Gordon Copeland is an arse

[ManDownUnder]

Yep for sure. Life sucks, there are horrible things that happen and sometimes there isnt a thing we can do about it so I prefer just to look after myself and get my tits in a tangle only over things that I can change, or suck it up and move on. Lifes too short and I would rather not be depressed for more than 50% of it.

Agreed. I don't spend all day on this stuff, but I've been lucky enough to cross paths with some good people affected by this shit in real life... anything belittling that pushes my buttons.

That said - I am turning into a moral campaigner of sorts which shits me too... funny - being a perverted moral campaigner. I guess I draw a line in the sand in my own unique way

[jrandom]

Hookers are among the lowest forms of life...

Rubbish. You personally may have difficulty with the idea of one person paying another for sex, but many others don't. It's entirely a matter of perspective.

I dated a hooker once. She was a bit of a sad headcase (I'm good at finding those) but she wasn't a bad person.

In the end, it's a game, and the majority can cope with that. The world will always have unstable people that can't cope with a game like this, or a 'bad' book, or music videos that are filled with young girls dressed like sluts, or any one of a number of things.

I think this is the key point.

Forget the precise place where we should draw the line; the real question is, should we be trying to save people from themselves?

I answer no.

Some things should be censored - kiddie porn, for instance, involves the degradation and abuse of real children, and its production and distribution are therefore rightly banned.

However, when it comes to fictional representations of distasteful acts, the production of which harms nobody, I cannot bring myself to argue that society as a whole should restrict such because of the effect it might have on those of weaker minds.

Complete freedom, complete responsibility. All else is just steps on the slippery slope toward an Orwellian nightmare.

MDU, you don't want to live in an Orwellian nightmare, do you?

Think carefully about the ramifications of your position. Yes, I know you would argue that you draw the line in a reasonable place, but it would be easy to find another person, just as eloquent, to draw the line a little tighter, and then another to draw it a little tighter still.

Draw no lines, I say; let the proletariat wallow in their filth and be damned.

[imdying]

Some things should be censored - kiddie porn, for instance, involves the degradation and abuse of real children, and its production and distribution are therefore rightly banned.

What about simulated kiddie pron? I mean, if GTA4 had that instead of beating a hooker to the ground...

[jrandom]

What about simulated kiddie pron?

Fine by me.

I wouldn't buy the game and watch it, but I don't see why it should be illegal.

A law against simulated anything essentially equates to the establishment of thoughtcrime as a legal concept.

[imdying]

Hmmm, it's an interesting concept for sure.

I've often wondered if the net could be used by government to conduct large numbers of mini referendums... let the people self govern somewhat?

[Lias]

So remind me, are you for or against GTA4 being on the shelves?

It should be on the shelves in its pure unadulterated form, not the watered down shit we got because of the aussies.

As far as I'm concerned the FV&P act needs to be altered to prevent the OFLC from censoring ANYTHING based on the violence content. Make it R18? sure. Ban it? never.

Then again I might be bias because I'm still hoping i'll live to see bloodsport become legal in my lifetime. I'd actually pay per view UFC if it was no holds barred, or better yet fight to the death. I think its a great solution to 3rd world overpopulation.. Pay them to kill each other for our enterainment.

[ManDownUnder]

A law against simulated anything essentially equates to the establishment of thoughtcrime as a legal concept.

I'm not talking about thoughtcrime - I'm talking about the active engagement in an activity where the victim - in real life - would be unable to defend themselves.

Take the kiddie porn example for a second.
===
Perpetrators - access to environments that enable them to act out their fantasies, get their thrills - and do it as often as they like without consequence (and with societal sanction). When the buzz wears off ... they want the buzz back... they've been doing "the next best thing" for a month or for years... so... the most obvious next step is...?

That same process happens with drugs, speed, acceleration, bikes (who wants to stay on a 250 forever) etc... why would sex crime or murder be any different?
===
Victims - anyone that has actually fallen prey to paedophile i) being reminded of their nightmare and ii) seeing a crime against their person being normalised and trivialise by turning it into a toy.

Anyone that will fall prey to a paedophile (per the writeup of Perps above)
===

Per a number of previous posts - where I draw the line is described by the impact on others. I have an issue with any thing or situation where there are defenceless victims. As a society we need to provide the defence for those people where we reasonably can. If that's the price we pay then I'm personally all for it.

[jrandom]

I have an issue with any thing or situation where there are defenceless victims.

There are no victims, defenceless or otherwise, of video games. If some people find certain media offensive, they should not be forced to view it. End of story.

Your extrapolation as to the likely effect of such media on impressionable minds is something you should certainly apply to the way you entertain yourself and raise your children, but it is not anything that should be enshrined in law.

The idea of living in a society that passes laws telling me what to read, view, think or speak fills me with horror.

The solution to society's woes is not to ban, piecemeal, any entertainment that appears to lead in the cognitive directions you speak of. Rather, it's to fix, as far as possible, the underlying socioeconomic factors that create the criminal underclass.

I reject utterly your ideal of a sanitised world where all speech, art and recreation conforms to a particular narrow-minded definition of morality.

[ManDownUnder]

There are no victims, defenceless or otherwise, of video games. If some people find certain media offensive, they should not be forced to view it. End of story.

You and I could both probably name 3 people that have fallen victim to serious sex crime. We certainly know them well enough. They did not choose to be victims - yet they are. Creating a plaything encouraging others to re-enact that crime helps them relive those events at every mention. They become a victim each and every time. Ask them.

... I also enjoy anything ending in "End of Story". It's used by the closed minded, or those closing their minds - most unlike you

[jrandom]

You and I could both probably name 3 people that have fallen victim to serious sex crime. We certainly know them well enough. They did not choose to be victims - yet they are.

Yes, as you know, I've been quite closely involved with victims of such crime. And it was not a video game or any other entertainment media that victimised them. It was another person. An evil person. Not a DVD, or a picture on a wall, or words on paper.

Creating a plaything encouraging others to re-enact that crime helps them relive those events at every mention. They become a victim each and every time. Ask them.

That statement, in and of itself, is ridiculous. They do not 'become a victim' due to the existence of a plaything. The crime was real, but the broken shit that goes on in their heads subsequently becomes something to be fixed, not something to be seen as a limitation to impose upon the rest of the world.

Unvictimised people are normal. People suffering from PTSD et al due to violent crime should strive for a return to that normality, rather than attempting to mould the world around their brokenness.

... "End of Story". It's used by the closed minded, or those closing their minds - most unlike you

Rubbish! It's used to make the point that a statement constitutes an unarguable axiom. I consider the right of all people to view what they wish and think as they wish to be an unarguable axiom.

You, obviously, do not agree that it's unarguable. However, don't attempt to undermine my statement by implying that stating that something is axiomatic somehow weakens a position.

If you wish to argue that the right of all people to view what they wish and think as they wish is not axiomatic, provide reasons.

You have, so far, provided the reason that allowing such a right will upset the victims of crime.

I'd refute that by saying that any victim of crime who is upset by the portrayal of crime in fictional media doesn't need laws banning such portrayal - they just need further psychotherapy.

[ManDownUnder]

Yes, as you know, I've been quite closely involved with victims of such crime. And it was not a video game or any other entertainment media that victimised them. It was another person. An evil person. Not a DVD, or a picture on a wall, or words on paper.

Remind me how they feel whener they see an act they relate to being protrayed in a glorious manner on screen?

You have, so far, provided the reason that allowing such a right will upset the victims of crime.

...and encourage those tempted to have a go at those crimes to take an extra step toward their temptation - untimately ending in the actual engagement in those acts for some of them.

Sure they need help, but if they don't know it, are not willing to do anything about it and no-one enforces it - we end up with victims.

I'd refute that by saying that any victim of crime who is upset by the portrayal of crime in fictional media doesn't need laws banning such portrayal - they just need further psychotherapy.

Agreed entirely that they need help.

Lets take this to what I consider a foreseeable conclusion. Computer graphics and processing power are continuing to increase at pace. We will reach a time where interactive media will be generating interactive imagery impossible to distinguish from the real thing.

At that time - you still have no problem with snuff movies, kiddie porn and the like being generally available? And it's going to do no harm whatsoever? I content we're simply going to enable

But - all that is in the future... it is merely hypothesis at this time... so - do we never draw a line, and wait for innocents to become victims before we do something - at which point what - we say "sorry"?

What we're seeing now is that very same thing - it is the enablement of those with unacceptable tendencies to predicatably further their causes toward an entirely foreseeable conclusion

Re "End of story", the very existance of continued debate on the subject as evidenced by this very reply is undeniable proof that it is not, indeed, the end of the story.

[imdying]

Perpetrators - access to environments that enable them to act out their fantasies, get their thrills - and do it as often as they like without consequence (and with societal sanction). When the buzz wears off ... they want the buzz back... they've been doing "the next best thing" for a month or for years... so... the most obvious next step is...?

The only flaw in that logic is that kiddie fiddlers, murderers, etc, have been around long before the mediums of books, video games, and movies. Yes, it does seem logical that the existence of the new mediums can only encourage that sort of behaviour. It would be easier if we could just do away with perpetrators of that sort of crime, but what denotes 'that sort of crime' is what worries me. 'That sort of crime', 'those sort of games', 'that sort of speed', just makes me feel uneasy.

And what of Vifferman's poor son, he never asked for his mental health condition, it seems a little 'off' to legally exclude him from some content mediums because of that... but is it less fair to exclude him, or less fair to exclude everyone (in an effort to exclude him without making him feel excluded).

[imdying]

There are no victims, defenceless or otherwise, of video games.

Not directly, the point he is making is that mediums such as violent games perhaps have the ability to encourage people to step outside of their normal moral boundaries (or maybe just help to accelerate that). And imho there must be a certain amount of that going on. But am I willing to ban the games because of that? No, I would rather hang murderers and castrate kiddy fiddlers (but that's another slippery slope).

[ManDownUnder]

The only flaw in that logic is that kiddie fiddlers, murderers, etc, have been around long before the mediums of books, video games, and movies.

Yup - they have. I'd be curious to see accurate data on offending frequency too - I hope I'm wrong on this shit - I really do.

In support of the argument I've been offering re the encouragement of offenders, I know about a guy that had to change channel every time a nappy ad came on because he found the sight of a baby's bum highly arousing. It was one of the tactics he employed to stay out of prison....

I'm not saying ban nappy ads, but I am saying we need to be careful in the use of imagery etc.

Another question I have is - why did the game makers include it in the game? Was the ability to do this horrific stuff it an unintended consequence of the incredible functionality of the SW? I find that hard to believe given the specific inclusion of controversial characters such as prostitutes, but I'm also mindful that a simple hammer can be used to murder someone - and I'm not saying access to hammers should be restricted.

[jrandom]

... encourage those tempted to have a go at those crimes to take an extra step toward their temptation - untimately ending in the actual engagement in those acts for some of them.

Ah, the old chestnut.

Frankly, none of us really has any idea whether violence in the media has anything to do with crime rates. It's fallacious to speak as though such a causative link is evidently probable.

Sure they need help, but if they don't know it, are not willing to do anything about it and no-one enforces it - we end up with victims.

So let's put some effort into victim support. I know I have...

At that time - you still have no problem with snuff movies, kiddie porn and the like being generally available? And it's going to do no harm whatsoever? I content we're simply going to enable...

You say it will 'enable' such behaviour, I say it will provide a harmless outlet for normal negative impulses that might otherwise have been acted out.

Who's to say who's right? I don't pretend to know for sure.

But one side of the debate argues for restriction, and the other argues for freedom. I know which side I'd prefer to err on. Really, that's all we're discussing here - which side it's better to err on.

What we're seeing now is... enablement... entirely foreseeable conclusion

You proclaim these causative links as though they're self-evident. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of men in white coats with letters after their name, no link has ever been proven.

As opposed to, say, the link between poverty and violent crime, which has been shown to be rock-solid time and time again.

Don't ban videogames; if you must do something to help, fight gambling addictions and starving schoolchildren!

Re "End of story", the very existance of continued debate on the subject as evidenced by this very reply is undeniable proof that it is not, indeed, the end of the story.

Well, the ongoing discussion is undeniable proof that someone doesn't agree that it's the end of the story. The statement I made is simply a rhetorical expression of the strength of my opinion.