried on me 20 years ago - then I was too naive to answer her back, but not any more.

Black people have had a long and serious issue with SLAVEY, racism and much more that continue to this present day - The female situation is NOTHING LIKE THE SAME. But the femenists succeeded in making it look that way in the 70s and 80s.

PBNA-Boosher
02-15-2006, 07:45 PM
A Luftwaffe pilot I know talked about one of his sisters in 1945 who was nearly killed during a strafing run. Years later at a reunion, my friend connected with a P-47 pilot who brought his flight log and journal. My friend's sister was with him to meet this group of pilots at their WW2 reunion. It was the same P-47 pilot who strafed their town! He claimed his orders were: Shoot at anything that moves.

She was stepping outside the house to run to the market to buy food. The P-47's bullets went through shingles, ripping apart houses.... 15 people were killed or wounded by that single pass. All were innocent civilians. this was early May, 1945, there was no threat from them at all. Why? The pilots were bored, they were given things to do. Could that pilot have just expended the rounds in an empty field, most definitely. But he did not. They were orders.

The atrocities of WW2 are not limited to Nazism and Japanese imperialism. The Allies have their unfair share of it too.

Doug_Thompson
02-15-2006, 09:39 PM
If IL-2 had women standing outside of houses that you could strafe, this would definitely be a different game as far as I'm concerned.

Now, as has been pointed out, there are people hanging from parachutes you can shoot, buildings and towns you can strafe, trains and ships that presumably have civilians in them, etc. However, there's nothing similar to the up-close and personal violence of GTA where you talk, meet and "restore your health" from the people you kill. There's also not a lot of innocent civilian victims running around.

Which is one reason I think the two games -- and the behavior they are modelled after -- are very different.

Doug_Thompson
02-15-2006, 09:55 PM
Re: Race and gender

While it might be possible to go around and only shoot Anglo-Americans, Germans, Russians, Japanese and others in this game, it seems to me that it's much harder to descriminate against -- and victimize -- any particular group of people in this game, compared to GTA. Your "victims" shoot back.

Call it the "Tuskeegee Airman" principle -- what matters is what you can do, not what other people call you.

fordfan25
02-15-2006, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by slo_one23:
this is kinda like a similar topic that my church just wouldnt drop it was about kids ready and watching the harry potter movies nad books i myself havent watched or read them and neither had the eople that were gripeing bout it they think its satanic worship and that if you read your gonna start doin what the book does ... well i dont think if i red the book that i would start waving a wand and tryin to make brooms dance or sumthin and well the same thing about that game and this one i might add.
i realy doubt im gonna build a p-47 and go traff wal-mart or sumthing and well i dont think anyone else has either .although last year sum moron broke a display case weilding a samari sword and bb gun in local walmart

iv read every harry potter book cover to cover nultible times. there is NOTHING satanic about them. in fact J.K Rowling has made a very strong point of staying away from hinting,mentuning or refernceing anything to do with any religon. the clost thing i read in the books were haveing to do with chrismas and halloween both portraid in a good light. sorry for the rant. there are people even in my town that harp on the HP books and i think its silly.

Badsight.
02-15-2006, 11:07 PM
GTA series has cartoony graphics for a reason

it replicates serious human behaviour - the cartoony graphics are a veneer . it lowers the bar as to what is completely objectionable

the GTA series to me is different because of 2 things , its made cartoony diminishing the seriousness of the actions portrayed - & its dealing with the current (-ish) time period (modern age) out in the surround community

it isnt some far-off battelfeild where your a soldier - its city neighbourhoods where your an average joe

btw - i have finished the GTA games to storyline completion since GTa-III . i object to sub-18 Y/O's being allowed anywhere near them is all

one of the hardest things for a parent is to be consistent

one of the worst things a parent can be is inconsistent