Protect the children

[Grammatron]

Re: Re: Protect the children

Just for the record, the content is not semi-porn. It's hardcore porn. Not like one can see on TV. I've seen it. I would link to it, but this is JREF and it seems that you guys might get warts if you see porn. Irony!

I did link to it in a related topic on Skeptical Community, or you can find it yourself with some basic googling.

Luke the content to which you reffer to is if put on TV would be reffered to as soft core not hard core. Asside from female brests with nipples, ass you don't see anything else. There's no intercourse and the male model is in clothing (at least bellow the waist).

Thus the only thing you actually are seeing is animated nude woman appearing to perform sexual acts on a man who is wearing clothe.

For it to be hardcore porn it would have to get far more anatomical.

 

[StaticEngine]

"Easily" is not a term I would use for the ability of people to access the content.

Someone had to inspect the executable files, the data files, build a tool that would modify access to these files without crashing the game, and then test and release this tool to the public. This is not a simple task, nor one that could be conducted with "ease" by any but the most sophisticated of users.

Yes, once the tool was released, it would be "easy" to access the content. However, it is also "easy" to use a released tool that automatically cracks credit card databases and harvests personal data for the purpose of identity theft. This does not mean the credit card companies are to blame for crimes comitted because they could not forsee every attack, nor are they misrepresenting their services by not stopping every possible attack on their system.

 

[varwoche]

Step at a time...

Originally posted by username
Ok, so politicians are screaming about the latest Grand Theft Auto game

I vaguely recall hearing something. That leaves me with two metadata points regarding the screaming politicians:

1) My vague memory (it quite literally could have come from a dream)

2) An anonymous personna on the internet asserts there are screaming politicians, sans evidence

Hillary, the dumb *%^)$ Clinton is up in arms about it

3) Now that I understand that you think Hillary is a "dumb *%^", what would you like me to do with this piece of metadata? Should this impact my assessment of the (mercurial) issue you wish to discuss?

4) I will take your word that she's up in arms about it (out of laziness). Others may want to see some evidence.

5) Before you scout out some evidence, can you explain why I should care that she's up in arms about it? Is it because she's a "dumb *%^", and because she's a "dumb *%^" that means she's wrong on the issue?

(she will take on anything for publicity these days it would seem)

6) See #5.

I (personally) grant some leeway to parenthetical comments, so no challenge at this time. At some later date, I invite you to post evidence. Also, I'd be interesting in your take on virtually all other politicians.

However, what I find most disturbing are the statements of the would be morality police and censors.
Look at this moron

Yikes, it's hard to know where to start.

7) I'm looking at xbox.ign.com with just a tad bit of concern that it might just be some random bozo, versus the type of reliable source one expects to see posted to a skeptical forum. What the hell, I've already had my e-ticket punched, so I click.

8) I get a great big Nextel ad. Hey, maybe it was my mistake. So I close the ad, click the link again, the same Nextel ad. Sadly, I had to close it again, as my gusto to discover xbox.ign.com wisdom is bounded by certain temporal practicalities. (Sorry about that.)

I think someone needs to show evidence

9) Thumbs up to that!

 

[username]

Re: Re: Protect the children

Step at a time...

2) An anonymous personna on the internet asserts there are screaming politicians, sans evidence

I provided a link

3) Now that I understand that you think Hillary is a "dumb *%^", what would you like me to do with this piece of metadata? Should this impact my assessment of the (mercurial) issue you wish to discuss?

I dunno, the rest of the posters in this thread didn't seem to have any problem figuring out what to say.

I invite you to post evidence.

Again, I provided a link.

7) I'm looking at xbox.ign.com with just a tad bit of concern that it might just be some random bozo, versus the type of reliable source one expects to see posted to a skeptical forum. What the hell, I've already had my e-ticket punched, so I click.

It was a softball interview with a politician pushing for government regulation. Forget IGN, the politician's comments are the focus.

8) I get a great big Nextel ad. Hey, maybe it was my mistake. So I close the ad, click the link again, the same Nextel ad. Sadly, I had to close it again, as my gusto to discover xbox.ign.com wisdom is bounded by certain temporal practicalities. (Sorry about that.)

Don't know what the issue is for you. I use firefox and have most ad sources blocked so I don't see any nextel ad. Anyway the link takes you to the article/interview and gives links to public statements by the politician as well as the text of the legislation said politician has introduced.

In other words the entirety of your post seems to be based around some defect in your web browser, or something.

 

[username]

Well, here is another link showing that the ESRB and private enterprise can handle the situation and that government takeover isn't at all necessary.

However, Hillary Clinton, was stupid and pathetic as usual:

The developments did little to appease Sen. Hilary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, who applauded the ESRB investigation but remained disturbed that the sex content appeared on store shelves in the first place.

"I think that the rating board has to be vigilant and really make sure that it's as thorough as it can be and not just take the game makers' word as to what's on there," Clinton said.

Yes, Hillary, because we all know that a government run ratings board would be immune from such things and that the government would employ a squadron of hackers and modders to investigate every new release before assigning a rating.

I do admit I can't stand Hillary and have a strong bias against the woman. It isn't my fault she makes it so easy. Is there anything the woman doesn't think government should do?

 

[varwoche]

Re: Re: Re: Protect the children

I provided a link

True, and finally I can get to it. Here's my net takeaway from the article, augmented by your random, seemingly partisan speculation:

1) The evidence of screaming politicians comes from an interview at a website named xbox.com. This indicates to me one of two things: The politicians aren't screaming loud enough for the mainstream press to pick it up. Or else you've provided a low quality link in lieu of a high quality link.

2) The screaming politician happens to be a state assemblyman from CA named Leland Yee. (A fact that has gone unreported in this thread until now.)

3) Hillary Clinton is not interviewed; Hillary Clinton is not even quoted. (Is it possible I'm STILL having trouble with your link?)

4) Username thinks Hillary is a "dumb *%" and apparently thinks this meta-fact is relevent to the discussion but won't tell why.

add: crosspost

 

[username]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Protect the children

True, and finally I can get to it. Here's my net takeaway from the article, augmented by your random, seemingly partisan speculation:

Ok, first of all I am not a partisan. I used to consider myself a democrat (by default), but then I was informed what the democratic party was about and I became a republican (in those days I didn't realize it wasn't an either/or decision). Then I realized the republicans only gave lip service to principles I cared about so I went searching for a political home and became a libertarian. Then I realized libertarianism was a place where many nutjobs found legitimacy and couldn't stomach defending some of the idiotic positions so these days I just consider myself independant because I don't know of any party that I really agree with. I do, however, despise Hillary Clinton believing her to be the epitome of what is wrong with government today.

1) The evidence of screaming politicians comes from an interview at a website named xbox.com. This indicates to me one of two things: The politicians aren't screaming loud enough for the mainstream press to pick it up. Or else you've provided a low quality link in lieu of a high quality link.

The issue is about a video game, the link is to a video game website interviewing a politician about the game. Kind of context appropriate, don't ya think? The mainstream press has picked up on the story, I don't know why you haven't seen it.

2) The screaming politician happens to be a state assemblyman from CA named Leland Yee. (A fact that has gone unreported in this thread until now.)

3) Hillary Clinton is not interviewed; Hillary Clinton is not even quoted.[/b] (Is it possible I'm STILL having trouble with your link?)

True, I bashed Hillary in my OP and then linked to an article that didn't contain any information about her. My bad. The story is one I had been following and Hillary was one of the most vocal politicans on the issue which is why I singled her out in my diatribe. The link didn't deal with her though so I can understand your criticism here.

4) Username thinks Hillary is a "dumb *%" and apparently thinks this meta-fact is relevent to the discussion but won't tell why.

I despise Hillary as previously noted. I have a very low opinion of her. That explains my use of non alpha-numeric characters to describe her. My personal opinion of her isn't relevent to the discussion, it is simply added for flavoring - to spice things up.

However, as the second link I proveded this evening shows, Hillary still isn't satisfied with the ESRB even though they have rerated the game and major retailers have pulled the game off their shelves and the publisher of the game has taken a major hit in their stock price and the company has revised their earnings forecase downward by $50 million dollars.

Hillary still feels the privately run, voluntarily complied with ESRB is falling down on the job. This, in my opinion, is unjustified criticism and simply reflects her desire for government to take over ratings and enforcement of videogames. Something I deem absolutely unnecessary and undesirable.

 

[clarsct]

I could copy and paste my whole argument from this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=59711&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

But I figured a link was easier, for those who give two flying f**ks.


Screaming politicians, such as they are, are playing to people's own basic insecurities. It ain't about the children, man. It's all about the parents. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking otherwise.

As for Ms. Clinton, I haven't any strong feelings one way or the other, but if you're on the anti-censorship rant, why not go after Tipper Gore?
The dumbest thing I've seen Hillary do is take back a man who has cheated on her in the past, then did it again and lied about it, and is probably still doing so. I thought Will Jeff was an ok Pres, really. But he was/is a bad husband and father. Unless, as I suspect, their marriage is merely a marriage of political convenience, and more of a merger than a marriage.

But I digress.


In closing, I do believe it is the PARENTS who ought to be controlling what their child looks at, not the gubmint. Freedom of speech and so forth.

 

[aerocontrols]

Ummmmmmm the game is rated "Mature". You have to be 18 yrs old to buy the damn thing.

Yes, the game was rated Mature, apparently until the rating organization found out about this content, and now it's rated "AO".

The "Mature" rating means that the material is judged by the rating organization to be suitable for 17 years of age and above.

It's not at all clear that your second sentence is correct. I would be happy to stand corrected, however. Do stores check ID when selling "M" and "AO" games? What's the enforcement mechanism? It appears to me that what irks username is that they might begin doing so.

This is kinda like complaining about a sex scene in an R rated movie............ITS "R" RATED DICKUS!!!!!

It seems to me to be more like complaining that the stores are selling R-rated movies to 15-year olds without an accompanying adult.

Actually, a better analogy is that the stores are selling R-rated movies that have NC-17 rated Easter eggs to 15-yos without an accompanying adult.

 

[username]

As for Ms. Clinton, I haven't any strong feelings one way or the other, but if you're on the anti-censorship rant, why not go after Tipper Gore?

While I enjoyed your post, I just wanted to answer this direct question. The reason I don't go after Tipper is that she is politically irrelevant these days and Hillary is anything but irrelevant given that insider speculation is a presidential run in 08.

Tipper also seemed to have some sort of moral principle underlying her actions. I don't agree with her morals, but I respect that she may have actually had some morals she was acting upon.

With Hillary I don't think she gives a rat's behind about kids or videogame content or anything other than herself. She is taking a small problem, blowing it out of all proportion, misrepresenting it and using it as an excuse for government intervention. In other words she is acting the role of classic statist. Portray a problem where none exists and then present government as the only solution to the non existent problem.

 

[varwoche]

I do, however, despise Hillary Clinton

That's a strong word. What words do you have left for people whom you despise even more than Hillary Clinton?

I don't like to preach, but vitriol is not a skeptic's friend.

True, I bashed Hillary in my OP and then linked to an article that didn't contain any information about her. My bad.

Thank you; that's classy.

The link didn't deal with her though so I can understand your criticism here.

Ditto.

I despise Hillary as previously noted. ... it is simply added for flavoring - to spice things up.

Here's what you need to realize:

I click to open your thread. I see a bunch of disjointed, partisan blather along with an xbox link. I can only speak for myself, but the spice totally discredited the dish.

Not to mention, I've heard Hillary called a lot of names, but rarely (ever?) dumb. That's like adding salsa to ice cream. The spice needs to fit.

 

[username]

Re: Re: Protect the children

Here's what you need to realize:

I click to open your thread. I see a bunch of disjointed, partisan blather along with an xbox link. I can only speak for myself, but the spice totally discredited the dish.

Not to mention, I've heard Hillary called a lot of names, but rarely (ever?) dumb. That's like adding salsa to ice cream. The spice needs to fit.

I agree, I made the OP well past when I should have been in bed and I didn't take the time to word it well, I simply ranted.

Since that time I have attempted to use more reason and care in continuing the topic, but the OP left a lot to be desired.

I also agree that Hillary is not a dumb person. She is frightfully shrewd. Dumb is simply a word I use when I am up past my bedtime and not choosing my derogatory adjectives carefully.

 

[Freakshow]

Rockstar wins, we lose.

How exactly do "we lose"?

 

[username]

How exactly do "we lose"?

We lose by having government take over ratings and enforcement of compliance and all the regulatory compliance issues that ensue from it.

Today a publisher/developer can produce any content they want and the only limitation are market forces such as retailers who won't sell adult only rated titles due to concerns of a backlash from customers.

This results in developers/publishers more often than not avoiding the publication of content the masses finds genuinely objectionable.

Give that control to government and we end up with developers/publishers avoiding the publication of content the government finds objectionable.

Societal norms change rapidly and private ratings organizations change along with those evolving standards, governments change much more slowly. Governments still can't seem to accept that homosexuals are real people deserving of equal rights and we (in the US) still have government laws on the books making anal and oral sex between married, heterosexual couples illegal. Do we really want that same government deciding on ratings and enforcements for videogames?

Personally I like a little sex with my violence. Don't need Hillary Clinton regulating that away from me

 

[Dorian Gray]

A 6 year old should not be playing GTA.

Wow. Did you just tell someone they were a bad parent and exhibit signs of legislating morality for other people? Because it sure looked like you did to me.

In order to view the content, so many proactive and voluntary steps have to be taken that the game maker should be 100% guilt-free, and the blame should be placed on the kids themselves or on their parents. It's not like turning on the TV and seeing boobs, or turning on the radio and hearing graphic or blue words. Sure you can change the channel/station, but you can't know when you turn on the radio or TV what you are going to hear. When you turn on the game and start playing, you know damn well what you are doing and seeing. All the more when you download a mod in order to see the stuff, install it, use it and watch the cartoon porn.

And while I'm at it, I don't think porn should be taxed. I think it should be subsidized by the government and handed out like welfare checks. But that's just me. Call me a radical.

US military recruiting is down. GI Bill isn't doing it, appeals to patriotism aren't doing it. Solution? Sign up for 3 years, get 3 years of free porn. Think about it.

 

[Darat]

Wow. Did you just tell someone they were a bad parent and exhibit signs of legislating morality for other people? Because it sure looked like you did to me.

...snip...

Yes to the part that I consider username a bad parent for allowing his/her child to play GTA. If you read the rest of my first post you will see I very clearly do not make any suggestion that adults should be prevented from viewing any content.

 

[LostAngeles]

How exactly do "we lose"?

Because it pushes the idea that gamers and video games are deviant and lacking morality. Rockstar, as of late, has also spewed out Manhunt and State of Emergency which are basically more violence and in the case of the latter, a poor man's GTA. I'm not under the impression that the GTAs have blazed any new ground past having "open ended gameplay." It's all the same and with crappy graphics to top.

It's like Madden only with more violence and sex. Rockstar pushes the envelope and makes money while churning out the same crap.

So personally, as a gamer, I feel that they're a black eye publicly and within the game community they're not setting much of an example for innovation or taste. Frankly, I was over GTA pretty quickly. Might have had something to do with being introduced to Halo. Not sure.

(To be truthful, the innovation complaint can be aired about a lot of folks. It's just that they really do make ^%$@ and it's that which gets the attention.)

 

[username]

Yes to the part that I consider username a bad parent for allowing his/her child to play GTA.

Wow. I don't really know what to say.

Perhaps you would like to go to this thread and articulate why my choice makes me a bad parent?

I am open to the idea that I may be a bad parent or perhaps a decent parent who is making a bad decision, but I really need some explanation of why my decision is wrong in order to accept such a judgement. The thread I linked to provides you the forum to express your logic/thoughts.

As a parent who wants to do right by his children I welcome all thoughtful criticism of my choices.

 

[Darat]

Wow. I don't really know what to say.

Perhaps you would like to go to this thread and articulate why my choice makes me a bad parent?

I am open to the idea that I may be a bad parent or perhaps a decent parent who is making a bad decision, but I really need some explanation of why my decision is wrong in order to accept such a judgement. The thread I linked to provides you the forum to express your logic/thoughts.

As a parent who wants to do right by his children I welcome all thoughtful criticism of my choices.

Although cross posting is frowned upon, I'll post this from the thread username has started so my apology is with my mistake:

By me:

username - I made one of the comments you quoted, "A 6 year old should not be playing GTA" and an even stronger one about believing you are a bad parent for allowing your 6 year old to play the game.

However your post in the other thread and in this thread have made re-think my position on this matter (at least somewhat).

I should be more self-aware and realise that I am basing my opinions and some conclusions on the assumption that there are some "adult" activities that do harm children or for some reason are inappropriate for children.

So I owe you an apology for saying you are a bad parent for allowing your 6 year old to play GTA.

Whilst I still do believe that some content is inappropriate for children I should not draw the conclusion that you are a bad parent for allowing your 6 year old to play GTA unless I can support that conclusion with some empirical evidence rather then just my beliefs.

 

[Freakshow]

Because it pushes the idea that gamers and video games are deviant and lacking morality. Rockstar, as of late, has also spewed out Manhunt and State of Emergency which are basically more violence and in the case of the latter, a poor man's GTA. I'm not under the impression that the GTAs have blazed any new ground past having "open ended gameplay." It's all the same and with crappy graphics to top.

It's like Madden only with more violence and sex. Rockstar pushes the envelope and makes money while churning out the same crap.

So personally, as a gamer, I feel that they're a black eye publicly and within the game community they're not setting much of an example for innovation or taste. Frankly, I was over GTA pretty quickly. Might have had something to do with being introduced to Halo. Not sure.

(To be truthful, the innovation complaint can be aired about a lot of folks. It's just that they really do make ^%$@ and it's that which gets the attention.)

Cool, thanks for the reply. I get your point now. I TOTALLY misunderstood what you meant before.