Hot Coffee Too Hot?

[deep]

Actually Dave, you completely missed the whole point of the controversy.

The game is rated MA - children under 18 are allowed to buy the game. However, Rockstar Games included content that would have earned an AO (adults only) rating - thus only people 18 and over could buy the game.

I agree completely

what is the big deal if it clearly marked

age 18 and over?

a while back I was dating someone with two young kids.

and I bought them a Xbox

just properly label the games.

 

[kobayashi]

This could also be used to describe anarchy.

at an extreme, yes, it could be.

applied reasonably it could be used to describe a nice society.

 

[Irvine511]

This could also be used to describe anarchy.

so you want government to regulate all aspects of life? where does that end? do we start telling people that only missionary style and twice a week between married people who have just brushed their teeth is the only legal form of sexual intercourse?

as a growing libertarian in the face of Bush's right-wing nanny state, anarchy sounds better.

i thought that a central tenent of conservatism was that the government that governs least governs best.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

to what Irvine and kobayashi said.

The game is rated MA - children under 18 are allowed to buy the game. However, Rockstar Games included content that would have earned an AO (adults only) rating - thus only people 18 and over could buy the game.

And personally, I've always thought ratings/advisories for anything-movies, TV shows, video games, CDs-were stupid. All slapping an MA/R/NC-17 type of rating on something does is make kids who want to play the game/watch the movie or show/listen to the artist even more interested to do so. Forbidden stuff is enticing. That's something that's been proven throughout history. Hell, the Bible proves that with the apple story.

For one thing, there's 15 year olds who can handle violent movies better than 30 year olds. Age has nothing to do with your maturity level, your ability to handle seeing real-world situations. And for another, frankly, if I saw the commercials for this game on TV, and looked at the box and saw pictures of the game, and yet still felt that I needed a rating to tell me that it'd be violent and possibly sexual in nature, I'd be a real idiot.

Instead of having ratings, parents could simply look at the promos for movies or games or an artist's CD (or in the CD case, look online for the lyrics or something like that, or catch one of the artist's videos on TV when the kids aren't around), or watch or listen to the stuff themselves, and then decide if it's something worth letting their child indulge in.

But again, so long as a parent does their job and raises their kid to be a good person, I really wouldn't see why they'd need to worry about their kid watching or listening to anything. But whatever *Shrugs*.

Angela

 

[angelordevil]

But again, so long as a parent does their job and raises their kid to be a good person, I really wouldn't see why they'd need to worry about their kid watching or listening to anything. But whatever *Shrugs*.

Angela

The parent taking responsibility thing is valid, but it can't be the only solution. We live in a culture of violence, and it's out of control in my opinion. I don't advocate simple censorship, because that often end s up with strange family right's groups getting upset at the likes of Bono and his usage of the letter 'f". In short, that kind of censorship is misdirected.

But when we've got computer games with cop-killing, something needs to be addressed. It's as if the whole genre of games, and certain movies, has become depersonalized, removed from any human connection. It's got to start with the makers of these games. Why are they allowed by the manufacturer to release such hateful material? Also, the distributors, like Wal-mart, etc. have to take a greater responsibility. They are the critical link between supplier and consumer.

The whole idea that this game is ok, that any kind of control is tantamount to "Big Brother" keeping an eye on us
is rubbish. "Big Brother" is about restricting freedoms we all desire...and I'm willing to bet not all of us desire to blow away cops and bystanders.

This issue is about respect, or lack thereof, for human decency.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

But when we've got computer games with cop-killing, something needs to be addressed. It's as if the whole genre of games, and certain movies, has become depersonalized, removed from any human connection. It's got to start with the makers of these games. Why are they allowed by the manufacturer to release such hateful material? Also, the distributors, like Wal-mart, etc. have to take a greater responsibility. They are the critical link between supplier and consumer.

Disagree. Again, they're just making a product, it's up to us whether or not we want to buy it. We shouldn't blame them for our choices. And I highly doubt the makers of these games actually support this kind of activity. I could write a book about a serial killer who goes on a rampage, doesn't automatically mean I condone that kind of behavior. All they're doing, just like writers and musicians and artists, is making something that reflects what society is like. Sadly, this stuff does go on in society, and went on long before this game came about.

Ratings on games, censoring the games, banning the games, none of that will solve these problems we've got going on. In order to make these kinds of games disappear, we must go about fixing the problems in society that lead to crime and murder and the other kinds of things that are shown in these games. That way, video game makers will have no reason to depict this kind of thing in their games, and we'll go back to playing something like Mario Bros.

Originally posted by angelordevil
and I'm willing to bet not all of us desire to blow away cops and bystanders.

This issue is about respect, or lack thereof, for human decency.

Some people here, myself included, have played violent video games at some point and time in our lives. And we all still treat our fellow man with respect. Why? We realized that the game was just that-a game. A game that is not a promotion of what society should be like, but merely a depiction of what society is like. It may be a tasteless and vulgar game to some, yes. But it's still just a game nonetheless, and can only be bothersome if someone lets it be. A lot of people who play video games of this nature don't even play them for the sheer joy of watching people get shot or blown up or whatever. Some people play them because they learn coordination skills and strategy skills for any other games they may wish to play.

Angela

 

[DaveC]

so you want government to regulate all aspects of life?

That's called "fascism". It was tried once before, somewhere over in Europe. As I recall, it didn't turn out too well.

 

[angelordevil]

All they're doing, just like writers and musicians and artists, is making something that reflects what society is like. Sadly, this stuff does go on in society, and went on long before this game came about.

Angela

You're calling the creators of this game artists? Come on! The best artists do indeed reflect what's out there in the ether...but they do it as social commentary, not for blatant and overt profit. You simply cannot say that credo holds true for these chumps. I've seen the ads for this game...it's catering and pandering to the youth market for no other purpose beyond mere titillation.

As well, you say we can't blame the makers of the game for "our" choices. Isn't this the very argument cigarette manufacturers have made for decades?

 

[nbcrusader]

All they're doing, just like writers and musicians and artists, is making something that reflects what society is like. Sadly, this stuff does go on in society, and went on long before this game came about.

This jumps right into circular reasoning. People imitate what they see in the media. No one is responsible.

 

[80sU2isBest]

You're calling the creators of this game artists? Come on! The best artists do indeed reflect what's out there in the ether...but they do it as social commentary, not for blatant and overt profit. You simply cannot say that credo holds true for these chumps. I've seen the ads for this game...it's catering and pandering to the youth market for no other purpose beyond mere titillation.

As well, you say we can't blame the makers of the game for "our" choices. Isn't this the very argument cigarette manufacturers have made for decades?

good points.

 

[VertigoGal]

As well, you say we can't blame the makers of the game for "our" choices. Isn't this the very argument cigarette manufacturers have made for decades?

Well it's true, isn't it? Anyway, I don't think video games contain any addictive substances (although my brother's hooked on em )

If the whole deal here is that there's material in the game that warrants a higher rating than it was given, that's understandable. I think the bigger question is why the criteria for rating these games considers sex so much worse than violence.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

You're calling the creators of this game artists?

No, I'm just saying they're in the business of making something for entertainment purposes, just like those other people. Whether or not they're considered artists is a personal opinion.

This jumps right into circular reasoning. People imitate what they see in the media. No one is responsible.

Not what I'm saying. There is somebody responsible in these cases, and you know who that is? The person who does the imitating. They chose to imitate what they saw or heard, nobody else made them do it, therefore, nobody else should be held responsible for their actions.

Angela

 

[XHendrix24]

While I haven't played the latest game in the series, I have played the other Grand Theft Auto games. And, to put it simply, they rule.



Miraculously, I do not kill people in real life.

I do, however, agree that only adults should be able to buy these types of games. If you're not over 18 and your parents say you can't play them, then tough luck. If you're not over 18 and your parents think it's okay for you to play them, then fine. In the end, it should be up to the parents.

 

[echo0001]

So, we're back to a rehash of who should raise the kids--the government or the parents?

I vote parents.

I cannot understand why people would trust an institution that brought us Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Oval Office Sexcapades, the War on Drugs, the War in Iraq, etc., etc., ad nauseum, to raise their children for them, and choose what said children are allowed to see and hear, and, while we're on the subject of kids and government institutions, teach said kids about such weighty subjects as sex and religion (referring to the idea that The Bible and the Ten Commandments should be taught in public schools.)

I don't trust the government as far as I can throw the capitol building, but some people still insist that the government should raise their kids? Oh, come on, you lazy assholes--raise your own offspring and let the government get back to its real job; fucking things up.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

So, we're back to a rehash of who should raise the kids--the government or the parents?

I vote parents.

I cannot understand why people would trust an institution that brought us Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Oval Office Sexcapades, the War on Drugs, the War in Iraq, etc., etc., ad nauseum, to raise their children for them, and choose what said children are allowed to see and hear, and, while we're on the subject of kids and government institutions, teach said kids about such weighty subjects as sex and religion (referring to the idea that The Bible and the Ten Commandments should be taught in public schools.)

I don't trust the government as far as I can throw the capitol building, but some people still insist that the government should raise their kids? Oh, come on, you lazy assholes--raise your own offspring and let the government get back to its real job; fucking things up.

.

If I had children right now, the thought of anyone in the current administration raising them...ergh, there's a scary thought.

Angela

 

[kobayashi]

angelordevil,

i am unsure of whether or not you have played grand theft auto: san andreas. you mentioned you had seen a commercial, and yes, based on the commercial you might be left with the impression that the game is one of nothing more than 'titillation' (the inventor of commercials is resting happily in his grave).

go play the game. as hard as it is to believe, there are meaningful storylines and artistically valuable components to it. i know that may sound stupid, but it is true. significant effort was put into the production of that game such that it goes far beyond 'shooting cops'.

all this is not to say that there are not uses and abuses because surely there are. but the game does have significant enjoyment values for a great number of people and doesn't need to harm society any more than s club 7 or nicolas cage action films.

 

[nbcrusader]

I vote parents.

I vote parents as well.

But a rating system is necessary to assist parents.

 

[angelordevil]

So, we're back to a rehash of who should raise the kids--the government or the parents?

I vote parents.

It's not as simple as that...some parents are idiots. There has to be a better dialogue right across the board on this stuff. And hey, while we're at it, why not bring the kids into it? There's a revolutionary thought!

 

[melon]

This isn't about video games and this isn't about ratings. The Christian Taliban would rather prefer to ban them altogether.

It's like television. The Christian Taliban gets their V-chip and then they get their TV ratings and then they get their sub-ratings about the content. And they still bitch and moan about television.

The only way the Christian Taliban will ever be happy is if they have total global domination. Period.

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

This isn't about video games and this isn't about ratings. The Christian Taliban would rather prefer to ban them altogether.

It's like television. The Christian Taliban gets their V-chip and then they get their TV ratings and then they get their sub-ratings about the content. And they still bitch and moan about television.

The only way the Christian Taliban will ever be happy is if they have total global domination. Period.

Melon

remember: for the Christianists, anything less than the complete and total societal embracement and endorsement of their specific set of values is tantamount to religious discrimination.

if not for the separation of church and state and the proud secular tradition imbued in this country since its inception by the fiercely secularist founding fathers, then we would indeed have Taliban-esque elements in our society. instead of fascism with an Islamic face, we might have fascism with a Christian face. both are insults to each religion, as religion becomes the vehicle through which to assert control over the many by the few.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

It's not as simple as that...some parents are idiots.

We know. That's what we're saying, the parents out there that are idiots should stop being such and actually take control of their own children, and not expect everybody else under the sun to do it for them.

Originally posted by angelordevil
And hey, while we're at it, why not bring the kids into it? There's a revolutionary thought!

Agree with you here, if a kid goes and does something stupid, they should be punished. But that's the point-they should be punished. Nobody else. Just them.

And as pointed out regarding ratings, geez, we do have those all over the place nowadays, and there's still people who complain about the content of what they saw or heard! Well, you had the rating right there, you knew full well what you were getting into! So exactly what good are ratings doing again, now?

Once again, I see something with explosions on TV, that pretty much tells me violence will be involved, I don't need some little rating to tell me that, and I just personally think it's a bit sad that some people seem to think that they do need that.

Angela

 

[cell]

when i see the billboard near my house with the grand theft auto game advertisement...it shows a dark skinnned man with many tattoos in the picture. so either he's african american or mexican...gangbanger...

that freaking bugs me.

 

[nbcrusader]

remember: for the Christianists, anything less than the complete and total societal embracement and endorsement of their specific set of values is tantamount to religious discrimination.

if not for the separation of church and state and the proud secular tradition imbued in this country since its inception by the fiercely secularist founding fathers, then we would indeed have Taliban-esque elements in our society. instead of fascism with an Islamic face, we might have fascism with a Christian face. both are insults to each religion, as religion becomes the vehicle through which to assert control over the many by the few.

Perhaps we need a hate forum for these suggestions.

 

[Irvine511]

Perhaps we need a hate forum for these suggestions.

please.

you're smarter than that.

only through willfully small thinking can you even begin to equate the criticism of a small group of very vocal political activists with the myriad visions and versions of Christianity in this country alone.

not all Christians, in fact, not even most Christians, would ever send their child to an "ex-gay" camp. but some do. and therefore, i will battle them whenever and wherever i can.

and it must be nice not to be affected by this agenda.

some of us, however, have to keep our guard up.

but i know how you dislike victim mentalities...

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Perhaps we need a hate forum for these suggestions.

I'm sorry but this is getting ridiculous (and this isn't directed entirely at you, nbc). Nothing Irvine said was hateful, he wasn't making a generalisation about all Christians, it was merely a comment on a small section of the Christian community who appear determined to impose their particular brand of morality on the rest of us.

Can we not accept that is is legitimate to criticise particular aspects of Christianity or particular proponents of Christianity in the same way it is legitimate to criticise particular aspects of Islam, Judaism or any other religion. It should be clear to everyone with so much as basic intelligence that terms like "Christofascists" "Christian Taliban" and "Christianists" don't refer to every person who adheres to Christianity, just as "Islamofascists" doesn't refer to every Muslim.

 

[melon]

but i know how you dislike victim mentalities...

Not directed at anyone in particular...

...but I know that a lot of Christian conservatives are ingrained with the idea that they are an oppressed minority. I have heard this from some of my friends who were brought up in Christian conservative households.

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

Not directed at anyone in particular...

...but I know that a lot of Christian conservatives are ingrained with the idea that they are an oppressed minority. I have heard this from some of my friends who were brought up in Christian conservative households.

Melon

as i said ... to some, the refusal of society to fully embrace and reflect a specific set of values is tantamount to discrimination.

could you just *imagine* the response if any other group had that attitude?

 

[nbcrusader]

please.

you're smarter than that.

only through willfully small thinking can you even begin to equate the criticism of a small group of very vocal political activists with the myriad visions and versions of Christianity in this country alone.

not all Christians, in fact, not even most Christians, would ever send their child to an "ex-gay" camp. but some do. and therefore, i will battle them whenever and wherever i can.

and it must be nice not to be affected by this agenda.

some of us, however, have to keep our guard up.

but i know how you dislike victim mentalities...

please, you are not so naive.

You, Melon and I know what your special terms mean from our history on this board. I bet if we got together and discussed politics, you wouldn;t even need to use the terms with me.

But this is a public forum. To take the term Christian and morph it into a militant, repressive, naziesque term is unnecessary.

You have disagreements with certain policies or beliefs. I understand your disagreements. But the casual connection between Christians and the Taliban or facism is simply unrealistic, not based in fact and designed to be inflammatory.

This is not victimization of a topic. This is simply a call towards more rational discussion.




And can we please stop the senseless tit-for-tat comparissons with Islam.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

And can we please stop the senseless tit-for-tat comparissons with Islam.

It has nothing to do with "tit-for-tat comparisons." People are simply making the point that if it's acceptable for people to speak of Islamofascism then it must also be acceptable to speak of Christofascism. Why should one religion be immune from criticism? Either it's acceptable to make criticism of all religions or it's acceptable to make criticism of none.

 

[Irvine511]

please, you are not so naive.

You, Melon and I know what your special terms mean from our history on this board. I bet if we got together and discussed politics, you wouldn;t even need to use the terms with me.

But this is a public forum. To take the term Christian and morph it into a militant, repressive, naziesque term is unnecessary.

You have disagreements with certain policies or beliefs. I understand your disagreements. But the casual connection between Christians and the Taliban or facism is simply unrealistic, not based in fact and designed to be inflammatory.

This is not victimization of a topic. This is simply a call towards more rational discussion.

i'm sorry you're misunderstanding the term. i'll try to explicate.

as you said, you know the term is not for you, nor even a majority of Christians. it is you (and a few others) who seek to make connections between yourselves and the very specific, very political group of people we are talking about who do possess, in the blueprints of their political designs, elements not unfamiliar with either fascism or the Taliban. i am pretty certain that neither Melon, or i, nor others would ever include you in that group, nor has anyone ever called you Christianist -- which is an adjective, not a noun. important distinction.

in fact, the use of the word "Christianist" is designed out of sensitivity, and also to actually elevate the debate via specificity, to those who are offended by the lumping together of all Christians. in fact, it is to say, in essence, that people like James Dobson are manipulating the word "Christian" for their own political purposes. hence, they are not "Christian," but they are "Christianist" -- just like an extremist is not a representative of Islam, but manipulates Islam for his own agenda, hence he's an "Islamist."