Slashdot Mirror
Soldier Of Fortune: Must Be 18 To Play
Here's the line that grabbed my attention:
Soldier of Fortune allows users to assume the identity of John Mullins, an anti-terrorist mercenary, who kills and maims animals and humans during a series of armed missions.
"Depending on which weapon is used, the participant can enact gory violence that results in the horror of evisceration, decapitation, dismemberment and victims burning to death," said a report from Mary-Louise McCausland, B.C.'s director of film classification.
Here's how I feel about people who complain that animals get killed and maimed in video games.
For relaxation and burning off some stress, I enjoy fighting some bots in QuakeIII or some human beings in MythII. I've never played "Soldier of Fortune," but the screenshots are roughly as bloody as Q3A's giblets of flesh when a rocket hits a dead body. Or Myth's (smaller, but painfully realistic) arcs of bleeding limbs that bounce around after an explosion, leaking red into the ground.
Myth's "WW2" plugin is quite good. It's fun to throw a grenade into a knot of unsuspecting enemy soldiers. That pretty much covers "evisceration," "decapitation," and "dismemberment" (distinctions without a difference, since the bloody body parts all start to look the same after a while). As far as "victims burning to death," the new plugin allows four or more flamethrower units on some maps.
I also work with a local animal rescue organization. Every week at shelters across the country, dogs, cats, rabbits, and other nonhuman animals are being put to death because nobody will take them. We try to take in a few animals, those we can find room for, to give them a chance at life that lasts longer than seven days. And we help educate adopters, to give the animals their best chance in their new home.
Also, I'm a vegetarian (vegan, actually). Why? Because in comparison to the quick, clean death of the shelter, most animals' encounter with humans is bloody and violent.
Every day, we slaughter and eat tens of thousands of cows, gentle animals. Every day, a million pounds of veal - or, let's call it what it is, baby cow. Sixteen billion pounds of pig every year (divide, please, by the edible meat per pig).
I'm sure I don't need to describe the conditions under which these animals live and die. Everyone knows about factory farms already. Most of us simply try not to think about it. When I hear about someone abusing a dog, or a horse, or some other "popular" animal, I can't help but think about the pig, or the cow, that at that exact second has finally given up its life, and whose muscles will be on a plate later this week.
And when I hear about lawmakers wanting to stop digital violence, I think about the one in my area who called about an accidental litter of babies from their unspayed and unneutered pets. In poor health, they didn't live long; but even if they had, unwanted animals rarely get much of a life. Every new litter either ends up in the shelter, or crowds some other animals in to be killed.
Is violence against animals more acceptable because it's done at arm's length, in gas chambers - or perhaps because they starve to death before their eyes open? Is that same legislator going to vote, in his career, to stamp out cartoon violence, or computer violence, or some other kind of unreal images?
The "animals" that you can "kill and maim" in Soldier of Fortune are dogs and cows. One area that the player fights in is a meat-packing plant, and there are a few cows in a pasture nearby that can be shot (or not).
How horrible that 17-year-olds might be able to pretend to kill cows in a virtual slaughterhouse. Of course, the real slaughterhouses in British Columbia pump well over $100 million annually into the economy, 15% of which comes from resources owned by the government.
Want to kill real cows? The government will be glad to subsidize your job. Want to kill virtual cows? Sorry, son, you're too young; we can't have you exposed to such violence.
So to the Attorney General and to the so-called "film classification" office of British Columbia, who are so concerned about violence, take a look in the mirror. What have you done for animals lately, besides double the rate at which you slaughter them?
Groups like this always claim that they are concerned about children being desensitized to violence. I only wish they had a chance to get sensitized in the first place. As if it isn't enough of a mixed message - the stuff that we force kids to eat while telling them that hurting animals is wrong. Now 17-year-olds can't play a video game because it's called violent - and real violence is still called dinner.
I've eaten raw horse. I've eaten (deliberately) half-cooked chicken. As I recall, raw salmon (that hasn't been flash-frozen and thawed, or otherwise processed) is a lot more dangerous than almost anything except raw pork.
Do we just let them free? Do we kill large portions of them so that there aren't as many to deal with? What do we do? I doubt there would be too many ranchers out there who'd keep feeding them and raising them if there was no market.
I know I sound like a troll, but seriously, what would we do with them?
-gandalf23
"Give me an army of West Point grads and I'll win the battle. Give me a handfull of Aggies, and I'll win the war!"
-Gen. George Patton, the Armor God
Eh... ever heard of the Charter of Human Rights?
Are you adequate?
Hunting is far more 'barbaric' than a modern slaughterhouse.
Have you ever seen how pigs are herded to those modern slaughterhouses? Have you ever seen how those pigs and cows live, locked up in little boxes they can't even move an inch in? That, by my book, is far more barbaric than killing an animal in nature. Did you ever stop to think how much pain an antilope is in when it's hamstrung and bled to death by a leopard? Yet there's nothing wrong with that. So what's wrong with shooting a deer, if it's meant to be eaten?
Oh, and you're not a Pagan. There aren't any of those anymore.
Yes there are. European Paganism still exists in its original form in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Original Paganism still exists in Africa, Australia, Asia (specifically Indonesia and Polynesia) and North- and South-America.
The definition of Pagan is one who has a religion based on nature - my religion is based on nature. It might be that I formed my own beliefs in favour of being indoctrinated by parents or other people, but I formed my own beliefs from nature, thus I'm Pagan. Call it neo-Pagan all you like, but the way I formed my religion isn't very different from the way the first humans formed theirs, which was original Paganism.
Spirituality isn't something you get to pick out of a catalogue, or from a shelf in the back of a book and herb store.
Exactly. I found religion, and then went looking in bookstores to see what I could find that resembled it so I could continue my search. I believe what I believe, and it happens to be given the name "Paganism" by many. My personal philosophies and beliefs are extremely similar to Sodizim, an ancient Celtic _Pagan_ religion. Strange, how you arrive at something you think is new and yours alone, to find out that others have already done it and named it.
But that ofcourse is all hugely offtopic...
)O(
the Gods have a sense of humour,
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
> The point being that, unless you accept the argument that killing animals is inherently wrong (which the majority of people won't agree with) it doesn't much matter whether you can get food from other sources. No reason to make 'that choice.'
I always wonder whether a lion should feel guilty about eating meat, which I intuitively doubt, and then wonder why I should if a lion shouldn't.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Eating Humans is nasty and very unhealthy.
Haven't you ever been taught that animal flesh grows increasingly toxic as you climb up the food chain?
We're top of the food chain.
A vegan will not consume any dairy products..
thats like a lacto-ovo vegetarian who eats dairy products.. I forget the precise terms.
But anyways
If you think education is expensive, try ignornace
Still, I think that the main point is that while a gun isn't the only thing that lets people kill, it it the only thing (other than explosives, nuclear armaments, etc.) that lets killing be done on such a scale by a single person. You would have a hard time rushing into a restaurant and strangling 12 people before being overpowered, and very few people die in drive-by knifings (to the best of my knowledge, at least),
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
Uhh, look at evolution. The experience of pain evolved because it was unpleasant, so animals like us would avoid it and not get burnt to death or whatever. By definition it is distressful to the animal.
Re-reading your original post seems to make you fulfill the definitions of sadist and masochist.
But then, there are going to be the parents that would'nt have an objection to the game, becuase they know how to raise a kid, and know that this type of game isnt harmful to a kid, but they they see the SACSA (stupid asshole censorhip society of america) label, and wont rent it for the kid.
Also, there are kids that rent and buy their own games, and wont be able to play them, because their parents are too lazy to get it for their kids.
Then, the game will just get stolen or pirated, increasing "crime", if you can call breakinhg a dumbass law a crime.
Where the hell do these people get the right to tell parents what their kids should and shouldnt play? these people are way too uptight about these things. its the parents responsibility to responsibily choose what i kid should and shoulnt see!!!
Its these damn censorship people that need to refrian from violent games, they are the ones that cant tell real from fake!
"There is no there, there." ---William Gibson, on Cyberspace
It is called reality. Do you need to be 18 to see how your food is produced?
Now, if we killed and ate humans, that would be different. The relationship is not there if you think about it. True, not true. Make your own decision, don't let the government.
Contradiction? What about the increase in school shootings? If you see a particular thing that is violent, yet cannot get that particular thing, can you reproduce that violence. I am talking about guns. If kids don't have guns, can they really shoot people in the knee caps?
I could find out how to make a bomb, and probably find what I need to make one. Does this mean that you shouldn't have that information out there on the internet. Or should it be not be available for those under the age of 18, because only those people would do such a thing? Who was the last terrorist under the age of 18 that blew up a building?
Send me a link, it probably did happen. Another contradiction?
What the point? Government should make laws for the views and opinions of it citizens. If a majority of a governments citizens feel something should be illegal, or classified for a certain age group, then it will be a law. If the government does so without the majority of the citizens, then they should speak up. Otherwise, you are minority and don't have the same views as the majority of your country!
Good grazy, man! You sound like a low-budget children's action show (Re:Dragonball Z, Power Rangers, etc.): The good guys are good because they kill (not arrest and rehabilitate, not kill by lethal injection, but kill as in murder) the bad guys. That's not the way it works in real life. Killing innocents does not waiver their right to a fair trial. Killing them, rather than arresting them waivers this right, and is therefore, wrong.
If the only way to prevent them from killing an innocent is to kill them immediately, without the trial, then it's okay, IMO, but otherwise it's not.
You mean, he won't have that same girfriend then?
The green sweet smelling skunky stuff is from British Columbia. The white powdery stuff is from Columbia, or is it spelled Colombia...
Lars -
You are an imbecile. So it should be legal for parents to do with their kids what they want? You say the government shouldn't control whether kids are allowed to drink alcohol (sorry, alchole)? So I could give my six-year old son a pint of whisky every night and the government couldn't intervene? Grow up you moron. Governments have to set minimum standards, as the original poster said, and some of those are inevitably going to be somewhat arbitary.
But the difference between humans and cows is a difference of degree, not type.
Precisely. A newborn baby has rights because it has the potential to reach the degree of sentience society requires to justify its position in society. No cow, in my opinion, meets the very low intelligence requirements for equal treatment.
Maybe we should breed ugly, emotionally non-responsive food with no sensation of pain...
Hunting is far more 'barbaric' than a modern slaughterhouse.
When a cow is about to be killed, it's quickly and efficiently stunned. When a deer is hunted, it's shot at by an often incompetent rifleman (or worse, a bow hunter) and then runs through the forest for awhile before bleeding to death.
If you can't understand the difference, and what it means, compare being killed by lethal injection to vivisection. (Historical clue: hanging, decapitation, etc., were considered humane forms of punishment back in the day when the normal form of execution was being skinned alive by 'scientists' studying anatomy, or slowly tortured by priests trying to 'save' you by driving out the demons posessing you)
**********************
begin off-topic aside:
(Oh, and you're not a Pagan. There aren't any of those anymore. If anything, you're a neo-pagan, which is a recent twist of historical revisionism. Spirituality isn't something you get to pick out of a catalogue, or from a shelf in the back of a book and herb store. But whatever.....)
I miss 'Naked and Petrified Mae Link Mak' or whatever it was, before the Revisionists switched it to Natalie.
What ever happened to the good old days?
you are obviously NOT french or a quebecer
or else you would know about BLEU NUIT every saturday night on TQS (channel 5).
Soft porn, but PORN nontheless.
Plus now they have a series running at 11:30PM EVERY WEEK NIGHT.
Plus showcase ALWAYS plays those movies like CRASH, Videodrome, GIA etc.... with lots and lots of nudity. Bravo also has nudity. And several other French channels OFTEN have nudity but TQS is the one with the title.
One detail often overlooked.
When humans eat fresh raw vegetables, they are eating the poor living little thing while it's alive. At least with animal flesh, it is (almost) always dead before being eaten.
British Columbia is in Canada, not Britain.
South Park, even without the cut scene, would have been X-rated if it wasn't a cartoon. At least I read that somewhere.
And are you trying to tell me that people in Germany can't distinguish between "Tomm and Jerry and some kind of Blood and Gore Flick" on their own? Hello? Hello?? How do you translate 'independent thought' into German?I was talking about restricting access to minors. MINORS.
By the way, violence is glorified every day by every government with a military, including yours. Move to Switzerland.Switzerland also has an army, they even consider it one of the foundations of the swiss model of independence, democracy and neutrality. (Things are changing a little, there was a documentary on TV recently)
Sounds to me like the pot is calling the kettle black.Your kettle-pot, analogy isn't very good. Look at the word I used: again AGAIN. I hate those knee jerk reactions to our totalitarian past. Of course we have to remeber it and guard against it, but so do you. So please educate yourself about modern Germany. So we can have a discussion and not some kind of pavlovian reflex.
SO people are reading very late posts. Thanks supruzr. :-)
By the way, didn't you use the kettle-pot thing before? Or is it just your sig ? It seemed to be a response to a sentence of mine... BY golly did I Fall for a troll ? OOOooh this is fun.
MarcusYou're more than a little uninformed as well.
The top court in BC decided that under current law, the possession of child pornography was not illegal. They recommended changing the law so that it would be, but until that happens, the courts consider possession legal. Production remains quite illegal.
------
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
You won't read of such a statistic.
Several reasons why:
When someone breaks into a house, and a gun is waved at him by it's dweller, if it were reported to the police, the dweller (read: the victim) would be persecuted for it.
Statistically, areas/regions where gun ownership is common are areas where burglars are far more careful about whose knobs they rattle. Burglars in gun-common regions case their targets far more carefully than in gun-uncommon regions. So crimes are averted... the thugs are just more likely to stay away and/or not get into property crime as a profession.
Cuba is a place for 'liberals' because it has a very paternalistic government where people are cared for from cradle to grave. In Cuba the government is aggressively paternalistic, which is obviously a leap from what (most, thank goodness) Liberals outside of Cuba advocate, but it's not a huge leap.
Very consistent, since they didn't. (Which doesn't change the fact that the BC government's approval rating is currently 16%.)
------
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
Go to mp3.com and listen to "Carrot Juice is Murder".
Someone please shoot all the lawyers....
--- Always remember. 99.36% of all statistics are inaccurate.
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
The Cheif Censor in NZ has today passed the same restriction.
Tough.
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
We are talking upsell city. Fresh meat for their marketing machines.
Oh, no! I just come here for the video games. -- well, I used to. Disclaimer: I ran for the Green Party in the last BC election.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I don't know about jamie, but I've actually played Soldier of Fortune before, and it is incredibly realistic in regard to the violence. I don't think that Quake III could even come close. With Soldier of Fortune, you can actually aim for specific limbs and shoot them off an enemy. There are also some really realistic looking exit wounds and resulting blood splatters.
Anyway, I don't see what the big deal is with violent games. I mean, all they do is provide a good way of blowing off steam (at least for me). Adolescents who are going to be adversely affected by violent games probably have a lot of other psychological problems that should be obvious anyway.
What ever happened to the idea that maybe children have parents who know what's good for their kids?
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
I understand what you're saying but consider this:
I bought and played through SOF, knowing exactly what I could expect in term of violence and gore (I read the previews, etc). Having played FPS games from day 1 (Wolfestein 3D) I've accepted that they get progressively more accurately graphic. The game box depicts a sniper and through his scope you can see a man's head in the crosshairs. In large letters (inset in an octagonal stop-sign-like bubble) is a warning about violent content. Then there's the M MATURE rating label. Its pretty obvious what to expect.
However, sitting there watching cartoons that I know I watched dozens of times as a kid, but can't particularly recall, I was practically appalled at the guillotine thing. My jaw actually dropped. I would be shocked (if I had a child) if I found them watching this at a young age... It didn't matter that it wasn't explicitly graphic, it only mattered a minimalist technique succeeded in portraying a brutal execution.
For me, its all about the packaging. With SOF (presuming you didn't warez it) You know what you're getting into. With Cartoon Network I'd expect some discretion as to what they show, with young children in mind...
Okay there's two "versions" of SOF one is for "adults" the other for is suitable for everyone else (children, animals, aliens, etc..) Therefore the "adult" Sof should be treated exactly like "adult" material and kept out of the reach of young gamers hands ie behind the counter. I understand that this is extra work for all the people at Babbages, Software Etc., and CompUSA but come on it's worth it if it will keep the extremists who want to remove all violence from FPS. The only people who "lose out" on this deal are the 16 and 17 year olds most of whom should be mature enough to distinguish between whats a game and what's not though not all will be able to, but then again I know some 25yr olds who still have issues. Let's be reasonable, pr0n is adult material yet most teenagers have all seen it in one form or another thus logic dictates that some teenagers will have access to the Sof "adult" version be it their siblings, parents, or friends purchase. Well I think I have waxed poetic on this subject long enough and certainly abused the quotes. So there's my 2cents.
Where CESUS can enter your house and tap everything without a warrent.
Where watching TV and haveing the channel pirated by the goverment and canadian commercials put in their place.
Where US satilite dishes are illigal and can be seized by the RCMP. (Currently in supreme court attempting to be overturned).
Where clubbing baby seals is legal, and hunting crows because there are too many is not.
Where you can simply wonder around and stalk someone and not get more then 3 mo in jail.
Where you have two choices if someone robs you...surrender of flee.
Where you have no right to defend your property against people if they break in, or damage it.
Where simply saying the wrong thing on the radio can land you in jail? Where the goverment agents can man-handle you and you can't sue them for injuries?
And this is the same country that says that violent video games need to be rated with a XXX rateing, or a R rateing. Where if someone doesn't like something it automaticly becomes illigel.
This country of ours...aka canada, is truely sad. They call it a "free country", it's not.
To slap in some more info, the average canadian pays 58% in income tax. Then an aditional 7-43% on all goods they buy?
This is one sad country, where the people are sheep and don't stand to fight for the goverment pushing them around. If these people looked at the laws they were trying to pass(after summer break), they would turn white, melt in their shoes, and wish they were somewhere else.
Om, nomnomnom...
Yes, most industrialised societies are far removed from the concept of death, such that it shocks them to even consider it. Yes, we should have it clear in our mind that eating meat intrinsically involves death.
No, those deaths do not involve the routine doling out of unnecessary pain. In fact, trouble is gone to to make it as quick and painless as possible. Do you honestly think over a hundred years of animal rights activism has done nothing?
The original poster seems to be under this misapprehension too. If he works at an animal shelter he should know that it's possible to kill without, or minimising, pain. If you believe people shouldn't kill animals well and good, but don't mix it up with dated rhetoric painting honest workers in slaughterhouses as vicious torturers. It's the same as the Draze test, which is still being brought up in Australia as a reason to stop all experimentation on animals even though it has been banned for over a decade.
...but it was too distracting being constantly surrounded by food, looking up at me with it's liquid little eyes, as if to say "Eat me! Please, Sir, I'm ever so tasty. There's a microwave in the break room, you can cook me there."
If he meant for us to stand out in the sun... blah blah...
Sorry for the extra-OT post. I like the idea, anyway... :) Mmmm, bacon...
The streets shall flow with the blood of the Guberminky.
Like the announcement from the Japanese government that they would restrict the sale of PS2 because it could be used as an instrument of war? Everyone realized that was just a big piece of Sony propoganda backed by the Japanese gov't.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
One must remember as an American that the values of different cultures are not our own. In many countries, for instance, sexual acts and nudity on television and in media are much more acceptable than violence. We have discussed this before in the discussions of internet censorship. Having not spent any amount of time in Britain, and only knowing a few people from there myself, I cannot say how exactly they feel about violence, but probably more strongly than the American people do, who are somewhat self-righteous about sex.
Eh...
My point is this if i even have one. Slaughterhouses arent exactly the best place for anyone except perhaps a masochist or movie director. When it comes to violence in video games I hardly even notice it. Some would say ive been desensitised and perhaps that is true, but I also know its not real. I havent played soldier of forture but Im betting money the violence would have little effect on me. The slaughterhouse on the other hand allowed me to add puke to the list of things those young slaughterhouse sweepers get to clean up. Having said that I'll stick to diablo 2 for a while. Oh no, my amazon is shooting arrows and the big boss exploded in a pool of blood. Now this violence i dont agree with mainly cause it can conver up magic items making them hard to find.
--- Always remember. 99.36% of all statistics are inaccurate.
> Dylan and Klebold (the killers at Columbine High School
Dylan Klebold was one of them. Eric Harris was the other.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
One reason I use iron cookware =)
Getting calcium from non-meat sources can be tough, too; if you're a strict vegan, supplements won't do because most of them come from oyster shells (at least, so a vegan friend tells me). Despite this, I don't know any vegans with especially brittle bones.
B12 -> brewer's yeast. Ok, not so appealing, but it can be done and many grow to like it.
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
I enjoy playing Quake, Halflife and so on. And also my friends enjoy being killed by me over and over again. Everyone can distinguish between a game and reality. But the german government doesn't allow me to play those "bloody" games just because I'm only 15. In the USA you can get every (nearly) computer game you want to, so why do you complain?
I don't believe that the government has the right to tell the people what they are allowed to see or not, which is the same with sex-scenes on TV. Of course, a four year-old child shouldn't be able to see these things, but it is the duty of it's parents to decide that.
After all, don't worry! I know that one can get the games/videos he/she wants to. There is always a friend who has bought it. It is the same with Quake in germany: No one may buy it, everyone has it!
First of all - yes, video games are violent, second of all - violence is good for you. Violence is the primary factor affecting survival of the species. If our ancestors were not violent how would it be possible today to have such brilliant expressions as the Silence of the Lambs and the Natural Born Killers? What about starting wars that reduce population and stimulate economic growth? It is thus imperative that many of us remain violent - for the good of the humanity.
You can't handle the truth.
> This is stupid. The US already has the ESRB, so we don't NEED any laws for this.
Were you aware that British Columbia is not part of the United States? You're a product of the US primary education system, aren't you?
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
"The simple fact is, it is easier to have a proper diet eating meat because you don't have to look far and wide for the non animal alternatives that will have what you need" (OT: Fuck it's a wonder Linux ever became popular with that kind of attitude, windows came preinstalled).
Lets just say that it's no more effort for me to pick up a few more extra vegetables at the supermarket than it is to buy meat. Or something.
I don't have to cross mountains or kill ogres to buy some soy based snack. My supermarket (the cheapest one around here) has an ample vegetarian section.
"it is cheaper then some of the foods you would need"
In my experience the reverse is true. Meat, even shitty mince, costs about NZ$6/kilo. I can go knaw on a tree for that price.
"Suffering is life and animals and humans will always suffer in some way"
If "suffering" is happening every day then it's ok for me go kill something? If "suffering" is happening all the time then it doesn't matter?
What?
If you like eating meat, like my girlfriend does, that's ok. But all the pro-meat arguments you've put forward here are arse. Really.
-Docvert converts MSWord to OpenDocument, clean HTML
Or something showing an image much more as it would be in real life. Inhumanly brutal. After all, you /.ers parade for truth, do you not?
I guess our definitions of "sentient" differ.
[ home ]
Apparently, the things we evolved from are not vegetarian. However, some of us have moved on since those days (-;
If you are a vegetarian, you probably know that you have to be careful to eat the right things to get all your amino acids.
Bzzzzzt. (a) Milk contains complete protien, (b) there are studies that show that it's extremely hard to become protien deficient anyway, (c) Even a vegan with variety in their diet can get complete protien. You don't need to get all the amino acids in each meal. A nutritious diet requires variety regardless of whether you eat meat.
Still, I can't help but think the world would be a better place if more people at least considered science when making decisions about their lifestyles
I did "consider science", as you can see above. You on the other hand seem resigned to the fact that you're basically a smart ape.
We have the highest youth suicide rate in the world.
There's probably more blood in other games, but trust me- SOF has brought a wince to the face of many a jaded gamer who wouldn't bat an eye at a Quake3 gibfest as they see an SOF enemy have both his arms blown off with a shotgun and then sink to the ground with a knife in his groin.
I'd have to AOL that. Doom, Quake and other games have that cartoonish feel to them.
The first time I tried the SOF demo, it completely grossed me out. It feels way too realistic for my taste.
You hit a guy in the foot, he jumps around moaning for a bit and then starts to shoot at you again. You know you have to blast him once or twice more to finish him off, and you know that in the process you'll probably blow off at least one of his arms.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
Yeah, but age correlates to maturity. Not perfectly, but significantly. If we could reliably measure maturity (whom would you trust to produce such a test?), then this might be an issue, but we don't have that.
Like it or not, humans are at the top of the food chain.
I disagree. Disease-causing microorganisms that kill humans are at the top of the food chain, hehe.
Never heard of that song, no.
Yes, we really played that, as loud as the system could handle it. Then we got a better system!
It seems to go with the frame of mind everyone is in. Very surreal. I think though, it induced more the opposite. It allowed you to focus on something other than what you are doing.
If you think about the job, you won't last long. Quite a few people didn't last 2 hours, some less than that. I think that is the major reason for being excluded from jury duty. You have to disassociate yourself from it, or it tears you up inside. Lambs were the worst. Slashing their throats, and letting them bleed to death. Gruesome.
It's a job, and you have to treat it like any other manual labour type activity. Put your brain in neutral and get the job done.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
Some good points.
I think people are getting a little carried away with the biological rationale for eating meat.
As best we know (or as best as I remember from those anthro classes), our digestive system evolved over a long period of time eating about 80%non-meat (vegetables, fruits, nuts, insects) and 20%meat. I find it hard to believe that this would really be considered "unhealthy"! People take it too far, or course, when they use this to justify eating much more meat than our systems are designed to process.
My point is that our evolution is relevant to what we eat today, because our systems are still designed for that old-fashioned diet. On the other hand, we didn't live as long back then, so we didn't have to worry so much about cancer or cholesterol. Anyway - eat meat if you want, just don't overdo it! And eat some inects too (can strict vegans eat insects?).
-------
-------
"It was people! People soiled our green!"
Riiiight, what about Dave Scott? He's the only athlete to win the ironman triathlon more than twice (6 times actually) and he is indeed a vegetarian.
it's about giving parents the necessary information to weed out the stuff they don't want their kids to have a part of.
Right. Another case of someone thinking for someone? Let everybody think for themselves!!!
That must work out to be rather handy.
--------
Never call a man a fool. Borrow from him.
Your freedom to ignore ends where it clashes with other's freedom to live.
"Right to life" means "right not to be murdered." I have no obligation to help people beyond the simple restriction on infringing their basic rights, as defined by The People and enforced by the government. I may assist them more if I wish; this is called charity.
Even more basic is that rights must be backed up by force. You believe that certain rights (should) exist that currently are not supported by our government. Fine: go change public opinion, and then The Laws will follow in due time. (I would suggest, however, that attacking others who are clearly more respected by the rest of your audience is not the way to go about doing this.)
The key here is that the rest of the world at this time has no power over the sovereign United States. If the US loses some of its sovereignty to a larger power (say, the UN), the larger society formed by this union would then agree to certain additional rights for its People, possibly including the ones you want.
You have a right to liberty. You do not have a right to luxury. Fuck your luxury. You don't deserve it.
Your reasoning is self-contradictory. If the government restricts your luxury, then you really don't have liberty. You can't pursue happiness if what makes you happy is considered by others to be decadent.
And what do you mean by, "I don't deserve it?" I deserve anything I am able to get, as long as it doesn't involve breaking the social contract (as defined by The People and codified into The Laws). If my company is willing to pay me $X, my fair market value is AT LEAST $X; perhaps it is higher, and I just don't have the right job.
Aside: I wish people would stop judging their happiness in comparison to others. Yes, there will always be rich people. That isn't going to go away, unless government sometime imposes an income cap, and I assure you that will never happen.
The key to happiness is not to judge yourself in comparison to your neighbor. If you do that, then you'll always be unhappy unless you happen to be successful, which normally does not happen to people driven by envy.
You are nothing but an amoral totalitarian[*} creep.
Ad hominem. Stop the raving and come back with a real argument. In the meantime, go on eating your granola bars and living in a cardboard box, if that makes you feel better about the suffering elsewhere in the world. As an engineer in the technology field, my work is having a tangible, positive effect on the world economy.
And...Don't even compare yourself with Ayn Rand. Your philosophy is inconsistent, and I hope you realize this one day. I, on the other hand, came up with all of this on my own and only recently discovered that some other very smart person came up with it 60 years ago.
I will speak no more on this topic.
Proudly objectivist and libertarian,
Kyle
[ home ]
Science and Technology allow you the choice to eat what you want and maintain a healthy diet (by science and technology I am including organized agriculture, bread making, plant breeding, etc).
However, that doesn't allow you to ignore the fact that our digestive system is (as best we know) designed to process a diet of about 20% meat and 80% other (plant products, insects, etc.). Don't jump all over me about those numbers - of course we don't know for sure, but that is Human Anthropolgy's best guesstimate.
I hardly think that such a small percentage of meat intake would be considered that unhealthy! Sure you can choose to avoid meat altogether, and that may even be healthier (considering we humans live longer now and have to worry more about long term effects of diet), but don't delude yourself into thinking your digestive system has "moved on" along with your philosophy.
People that choose to completely ignore the biological arguments are just as silly as those who use those same biological arguments to justify excessive meat consumption. Nobody is saying you have to do what our ancestors did, just don't ignore what our system is designed to process.
-------
-------
"It was people! People soiled our green!"
If you want a good movie about WWII, Stalingrad is an excellent choice. Set on the Eastern front, and shot from the German perspective, it illuminates the barbaric pointless nature of war is a way that wussy Tom Hanks movie can only dream about.
This Sig Intentionally left blank
Okay, I know I'm going to get flamed like hell for this, but I am actually in favor of a game rating system... Of course, I'm 29 and can buy whatever the heck I want, but hear me out before responding.
Video game makers are heavily restricted in the content they can put on a game, especially console games (although not as much as most parental groups would like). The lack of "adult-oriented" (ie. violent)content on consoles is no big deal now, but the new generations of consoles (DC, PS2, etc) will change a lot of how consoles are viewed and used.
In the minds of most non-game playing adults, game players = kids. This is not true, obviously, but try convincing anyone of that. A rating system could change that, and I (and you, after you turn 18) would not be limited to watered down, tame versions of games.
It would also help to re-focus attention on bad kids to where it belongs: the parents and society. Example: Did little Jimmy go nuts and shoot up the school? Does everyone want to blame the latest gory FPS? Well, it was clearly marked for adults only, so why did the parents let him play it?
A ratings system would releive game makers of the responsibility to raise our kids, and allow them to do what they do best.
Of course, it still sucks if you are under 18.
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
you ran for the Green party in the last election? I'm impressed. I'm interested in joining the party.
-- This sig is.
Isn't renting computer games kinda stupid anyway? It's easier than finding a whole download off the internet, but still... It's like saying "please, pretty please pirate this game..." Sheesh.
grow your own
The bus came by and I got on
That's when it all began
There was cowboy Neal
At the wheel
Of a bus to never-ever land
I'd rather be lucky than good.
Actually, I've always been partial to section one.
It prevents such debacles as the first amendment (Yes! Let's tell everybody the Holocaust never happened and that all Jews muct die - it's not like anybody can stop us), and the right to bear arms (but I won't get into that one right now).
No right is absolute in Canada, which makes Canada just like the United States, only we're up front about it.
Is this post not nifty? Sluggy Freelance. Worshi
Correct, I am a Lacto-Ovo Vegetarian. I chose not to eat meat, or anything made from a meat byproduct. People constantly try and 'tempt' me with cooked animal flesh, I find the very though of eating meat sickening. But thats my opinions, and i'm not going to force them upon the rest of humanity.
---
--
Insert Witty Sig Here
Well said.
I personally spent a great many years on a farm. Some of the cows were very much pets. They would "visit" you any time you were out amongst them and you could pet them, ride them, talk to them and pretty much treat them like any pet. Guess which cows the people on that farm had butchered for their own use? The pets of course. Some would say this is hypocritical. We (as farmers) knew that the animals were raised for a particular purpose, to be eaten. We therefore chose to eat the ones that we were most familiar with. We knew the animal, we knew from day one what that animal's purpose was, and we made sure that purpose was fullfilled. Also, we killed the ones we ate ourselves (each person took a turn) because the older generation believed it was important for everyone to understand that death is a part of life, and a part of eating meat. Looking your pet in the eye for the last time, patting his head, walking back ten paces, raising the gun, and pulling the trigger isn't easy. It hurts like hell if you are a softy like me. But it teaches you something that most city living people will never know. It teaches you that everything has a place. Even though you may not like that place, it exists for a reason.
I agree that some form of "kill your own meat" should be "taught" in school or some similar situation where the child/person has to face that eating meat means something dies. Putting them in a situation like I went through (raise the animal as a pet and then "kill your own meat") will just drive the idea home in a way that no other can. Perhaps some would say this makes me twisted. But it's a part of me. I know what happens to make that steak on my dinner table. And I still eat it gladly. The cows, steers, and other meat animals have served their purpose in life.
Bite my yammer.
I'd like to think that, as computer-game violence gets more realistic-looking and intense, many gamers would get turned off by it. I fear this isn't the case. Those Sgt. Rock types aren't going to stop and think about the atrocities going on in the game if they get wounded by bone fragments or burned by napalm. They're going to laud the attention to detail, and they're going to make sure they frag the guy next to them before his potential bone fragments get too close.
The problem is the nature of the beast: the player is invulnerable. Sure, if he's not careful he can lose hit points or functionality, but a player can't feel pain. This is why watching other people suffer and die can be sold as entertainment.
(No, there is no legislative conclusion to be drawn from this. Keep your slippery-slope rhetoric to yourself.)
Commonly the case with slaughtering is:
Kill quickly and painlessly (typically a bullet just off center in the brain). Then, hang and bleed before the blood or body has time to harden. In the cases where I have been involved in the slaugher of animals, we swooped in as soon as the gunshot was fired and the animal was on the ground. This makes for a painless (or as painless as possible) death, and still gives you really good meat.
Just my $.02 as an ex-farmer.
Bite my yammer.
Okay... You are oversimplifying a rather interesting point about the modern consumption of meat. What those 'health gurus' actually say is that eating the AMOUNT and type of meat that we americans generally do (factory farm raised, chemically treated), is bad for us in the long term. However eating better meat less frequently actually has health benefits, mainly derived from the proteans et. al. that are the reasons why meat tastes so yummy. Basically they say that like almost everything else about modern american society, its okay to eat meat in moderation (moderation being a much lower level than 'normal'), however not to excess. Like drinking red wine, eating prunes, etc.
There are of course health benefits to a well thought out, well prepaired vegetarian life style as well. And you avoid the 'suffering' of animals, by deciding to kill plants most of which have a far more developed nervous system.
On a personal note, I have eaten several animals that I have seen born and raised, then killed. I can categorically say that they did not suffer.
Yep. Me, I'm just a lacto-ovo-carno vegitarian.
--------------------
WWW.TETSUJIN.ORG
- - - -
The real Tetsujin 28 is a giant robot.
Didn't I mention that the conditions under which I would eat a human would be to avoid starvation? Health, nastiness, toxicity has nothing to do with immediate survival concerns. You'd eat dirt if you were hungry enough.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
If you didn't want pepper sprayed in your face, perhaps you should have moved off the road when asked, and refrained from tearing down security fencing. You could have continued your protest elsewhere. This is a technology forum. If you want to discuss the politics of protest, go to http://www.LookAtMe!!LookAtMe!!.org As a Canadian who has taken part in constructive protest I am embarrassed by the actions of these professional protesters. They will not let this silly issue go away because they seek personal glory. Get a life.
A sadist enjoys causing pain, and a masochist enjoys feeling pain. I disregard it, and only consider the results of pain.
look at evolution. The experience of pain evolved because it was unpleasant, so animals like us would avoid it and not get burnt to death or whatever.
Many worthwhile things can only be had through accepting pain, I would go so far as to say that any expenditure of energy is painful to some degree. You have to consider the results, not the process. Sometimes pain simply has to be endured in oneself and disregarded in others.
I also find it extremely irrational to consider causing physical pain absolutely unacceptable, but causing mental anguish acceptable (it's "wrong" to flog a criminal, but "right" to lock him up an make him watch his affairs fall to pieces and then treat him as a social leper). Pain is pain, whether caused directly or indirectly.
I wouldn't go out of my way to cause pain to an animal (or a human), and it is almost always preferable in practical terms to avoid causing pain (if for no other reason, just to keep in the habit), but you have to ask how far you are willing to go out of your way to avoid it.
Are you willing to risk fouling the meat and poisoning humans? Are you willing to reduce the quality of the meat and take a lower price? How much time of trained technicians are you willing to pay for to ensure a totally painless kill?
To me, the question isn't "What is the most humane way to end this being's life?" but "Which is the cheapest and most efficient way to convert this livestock to meat?"
What it boils down to me (for the specific case of slaughter) is: if the animal isn't just an object, you've got no business killing it; if it is just an object, why should you care about one particular signal in its control mechanism?
Well, I guess now we know where the expression "pardon my french" comes from.
This is a good chance to demonstrate a weakness of Babelfish. The AC's disguisting comment translated as "eat a tank of marde, pi kisses your mother".
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Well, what do you want? The gaming industry is trying to do some measure of self-policing, with self-imposed ratings (which are probably higher than necessary for some games). SoF has a nice sized red sign on it that says what's in the box (graphics violence, gore, language). Unfortunately a lot of parents don't pay attention. You think that putting more restrictions on who can buy this stuff is actually going to make a difference?
I think it's a lame move on the part of the Government of British Columbia. What are they achieving? Nothing. They're restricting where you can buy SoF? Big hairy deal. Parents who don't bother to read the game ratings anyway aren't probably going to care. So what's been gained?
And btw, just because the guy who posted the story had to bring in his whole Veganism spew, don't get the idea that we ALL go for that. I'm an omnivore. Why not? Meat == good. Besides, if we weren't meant to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
My morality is founded on survival, only survival (personal, family, and species) is axiomatic, everything else is only practical. Pain is neither good nor bad, only the results are significant.
If a child burns his fingers on a match, and learns not to play with matches, the pain was a good thing because it produced a good result.
If you beat a dog to work out your frustrations, and he eventually turns vicious and attacks someone, the pain was bad because it produced a bad result.
Causing pain without reason usually produces bad results. It disrupts an animal's training, and makes him more violent. However, in the slaughterhouse, you are no longer concerned with training the animal to continue to be docile in the future, only with getting the meat, so (aside from something stupid like hurting an unrestrained animal and having him panic and run amok) avoiding causing it pain is no longer relevant.
damn brits suck anyways
Educate yourself first, then you can make an informed fool of yourself.
It never fails to amaze me that Americans (trolls, flamebaiters, average folks and brilliant people) know next-to-nothing about their largest trading partner, closest ally and next door neighbour (that's Canada, by the way). When I was 9 years old (1972) my family drove to Florida from Ottawa. I got a great kick out of telling everyone I met I was from the capital of Canada, and asking them if they knew where it was. Almost everyone replied "Toronto". Some thought we lived in igloos. Seriously. I thought that was hilarious, and would reply with the capitals of most of the US states. I was a rude little brat.
To this day I run into the same ignorance on the internet (frequently on /.), with tourists in Vancouver, in the media. Americans know far less about the rest of the world than we know about America. Is it some sort of insularity? A fear of the unknown? Superiority? What?
Educate your children. It's good for them. The world is larger than the USA.
FYI:
British Columbia is on the West Coast of North America, about 8 time zones or 7-8000 kilometres from Britain. BC is directly north of Washington state and Montana, and extends north along the Pacific coast to Alaska. The northern boundary is with the Yukon Territory, and the eastern boundary is with Alberta. BC is about the size of California, New Mexico and Nevada added together, but with a population of about 3-4 million. Much of the province is mountainous, with the Northern Rockies, Kootenays, Columbia and Coast mountain ranges. The coastal rainforest is wet and mild; inland it is dry with more extreme temperatures (hot in summer, cold in winter). BC has some of the world's best skiing and snowboarding.
The capital is Victoria, located on the huge Vancouver Island in the Pacific Ocean. The largest city is Vancouver(popn 2million ). Vancouver has a surging high-tech industry, including such companies as PMC-Sierra(HQ), Electronic Arts (sports games div'n), Creo(HQ), MacDonald-Dettwiler, and Ballard Power Systems(HQ). Vancouver is also home to Stormix Technologies, developers of Storm Linux, and FirePlug Computers (recently acquired by Lineo), developers of ThinLinux and the Edge Router project. Plus many more...
The concept of "objective" news reporting was a fabrication, to sell more newspapers. We are human, and as far as I'm aware, the reporters all are too. They're not necessarily GOING to be 100% unbiased, because they ARE HUMAN.
Not that I don't agree with you. I think the vegan rant should've been skipped completely. Just because you have decided that you're not going to eat meat, or anything that comes from an animal, that doesn't make you more morally "right" than anyone else, and it's totally hypocritical of Jamie to post it at all. Just post what's newsworthy - your dietary habits don't qualify.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
It prevents such debacles as the first amendment (Yes! Let's tell everybody the Holocaust never happened and that all Jews muct die - it's not like anybody can stop us)
OMG! I can't believe you're against free speech!
Telling people that the holocaust never happened is harmless, as long as it's false. What if it wasn't? The evidence is all there, and being forced to go look and prove it for yourself by facing the occasional denier is a good thing, IMHO.
Don't forget, there are also holocaust exaggerators: people who talk about mass produced goods made from the flesh of murdered Jews. This kind of propaganda was common and spread by the allied governments immediately after the war (and still spread in Israel). We don't need to demonize the Nazis, it clouds the mind to how such organizations gain support.
And a much more commonly, and dangerously, denied thing (even by our government) is our role in the holocaust. Concentration camps are expensive, the Nazis would have preferred to just ship their Jewish prisoners out of their conquered territory, but, to our eternal shame, we said "No thanks! We've got enough Jews here. You have to deal with them in your own way."
That should stand out in every Canadian's mind as much as the Japanese Canadian internment camps, if not more so.
The MPAA in the US, and I think is used in Canada as well, is a voluntary system. Sure, your film probably won't go anywhere if it isn't rated, but it's still not legally enforced. Computer/video games also use a voluntary system. It hasn't yet become the marketing tool that the MPAA ratings have..
This is off-topic, I know, but you better believe the movie ratings are little but marketing. I've never been carded for an R-rated movie, and I've been going to see 'em since around 12 or so. Even with the recent surge of "protect the kids" (at least around here..), never been carded. Ever After, a Drew Barrymore flick, modification of Cinderella, for example. Pretty good movie IMHO.. when it was released for theatres, it got a PG-13 rating for a few swears. When released for video, 3 swear words were cut, was re-rated, got a PG. Made it a 'family' movie. But nobody would go to see a PG movie by choice, right?
Excuse my somewhat coherant rant..
Yea. Save the cats. Kill the dogs! :)
I'm sorry. I like cats. I think they're extremely cool and intelligent animals (ferrets also rock, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise).
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Yeah, it's a gray area all right. If you objectively list what happens in a cartoon, it's horrifying. Then actually watch it and it's hilarious.
I guess some folks are that way about shooter games. I've seen several posts on this thread where people say they LIKE the gore in SOF. After all, it's only pixels, yada yada. I see their point. I just find it distasteful.
And it's not new with 'toons and shooter games. I have some classic fairy tale books from the 20's and 30's where the little kids get frozen in a lake while skating, get ground up and baked into bread, all sorts of horrors. I think the thing is that fairy tales (and by extension, cartoons) are predicated on unreality, and the resulting distance allows us to focus on the moral lesson, or in 'toons, the joke. It's games that are predicated on hyper-reality where the violence has no comfortable distance that I have a problem.
Why must the government legislate this stuff? The majority of games on store shelves today have rating markers on them. What, parents need to be TOLD by the government that games might be violent? Give me a break. Too many parents don't bother to parent at all, instead leaving it up to the government to do so. That's the only kind of parent this will actually benefit. (And they really should be more involved with their kids to begin with, not leaning on the government to do it for them.)
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
I think that I will buy the game, and play it whilst eating a rare filet mignon. Maybe even let my dog into the neighbors yard for a little "relaxation" with their mutt in heat also... Please people, animals do not have souls, they simply cease to exist when eaten, never knowing the difference between living till they are 100, or dying as veal... I do not agree with torturing animals, but what kind of world do we live in where animal rights are fought for as vigorously as abortion rights? If i stick a puppy in a garbage disposal on national television, how long till i'm in jail or dead from an activist group? But now, how about i stick a small vacu-shredder up my crotch and chase my 4 month old unborn child around my uterus until it's cut into pieces? Or better yet, wait till he/she is 8 1/2 months old, pull it's head out, stick a scissors in it's skull and sucks it's brains out in the name of saving the mother's life, and preserving choice?!?!?! Man, this world is screwed up... (and i will most likely NOT buy that game... and don't even like steak)
Well... My opinion is the direct opposite.
It doesn't matter if you kill the animals, as they probably don't even know what is happening.
The only thing that matters is that you don't cause them any unnecessary suffering.
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
In the twilight, unknown"
See I feel free as a parent to make those kind of decisions, for my child. I do not need the government to decide what is appropriate or not so for my kid. Why is it that some parents will let the society raise thier children.
Oh shut up. I was talking about the threat that the US could jump on the bandwagon, which it is in a highly probable situation to do.
Yes I paid attention. Yes I knew this was about British Columbia. You get a point for being anal.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I don't know anyone who eats meat who says "I cannot eat a meal with only vegatables," although I know both non-veg people who say "I will not etc." and veg people who say "I cannot eat that, it has meat." Something about that attitude rankles rather. I also don't know any meat eaters who insist on restaraunt changes because of dietary concerns. It's a hassle to hang with veggies.
And as far as Nazi's and bridges, I'd apply those analogies to things like wearing a brand of clothing, whereas meat is more like wearing pants at all. Sure, you could argue that "because everyone does it" isn't sufficient reason to wear pants, but you still look silly in your underthings.
I dunno. Factory farming involves the animal living in a cage for its entire lifespan. If you go out and kill an animal in the wild, at least the animal has a chance for a normal life, not to mention a chance to outwit you and survive.... I always thought hunting was actually less cruel!
By sport hunting I meant hunting for the thrill of killing an animal, not hunting in order to eat the flesh of the animal you'd slain. The former mocks the sanctity of life, while the later comes closer to "natural order" and whatnot.
Ushers will eat latecomers.
IP is just rude.
Is there any torture so subl
If that's the kind of game you prefer, that's great. Buy more of them to show developers that there is interest in that type of game. But please, don't sit there and tell ME what kind of games I should be able to buy/not buy, or what I should or shouldn't like.
If you have kids, and you don't want them playing violent FPS-class games, the decision should be yours to make. But once again, you have your own set of values and morals - don't assume that your decision is right for the entire population, or that your morals and values are right and everyone else's either (a) are wrong or (b) can go to hell. I don't try to restrict your choice. You shouldn't try to restrict anyone else's, and restricting choice in the name of "the children" is only going to save some lazy parents the brainpower that it'd take to pay some attention to what their kids are doing.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
And another thing, you and I know as much what a cow is like from the inside as we do about an ear of corn. Who says that corn doesn't suffer for being domesticated at least as much as cattle do? And don't tell me plants don't feel because
Ushers will eat latecomers.
IP is just rude.
Is there any torture so subl
I live in BC so I feel the impact of this decision by the BC government. By having Solder of Fortune rated in this manner, I now have to go to an 'Adult' video store to get this game. Clearly, this is unreasonable as software resalers should be able to sell this game.
This is not a 'high brow' discussion. This problem is very simple to solve.
BC has been ruled by a socialist government for the past 10 years. People are growing tired of it and they are passing more and more ridiculous legislation. The government hit an all time low in a recent poll ( 13% for them while 65% for the opposition )
A couple of years ago, they passed the freedom of privacy and information act. While I appalaud the effort to restrict access to information to certain third parties, the government went too far. Essentially, it is a crime in BC now to make simple requests such as driving background checks in the context of a court case.
Past legislation aside, this new regulation is the work of one man; Andrew Petter. He is the Attorney General of BC who has taken it upon himself to make this a personal conquest. Surprisingly, the government doesn't totally support him.
Please don't us this as an example. Most BCer's are not socialists and do not want to restrict the use of information. This is the work of one man within a fractus and very unpopular government. Soldier of Fortune is not pornography.
Hopefully, the people of BC can be liberated as there is an election coming soon.
:) Vote BC Liberal.
I must say that although the human dismemberment is a big issue with SOF, I must say that Redneck Rampage Rides Again was by far the best for killing digital animals
In RRRA you have pigs and cows and chickens, there's even a weapon where you shoot arrows shoved up a chicken's ass at the baddies. To me that is much worse than pumping a couple rounds into a cow, hearing a pitiful moo, and it's dead.
Now as for the game itself...I own it (my wife and daughter got it for me for father's day). It's not my bag of chips, but it's a novalty. I wanted it for the didgital pleasure of shooting a bad guy in the nuts and having a realistic :) outcome. Very theraputic after a stressful day of work.
I'm 25, this type of rating does not affect me. Would I let my daughter play it? No. Do I recommend something this violent for children, again it depends on the children, some can handle it, others can't. I can't remember a time without movies being rated, I never raised a stink when music had labels put on it, I never raised a stink when TV became rated and I have no problem with a level-headed, rational rating of games. But I also beleive a child's innocense should be gaurded for as long as possible...call it old fashioned values.
"Draw them in with the prospect of gain, take them by confusion." Sun Tzu
Do you have a reason behind that or is it axiomatic to your morality that pain is bad?
You're probably right that his presence and advocacy has resulted in stronger laws. But the I think that animal rights legislation is a bit quiet at the moment; lobbyists focus on public campaigns against organisations. For instance, the constant lobbying against places like Vet faculties at universities because they assume all research must involve horrible torture being done to cute puppies, and not that all experiments have to be approved by braces of ethics committees.
But Singer's at a US uni (Princeton?) at the moment anyway ...
Why are the ratings on the majority of games on store shelves (and the sticker on EVERY COPY of SoF, stating what sort of content is in the game) not enough to provide parents with what they need to know? Why does it have to be legislated? Why should the freedom of an adult to buy what they want, within the limits of common sense, be restricted because someone who thinks they're parent material can't be bothered to read the warning label?
This just proves how stupid people are, not that there needs to be more "protection" against violent video games. Parents: You have a brain. When making decisions about what games you want you kids playing, or what movies you want them watching, (a) READ, and (b) THINK!
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
They don't have to. That's the great part about this countr. Any idiot can make a stupid remark, anthor idiot replay to it, and so on ans so forth, until someone decides to kill someone. hopefully.
I wipe it off on tile, the light is brighter this time / Everything is 3D blasphemy / My eyes are red and gold, the hair
South Park, even without the cut scene, would have been X-rated if it wasn't a cartoon. At least I read that somewhere.
Interesting. On a similar note, I once read somewhere that a man gave birth to a 60-lb walrus. Good thing you included that citation that prevents you from sounding like a jackass (oops, too late).
And I think you are also missing the point. Restriction is restriction is restriction. The point that minors are the targets is quite moot. Restricting violent games or pornography will simply inspire more children to want either one. Someone as 'educated' as yourself should understand that long-time and simple paradox. I say give it to them if they want it. One of two things will happen : they will prove mature enough to deal with it, or they won't. In the case of the latter there will be no more desire to obtain these forbidden things and the problem will solve itself. You obviously model yourself after they whom you shun, in that you believe rights OUGHT to be restricted. Too much freedom is inherently an oxymoron. Children don't rebel for rebellion's sake, dullard. They rebel because they were not given enough liberty at a young age. And anyway, who are you, or more poignantly, who is the government, to tell children what they can and cannot see? It reminds me of the hysterical fact that Fahrenheit 451 was once banned from Americal libraries. It seems to me that Germany didn't quite take to heart what they should have learned from Hitler's occupation. Or if they did, you don't. And don't try to pull that crap that you, being a German, know something more about it than me. You get a cookie for trying though. The German government would just as soon forget that Nazism ever existed, I don't think they would want that sort of connotation over their heads; the most vocal party in the effort to remember their atrocities has always been those that were subjected to it most: the Jews. So don't pretend that you have some sort of special wisdom in the matter as you have twice implied, because you insult the people that WERE there, and I seriously doubt that you were one of them, because you wouldn't be so cynical about the restriction of rights.
I am not trying to split heirs about the issue of restriction. God knows the US is worse. But that can be said of the US on nearly any topic. You are trying to imply that you have some sort of unique perspective, and I don't see that. The only unique perspective you could have that is pertinent to the rights of children, is if your rights as a child were limited more severely. But that would have taught you. And that can't be so because you are here, after all, waving your banner of "God save the children from the big bad immoral technocrap" Don't talk to me about "modern Germany" because you are no embodiment of it.
Don't worry, I'm not going to mention the 'kettle-pot' thing again, it's apparent that you have no grasp of 'metaphor'.
Auf wiedersehen
Your freedom to ignore ends where it clashes with other's freedom to live.
This suggests that those countries should stop trying to play "Keep up with the Joneses" of the rest of the world, and feed their own people first. It does NOT follow that we in the US have an obligation to feed them at the expense of our liberty and luxury.
You obviously have a terrible habit of missing the point totally, don't you? You did not address at all my points about the World Bank and the IMF (and now the WTO) forcing this upon these countries.
And I didn't even scratch the surface of how the politics of the industrialized world works towards making things like this. Or how countries that try to go the way you suggest, eg. Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, get treated by the US.
It does NOT follow that we in the US have an obligation to feed them at the expense of our liberty and luxury.
You have a right to liberty. You do not have a right to luxury. Fuck your luxury. You don't deserve it.
And who enforces this? Last I knew, the US still owed a lot of money to the UN, and wasn't in a rush to pay up. There can be no authority without force to back it up.
You are nothing but an amoral totalitarian[*} creep. Your opinions have absolutely no ethical weight.
[*] Yes, I said totalitarian. You are obviously some sort of Objectivist, Libertarian, or "Anarcho"-Capitalist. These are nothing but forms of totalitarianism: private totalitarianism.
Are you adequate?
Well I haven't played SoF myself but i was wondering if there were any Gore level settings like in UT. If these were there and the default was set to low gore ( unlike UT!), There wouldn't be any problems now would there ?
My point exactly. Games are rated. Why should we legislate them out of regular stores? Why can't parents exercise some damned parental responsibility? I wish someone would answer that question - what's so unreasonable about expecting parents to take responsibility for their own kids? If you can bring the kid into the world, you better damn well have the gonads it takes to stand up and be responsible for 'em.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Er, just do a little research to find that plants are preferable, not meat. What is meat anyway? It's animal carcass, carrion. Don't eat it; it's yucky!
I said "my morality is survival-based" not "in my morality nothing matters about an action except whether you survive its immediate results".
There are things which contribute to survival, and things which make survival less likely; there are large effects and small effects. Since we can't know the future, we have to work in probabilities and appearances. From this comes practical principles that generally hold true, but have exceptions (like "causing pain to another being will have a negative effect" A.K.A. "gentleness"; all of the classical virtues have their survival value in many situations).
A child who plays with matches has a higher probability of killing or crippling himself, his family, his friends, etc. That's obviously a bad thing from a survival point of view.
A dog which attacks people might kill or cripple them, which is, again, obviously a bad thing from a survival point of view (unless you are training a guard dog; even then, while beating is moderately effective method, there are better ones).
See, it isn't basic to my morality that it is wrong to beat your dog, it is merely practical that beating your dog will cause bad results.
When it comes down to action, rather than words, it seems to me that a lot more people follow my morality than yours (without admitting it). They don't look too closely into the ways slaughterhouses do things, they turn a blind eye on their police's interrogation methods, and (getting away from the pain issue) given a dollar they'd rather buy a snack than feed a distant starving child for a day. I'm just one of the few who's not being a hypocrite about it.
>Parking is a hassle when you live on campus anyway.
Actually, I'm not a student, and I cycle to work every day. Sorry.
Are you serious? I'm sorry, but until you have actually PLAYED the game (and not just looked at some screen shots) your opinion on it isn't worth the time it took to type it out. SOF is a great game, I love playing it for hours, but I will admit that it is the most realistic killing game that I have ever played. The realism involved with shooting someone in the throat with a zoomed in sniper rifle and hearing them choke on their own blood can't be replicated in a dman screen shot. Sorry man...
1. Social Acceptance.
Personally, I've never been 'reviled' by my peers for being a vegetarian; of course, I'm not terribly picky about what I eat (other than not eating meat). Granted, I dislike going to McDs or Burger King since there's nothing for a vegetarian to eat there but french fries and side-salads. (I've heard animal fats are used in the fruit pie things, not sure it's true.) Just about anything else is fine though; I eat pizza, pasta, salad, potatoes, etc, that is, things you can find at any mainstream restaurant. In short, nobody but you has, in my experiences, compared my decision not to eat meat with some drastic social faux pas.
2. Biology/Economy
This is a red herring argument. First of all, I've known plenty of vegetarians who were both overweight and underweight, and I myself hit smack in the middle of the 'recommended' weight for my height/build. Perhaps vegetarians are, on average, lighter than non-vegatarians, but then, -most- Americans are overweight, so... so what? Nor do I, or other vegetarians I know, take a lot of dietary supplements. (I do take a B-complex 'stress formula', but that's because of my caffeine intake and my stress levels, not my vegetarian diet).
Secondly, the limiting factor in agriculture is not how much usable nutrition can be crammed into a cubic foot of product, but how much usable nutrition can be derived from an acre of ground. If you want human-edible food, grow potatoes, soy, corn, or wheat. Further, cattle are generally fed on grain, in pens - free-ranging, grass-eating cattle are used only for extremely expensive cuts of luxury meats, so, you are turning human-edible food into other human edible food, -and- you are doing so at a 16:1 loss of usable calories (IIRC, 'Diet for a Small Planet', 1980 edition).
3. Ethically
I -utterly- disagree with this. I think that to breed a population of animals to be kept in pens, force-fed, and brutally murdered, in an essentially joyless life is -far- less ethical than going into the wild and ending prematurely the life of a creature who has at least -had- a life; if you make a point of only hunting lamed and elderly animals, that's even better. And, of course, deer are in constant danger of overpopulation so something will kill them - starvation or hunting. (Of course, the -reason- they're overpopulating is because humans killed all the wolves south of Alaska, so, this only applies in the north end of the US and the south end of Canada, really, and is the situation itself is the result of unethical behaviour.)
I will note that I'm not a vegan, and have no particular objection to the use of wool, dairy, and unfertilized eggs for various purposes, as long as the source animals are well-treated. I'll also note that I don't go around trying to 'convert' people to vegetarianism, but I do respond to blanket attacks on vegetarianism, -especially- attacks that try to portray vegetarians as being somehow 'worse people' than meat eaters. I would thank you to do your research before debating the merits of vegetarianism and meat-eating, and to keep bigotted personal comments out of the debate in the future.
--Parity
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
This coming from a jurisdiction that allows child pr0n.
Can you not see the utter irony in this?
Something which is a fictitous bunch of pixels that resembles violence is verboten.
Photographic evidence of a crime against children is OK.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
yes!
Now, i've seen what the introduction of religion into discussions can yield, and some of it wasn't too nice. (and please no flamebait/troll rating; just speaking my mind + humor). But as i recall, on the very fifth day of the creation of the world, God gave control over all creatures to the Man and Woman He created.
For those thousands of years, (maybe even still, i dont know) animal sacrifices were a requirement every day/week/year/sin/giving thanks/other events. Cattle, sheep, birds, nothing but the best for the Almighty.
animals are ours for the using.
my argument to anyone if you if you aren't religious: We're the top of all the food chains and webs. nearly everything is eaten by humans, even glue, by most human young. if you believe eating animals is a crime because they have to hurt and die for us, then I pity the plants that you kill and eat. what gives you the right to uproot innocent potatoes, pluck out their eyes, and mash them up and drizzle them with succulent brown gravy?!?! murderer! you tear the ears out of cornstalks, douse them with butter and salt, and proceed to chew on them in either a typewriter-style or corkscrew-type motion! (ways of rotating the corncob.) WOE TO YOU THE DAY ATTACK OF THE KILLER TOMATOES BECOMES A REALITY!!!
for either set of beliefs, just remember that ranting is a turnOFF. A calm discussion minus the ranting is more likely to be heard.
BTW, im still up for the PETA barbecue in Dodge City!
MAN! Have you ever seen Julia Child take her meat cleaver to that huge cod?! (fish, not body part) "First, I'm going to cut up this big, ugly cod!" *whack!!*
www.pbs.org if you wanna check it out!
Well, I spose half the cities and towns in the US are up shit creek then, since the early settlers weren't original enough to pick new names, and often re-used names of towns or cities in Britain or wherever else they came from (and you guys haven't got much more original since ;-)
Boston, Cambridge, New York, New Jersey, Greenwich Village, etc, etc, etc...
You want a truly bizarre one? New South Wales, in Australia, is called that bcos it reminded Captain James Cook of the Welsh coastline, EXCEPT IN REVERSE (so the land becomes sea and vice versa)!!
Grab.
"In Canada you are not allowed to own a handgun or rifle even if you are a battered wife and your husband is kicking the door in and the cops are 20 minutes away. Nazis."
This post got moderated up!? It's so obviously a troll!<BR><BR>
In case you are completely clued out from reality, a "battered wife" may indeed own a handgun or rifle. She just has to register it, like any other law abiding citizen.<BR><BR>
Perhaps it's just having a higher value of human life that you disagree with, and if so, who's the Nazi here?<BR>
-- sudo.ca
Ah ... nope.
Like I said above - just try to eat something other than Coke and chips. Eat a decent variety and you can hardly go wrong. And it's practically impossible to eat a vegetarian diet that's less healthy than Big Macs and hot dogs.
(Or, if you just meant that athletes should read before changing their diet ... I think most serious athletes learn the basics of nutrition anyway, eh?)
Jamie McCarthy
Jamie McCarthy
jamie.mccarthy.vg
Kids who can't get hold of the game by paying for it will just pirate it instead, so it's helping no-one in the end.
Innovate: to embrace, extend and extinguish
Rated 'R' (which isn't used in Canada anymore, the equivilent is '18A') is one thing, but did you ever try to buy hard core porn? SOF is being rated 'NC-17' or 'X[XX]'.
I played the demo of this game, and I *think* I remember scenes where the "bad guys" executed the hostages you're supposed to rescue, by shooting them point blank on the back of the head. Is that in the actual game ?
It is extremely violent.
- sigs are for wimps.
Important to remember is, that it's not one single person responsible for all the rulings and restrictions. In other words: the person who ultimately advised SoF to be made available to people aged at least 18, may feel the same way you do about eating animals.
How do you propose every new rule or law is to be introduced? First check to see if there's somewhere something happening that might look or sound hypocrite or contradictory to the proposed rule or law? That's impossible.
Would-be censors often use a "voluntary ratings system" as a beachhead. They know full well, from experience, that voluntary ratings swiftly become mandatory. No amount of sermonizing about "parental choice" can deflect the fact that parental responsibility goes deeper than glancing at a ratings label slapped on an entertainment product by a board of self-appointed busybodies.
When a ratings system is first imposed, either by a government oversight committee or by industry consent (think the MPAA), the public is soothed with the statement that compliance to the ratings is a voluntary decision on the part of the consumer. At first this is true.
But after many years, as new "responsible adults" cycle into the pool of consumers and the old, more watchful ones cycle out, the public impression of the ratings begins to shift. People forget, or never learn, what the original justification for those R, PG, and NC-17 ratings might have been. They become receptive to the idea that the content itself somehow intrinsically merits the rating.
Then the lawmakers step in.
Protest ratings systems wherever you find them. If you have concerns about the content your children, or you yourself consume, then you assume a concomitant responsibility to learn about the issues. You cannot, one the one hand, harp about a lack of informed choices, and on the other hand abdicate your responsibility to go out and make sure your choices are well informed!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
I'm going to keep this as short as possible because I'm not interested in debating the relative merits of one set of ethics over another...
First point: Animated violence is no big deal, you only have problems with it if you cant teach your kids the difference between that and the real thing - and if you want then by all means forbid the purchase or rental of this game in your household. Its your job to do what you have to in order to raise your kids, you cant expect the government to babysit 'em for you.
Second point: Cruelty to animals sucks, no argument, but I'll still eat 'em. Binocular vision? Omnivorous dentition? yep, this is a meat-eating species. Yes, treat 'em as well as you can whilst they are alive but once they are meat, they are food.
# human firmware exploit
# Word will insert into your optic buffer
# without bounds checking
I had a
well here i am with 5 moderator points once again, but it doesn't do me any good, because i can't moderate Jamie's silly rant as (-1, Off-Topic).
c'mon! that's great that you're a Vegan, but what the hell does it have to do with video violence? and if you wanted to say something, why didn't you just post a comment immediately like any of the rest of us?
- j
SoF's box has a picture of a soldier with a sniper rifle, a large red stop sign that says "Warning! Violent Subject Matter.", as well as an ESRB rating that says "Mature: Animated Blood and Gore, Animated Violence".
Don't these give SOME indication that this game might possibly not be suitable for a young child? Yes, SoF is a rather violent game. It makes no secret of that, and any customer at a computer store would immediately realize that it is violent.
Personally, I don't think SoF is tasteless; it's just very graphic. It deals with war, and war is a messy thing. If you shoot someone, they DO writhe in pain, and SoF shows that. I think that's better than games where people just disappear when they're shot, but it's certainly a lot less comfortable.
-John
BTW, this is NOT a statement from my employer, these are my personal opinions.
The bulk of the reasoning behind the age limitation to this game seems to be the reaction of the NPC's to pain - human or otherwise.
"For example, Soldier of Fortune depicts the agony and suffering of victims burning to death as the result of the protagonists' use of a flame-thrower. The expressions of this agony are manifested in cries of pain, screaming and physical responses to the injuries, including recoiling, flailing, grimacing and grasping at the wound site. In my opinion, therefore, the depictions of violence in Soldier of Fortune are brutal and contain an element of torture," McCausland said in her written decision.
So... it's better if they don't shriek in pain, but simply blow up into a pool of blood, like they do in Quake? Hmm.
The article in the Vancouver Sun seems to repeatedly mention that (paraphrase) "..this will give people an additional tool to help select..."... Well, if I had a pre-teen son/daughter, I don't think I'd be jumping at games with the "M" (for Mature) symbol anyway... *shrug*
Your first summary is a bit incorrect.
It's restricted in British Columbia.
In Alberta and all points east, at this point it's available like any other computer game.
I have played SoF on my badass new box with a GeForce2 GTS chip, and I have to admit that the images from the game instilled in my subconcience an insatiable bloodlust. After going on a murderous rampage, probably induced by satanic subliminal messages flashed on the screens at random times, I found that the murder of humans was not enough. I needed the blood... of... animals! I tried to resist killing them outright, I went to the San Francisco Steak House and had a rare steak, but that was not enough. I decapitated my sisters hamster by biting off its head, and nibbled on that for a quarter hour. After that, I cruised the back roads of Texas, slamming into armadillos and cats frequently and licking the gore off the fender of my 1997 Suburban. If my comments make anyone go on a murderous rampage, please post a description of your actions. Also, check out this page: www.meatstinks.com.
What was this article about again? I stopped reading two paragraphs into that vegetarian dogma... Jamie is a cool guy and all, but there was just no need for that.
F0 07 C7 C8
What ever happen to parents being in the ones to say what their children are or are not allowed to watch or play? If a parent does not know what a game is, then they sure as hell should not buy it for their kid. They should, IMHO, take an active role in the life of their child and not rely on the government to do it for them.
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
see also: Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 and Orwell's 1984.
why is it, btw, that 1984 is cited so often on /.? i think orwell was right, he was just a few years short of the mark.
-Superb0wl
-Superb0wl
It's not that I'm lazy....it's that I just don't care.
Ah, the old "evolution made me this way" dodge.
I suppose the days are gone where humans had the capacity to reason about their actions.
I am a parent, and I have a clue. My daughter will learn to frag... when she's old enough.
Brought to you by Frobozz Magic Penguin Fodder.
I think that any moderation up should be "funny," if any. Otherwise, you really didn't get it ;-)
Eh...
He starts off talking about the rating, then about an article, followed by "my analysis follows." Of what? One of two things: either an analysis of the rating or of the article.
He does neither. Instead he rants about why we shouldn't eat meat and spends only the most brief amount of time trying to tie the two together.
If he wanted to talk about why to be a vegan, then talk about that, but don't try to bring it into a discussion because of a single sentence in a still otherwise shitty article to boot.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
Actually, I disagree. The article's author is doing an excellent job of pointing out how focussed people can get about trivial issues.
I personally eat meat. I wear leather. I even buy consumer products made in third-world countries by malnourished wage-slave labor. But I'm okay with all of that, because I'm a callous, insensitive, arrogant prick. However, I agree with the author, in feeling that people who condemn fictional violence and then go home and have a nice juicy steak are somewhat lacking in a sense of proportion.
If you want to get rid of the bathwater, you've got to throw out a few babies.
how does having a food supply and clothes make one insensitive? Like it or not, humans are at the top of the food chain. We do with animals as we will. The laws of nature dictate that reality.
Do you get mad at the lions when you watch the Nature Channel when they eat deer ?!? No, you understand that it's all part of nature.
Stop being simplistic.
Killing animals and using their products is fine. Recklessly killing animals for the thrill is obscene.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
You have to be 18 to be in the same room as a box for sale--it can only be available in restricted areas. So, not only do you have to be 18 to buy the game, you have to go to an adults-only shop to buy it.
Jamie here found one word in the article, and used it as an excuse to rant.
:)
He said he has never played SoF and it shows. I'm sorry, but the giblets are the worst part of SoF realism wise. When you blow off a guy's leg, and shoot him while he spins on his other one, then you'll know gore.
As for cows, woop de do. I don't see him griping about Diablo 2, complete with a Cow Level(TM). Mind you, if he did, CmdrTaco would probably smack him upside the head, so I can see why he instead picked on the first person shooter instead.
Is this post not nifty? Sluggy Freelance. Worshi
Thus, Bad = posting scathing diatribes in the style and form of Rosan Rosannadanna.
Thank you, I'll be here all week
So I'll post about the actual game, SoF. I have played it. I have also played many other recent PC games that are somewhat violent in nature. I don't think that banning minors from buying SoF is such a bad idea. SoF is not a good game, but it does do one thing well. It depicts violence pretty graphically. Commendable. You can shoot people in the stomach and watch they intestines fall out. You can shoot them in the knee and watch them hop around in pain. You can even blow half their head off and eye the gorey remains of half a human head. WOO! Is it any substitute for good gameplay? NO WAY! I am starting to believe that SoF was made just to show how realistic PC game violence can be, and see how hot it sells a mediocre game.
Is banning the game the best long term solution to keep small children from turning into killers? No. This is a fix to a symptom. Instead of parents caring what their kids play, the government is having to step in and force the parents to buy the game for them, or turn the kids towards pirating the game. Once again, our complex society has done and end-run on some people who thought they were making a good decision. Those who do not comprehend their own lack of control over a complex system, are doomed to be at its mercy.
P.S.: Anyone who thinks that a video game(console, PC, or arcade) is a training simulator has either never played one, or never been on an actual killing spree.
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
B1ood
Note to self: pasty-skinned programmers ought not stand in the Mojave desert for multiple hours. -- John Carmack
Animals are not killed for food. They are killed for taste. We have food. Nobody is going to starve (quite the opposite in fact) if we suddenly stop slaughtering cows, pigs, chickens, etc. I agree that killing animals for food is not unethical, because without food I will die, and I am comfortable making the animal vs. me choice. But I've never had to make that choice and I'll bet you haven't, either.
Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
except for the part where he said "Sure, animal suffering is a bad thing"...
--
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
Not sure why this showed up here,
I meant to make it a response to another post I can't find, basically ammounting to "they are animals, not rational beings, therefor we can eat them".
hrm.
-Tannin Kal
This is the government enabling me to raise my children. Now the choice to rent these games is back in the hands of the parents.
This was just step 1. Step 2 will be the government passing a law that says permitting a child to play a restricted game is prima facie evidence of child abuse. Child Protective Services will kick in your door, take your child, and raise it for you. (Ok, somewhat exaggerated. Maybe. But the ever-vigilant Nanny State does indeed think it knows better than you, so watch out.)
To sum up: he said his analysis of either the article or the rating followed. He said nothing about going off on animal rights, slaughterhouses, etc.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
I have to agree with you on that. It's not that ;)
there's no violence in quake, but SOF feels
different - more real. I downloaded the linux
demo yesterday and it gave me a sick feeling.
(from the graphics and from the fact that my
pc feels outdated
I think games should be about the fun, not about
the killing - something that the SOF designers
disagree with it seems...
Equating game violence to your aversion to eating meat is very lame. I hope you don't use your every opportunity to post on Slashdot to push your own agenda. I can see it now. ...and because we now have new high resolution monitors, everyone should vote Democrat! Take your silly arguments and go away! -Matt
Scooby Doo and Popeye need to added to the banned list too. And how about that cow on the Cartoon Network? IT HAS AN ANATOMICALLY CORRECT UDDER!! Oh, and as for the Vegan rant? Rant On brother, You won't spoil my dinner. The rib eye was real tender. But at least my cats are spayed....
My wife is like Unix. Lots of commands. Lots of arguments.
According to the US Constitution, you don't need a reason to own a gun, it is a right. Whether you want it for protection from intruders or just like guns matters not. The second amendment guarantees that.
Free as in speech, free as in beer, or free as in lunch?
I suppose it's mostly harmless, but I think the drafters of this law are wasting their time. Kids who want this game are going to get it, unless their parents are attentive. And if the parents are attentive and don't want their kid playing such games, then the law is unnecessary. I used to watch Superman as a kid, and some bunch of ninnies in the PTA came out with the opinion that it was harmful because it "blurred the line between fantasy and reality" whatever the hell that meant. My grandfather was given his first rifle at the age of 10. I think each generation has its bugaboos about what children are going to be harmed by, and I think this is just an example of an overreaction.
Most of the time I have spent playing computer games has been on such photo-realistic platforms as the Atari 2600 and the Commodore 64. I remember that when those platforms were state of the art people were complaining that games were too violent. I used to heartily disagree. I have changed my point of view somewhat in the last 15 years or so. I think there is a big difference between blowing up a few pixels in Defender to dismembering fairly realistic human (and non-human) opponents in Quake III etc. If I compare the way I played video games to some of the kids I know today I see quite a difference. There is no doubt in my mind (and I know this is anecdotal rather than empirical) that for some at least the realistic violence in computer games puts them in a more violent frame of mind.
Unfortunately it's become more or less futile to ask parents to "police" their children's consuption of violence. My mom could not have typed LOAD "$",8 on my C64 and most parents today can't check to see what software is installed on their PC at home. Maybe when my generation is the one doing most of the parenting out there we'll be able to moderate and exert some sort of control on our children's use of the then ever so popular full-emersion killing spree games, but I rather
doubt it.
Sorry for the rant.
Perhaps you should read it again. And I quote: Sure, animal suffering is a bad thing, but if you want to highlight the plight of animals
--------------------------------------------------
At this rate they'll have to start rating the classics...
Frogger: Player can crush frogs under trucks, drop them into the mouths of aligators, and drown them just for the heck of it
Pacman: Innocent fruit is eaten in a single cruel bite. Also contains anti-ghost sentiment and derogatory representations. Googly eyes?
And don't even mention COMBAT or BurgetTime...
www.niftyness.com is as tasty as walrus feet.
------
Let me give you the lowdown
Oh, and I am not a vegetarian. If meat is murder, then murder makes good cookin'.
Amen to that! (-:
I love vegetarians. Some of my favourite foods are vegetarians.
/Ignors worthless meat rant
Hey the video game industry already voluntarily rates each game it puts out. Why shouldn't a video store enforce those ratings? I for one would not like my child to go to the store and be able to rent a XXX movie. Why should it be any different for a game? Granted I should monitor his activities (he's only 5 mos now) but I remember how sneaky I was when I was younger. Lots of times I was caught and lots of times I wasn't. A parent can't be all places at all times. This just makes my job a bit easier.
"What are the three words guaranteed to humiliate men everywhere?
In Republican America phones tap you.
I'm sorry, I don't buy it.
Jamie, in the article header, you state that your analysis follows.
What follows isn't an analysis, it's preaching. What's more, it's using an issue relevant to Slashdot (age restriction of violent computer games falls in that category, I think) that's only peripherally related to something you obviously feel very strongly about, as an excuse to preach about your pet issue.
Man, I need a synonym for "preach" and quick - but you preach for several paragraphs about the cruel slaughter of animals by all us bad carnivores. Your "analysis" is nothing more than "How can this be taking place when this other thing hasn't been corrected?"
Not relevant. And a flagrant abuse as a staffer at Slashdot too.
Can someone moderate Jamie's whole 'analysis' downwards as irrelevant flamebait, please?
--Chris
And I got news for you, buddy: killing animals for their meat ain't violence. It's called food. Because this article ended up as a vegan rant, I'll respond with one of my own:
There is no moral justification for being anti-meat eating. Any sort of moral justification ends up sounding like a "we're superior to animals" argument. Y'know what I call people like that? Human chauvinist pigs. While it may not be healty to eat meat, it is indeed food. Kids understand the purpose of a slaughterhouse - it's what makes food. Killing animals for pure enjoyment of the kill is hardly the same as killing for food.
And yes, society would fall apart without standards of decency for kids. The govt. is just helping parents enforce these standards.
I've never played Soldier of Fortune...
Neither have I, therefore I am not qualified to comment on whatever violence it contains.
I'll say this, though:
However animals are treated in the real world, they are not treated that way because of SOF, or any other video game. Animals were raised in production environments and slaughtered in factories, and stray animals wandered the planet, long before video games came around.
Karma only matters to me now and zen.
Or, would you prefer that alcohol, cigarettes, porn, and guns be purchased by anyone of any age?
--
As an example, I have watched many hundreds of films that show typical Hollywood violence (ooh, ahh, he got me... you guys go on without me...) and, especialy as a child, thought afterwards how cool it would be to be a soldier, gangster, or whatever. Then in my early twenties I saw a snuff flick. I can honestly say, after having watched it, that I hope with all my might that I never, ever have to kill someone.
Can you see the difference? Hollywood violence made me want to be violent because the consequences were so ephemeral. Real murder, in addition to making me physically ill, made me not want to be violent.
The argument rests on not wanting children to be frightened, but violence should terrify anyone. It seems the mental well being of children is more important than their physical well being.
"Flame on, I'm gone"
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
"Seriously, I don't think that this piece of editorial tripe belongs in this story"
Let's see... it's an article criticizing a legal decision. Jaime pointed out one aspect of the hypocrisy in the legal decision- how does that not belong in the story? If you disagree with him, fine- but the point certain;y wasn't out of place.
Then again, if a province that slaughters thousands of animals a day but bans images of animal slaughter ISN'T being hypocritical, then I really don't understand the meaning of the word.
One final note- just because you feel evolution has made you an omnivore (which is a very debatable point- have you ever tried eating raw meat, the way every other omnivore/carnivore eats meat in the wild?) doesn't mean you SHOULD eat meat- aside from the fact that animals are tasty (I'll agree with you there), there aren't really any other arguments FOR eating meat, biologically, ethically, or environmentally speaking.
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
I don't eat just to subsist. I could eat rice, other grains, and a variety of tasteless vegetables in order to live. I eat animals because (1) they taste good, (2) they provide me with nutrients, and (3) I have the power to do so.
[ home ]
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
If this kind of stuff really interests you, the whole situation reminds me of a book I read about a year ago called On Killing : The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society Yes, this is a link to the Amazon page where it is sold, but there are some pretty interesting reviews there.
Anyways, it's all about killing in our society, and how it effects us. Everything from our removal from seeing the animals we eat murdered, to the violence we see in entertainment today is discussed.
The focus is on the military and soldiers, but Grossman shows how some things we see in the movies and video games disturbingly resemble military methods aimed to overcome the unwillingness to kill. A very scientific approach is taken on the whole, and some of the results are fascinating (i.e. 85% of soldiers more or less intentionally misfiring guns, so as not to kill the enemy even when their own lives are at stake)
The author, Lt. Col. David Grossman, makes the comparison that at one time there were many books about love, but none about sex. Amongst scores of books on war, this one deals with the singular act of killing.
I suppose this was off topic a bit, but the book is fantastic, and I couldn't see anyone who was in this discussion (excluding our friends first and second :) ) not enjoying it.
Rock over London. Rock on Chicago. Slashdot: News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
No one complains when a violent movie is given a high rating, why should they for a video game? The last time I remember complaints was over South Park, which was given a lower rating in Canada than it was in the US.
Should the report have not mentioned that animals were killed? Would it have been better to omit that due to the fact that the government condones using flame throwers on dogs? They were just trying to be complete, give them a break.
How is this flamebait? It's TRUE
"I would have focused on liberal gun ownership"
Most liberals don't own guns! Don't you read the papers?
I'm sorry but am I missing something here? In Germany almost no 3rd person shooter of recent years is legal to sell to minors. A few weeks after it's published it will be indexed by the BPS (a governmental agency) and after that you're not even allowed to advertise for it, which means you can't even write a favourable review about it.
fuzzball|root:~ # whatis Windows Windows: nothing appropriate.
the violence in q[1-3] and many other games is cartoon-like and unbelievable (despite it being bloody), which is why gamers don't take it seriously. I've never played SOF, but from the descriptions, it sounds much more realistic than other games. Then, the question is: why are movies subjected to official (non-voluntary) ratings, but not video games (which are getting closer to being interactive movies all the time). Sure, if there are different standards applied to violence in games and violence in movies, then that's a problem; there should not be a distinction made. Which is exactly my point.
This knee-jerk reaction of slashdot's of any limits put on anything remotely software or internet related as an infringement of our rights, is, ugg....boring after a while.
it's no suprise SOME GOVERNMENT in North America decided to start enforcing laws.
Personally, I agree with the laws. If some parent wants to buy their kid a game, they will know what it could be about without knowing anyhting about games or the gaming industry (which is true with most parents).
If a kid wants a game, it's up to the parent to decide wether they should get it or not.
Now, on the topic of government intervention, again it's no suprise BC got to it first. (that being restrictions). In light of the recent amount of school voilence (columbine, Taylor AB CA (5 days after columbine or something), and others) BC has been relatively unscavanged (to my knowledge..). It seems relevant that one province or government entity sees video game violence as a serious threat to children's views of violence and takes action. Let's just hope it leads to proper adaptation of properly enforced ratign systems, where you could get carded just like buyying Liquor, or Cigarettes.
As extreme as it (the potential restructions) may be, Little children do not need to be playing Solder of Fortune with that much voilence.
Perhaps its not the best thing to censor games like this. But, there are plenty out there who do NOT parent responsibly. I don't mean deciding its OK for their kid to play this sort of game, but not forming an opinion. If you are a parent and think its OK for your kid to play the game, buy the game for them. Make them pay you back, but get the game for them.
Well, at least the Vegan Zealotry was a change from the usual Linux Zealotry.
What? This was an article on video game violence? Could fooled me...
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
I though /. was about tolerance and repect for all ideas and views (except MS but we wont get into that :) )...not a soapbox for your preaching. So eating meat is wrong? Are you aware that Homosapians are carnivores? What about Wolves and Snakes and other animals who kill. Are they as evil as man? Following your logic...yes.
Since you wish to fix the wrongs of humanity...why do you use a computer? Do you have >any idea how long it is going to take for that keyboard to biodegrade? That C-64/Apple ][/New Dual P3 will be around long after you and your children are dead. And lets not forget the plastic packaging that contains your precious vegetables. And when they grow those...you are of course aware that they use fertilizer (Either chemicles or Manure). If it is manure that is natural right? Do you think that farmers wander around fields collecting manure? No. The "doner" animals are future big macs and hot dogs.
How about Oil companies who buy up new energy technologies and stifle them to maintain their stranglehold/monopoly on the world?
Do you... own/use a car? Ever said "bitch"? Struck another human? Have thought less of someone for thier beliefs?
You are a fucking Hypocrite.
Rob: Please talk to Jamie (My guess is he is 23)
Remember it, write it down, take a picture, I dont give a fsck!
I think he did get distracted, seeing his pet peeve instead of other issues, but it still addressed the article, and the hypocrisy of banning a game which has a possibility of incidental death of cows when it's "good" and "right" for cows to be killed. To me, this is a small piece of the issue, but it's still valid.
To me, Soldier of Fortune is a perfectly valid game, you're shooting terrorist, people who resigned from societies protection when they picked up guns and started shooting innocents. Whatever happens to a terrorist is fair game.
To say that shooting a terrorist is sickening is to say that our police are sickening. They shoot at terrorists. Should we condemn them?
As long as we're willing to let the actions of others protect us, we're obligated to not frown on those actions. I don't particularly like military service, but I'll never slam our military until all the petty dictators of the world retire and we start giving flowers to each other.
Similarly, I would have a hard time being a SWAT member, shooting terrorists, but as long as there are terrorists, I'll congragulate those strong enough to go out there and shoot them.
To say that this behaviour is disgusting is somewhat accurate, but it's something more people need to be exposed to, not less. Until we all understand the actions taken, on our behalf, to keep the world safe, we don't really deserve the protection of those actions.
I'd say everyone should spend a day, either watching a SWAT team take down terrorists, or as a hostage. Either way, you'll understand what's being done and why it has to be done.
To ban a game just because it has sensitive topics is to send a message to SWAT team members that what they do is so horrible they should never talk about it, that we barely tolerate them, despite the fact they risk their lives to save us.
Should people think that killing a terrorist is a nice clean job, where you just push a button and the guy falls down, saving the hostages? Hell no. They should understand the blood and gore, and the risk of death. Then they'll properly appreciate it.
I'd rather show _Saving Private Ryan_ or _Thin Red Line_ to every hotheaded young kid who thinks war is cool than have a bunch of clueless people running around talking about how we need to go passify some country.
Soldiering is gruesome bloody work, necessary work, but gruesome and bloody. We can't properly respect the job that soldier do until we understand this. The same goes from counter-terrorism. To demand that games get dumbed down does nothing for us except to really shock us when something bad happens. Hopefully by then we haven't gotten rid of our 'disgusting' protectors.
They also want ratings like the movies--hello, aren't the MPAA ratings voluntary? Most theatres check ID, but they aren't required to. If you want action, push the retailers, not the government. As a first step, try to get Half-Life removed from the children's software department at Target...
It's not like kids young enough to be affected by those games can afford to buy the games themselves, and PC games are rarely available for rent (I know of only 1 store that handles them). So maybe the complaining parent in question should look at the box before they submit to their child and/or ask for government protection for their own reluctance to check the screen caps on the back.
Also, what's the system here? Video game stores are not used to carding for games. Some of the reports I've read imply that the manufacturer is held responsible, which is clearly unworkable.
Just because real people and animals die/are killed every day doesn't mean that it's okay to train minors in violence!!!! If you think it's so terrible that so many millions of pigs wind up on dinner plates, then try to educate people to your point of view. You won't convince many of them, but you can try. For the record, I raised some hogs this winter and cured a ham myself. Smoked it the other day and it was the best pig muscle I've ever eaten! However, I think kids should be protected from violence. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if a kid becomes a crack shot in the virtual world, with no reguard for life, it might not be a large step to becoming a crack shot in real life with no reguard for life. Think about it.
We wouldnt need age limits on things if parents were responsible for ALL of their kids no matter who they are.
But since thats in an ideal universe too bad.
-Sarkdas
Come on, now. We have movie ratings, right? (granted they are easy to get around), I'm as anti-censorship as the next guy, but I fail to see a way to defend letting anyone play this game.
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
What about the secret cow level where you slaughter more cows in that level then you do monsters in the entire game :)
I have not played SOF but from screenshots I have seen it seems pretty violent (I don't have a problem with this, just an observation). I'm thinking that if this game were a movie the amount of violence in it would probably get it an 'R' rating. Meaning that you would have to be 18 or be with an adult to get in. Existing entertainment laws are just being applied to games, as much as I hate censorship this does make some sense. So I guess the question is, is it wrong keep under 18 people from getting into 'R' rated movies? Thats just what I think anyway. p.s. We wouldn't have this problem if everyone would just stick to playing NetHack
$_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$b=73;$c=142;
This isn't enough. Just the other day I was gruesomly by a mallet wielding child.
I was watching with the 4 year old child what I assumed to be a a family show about a talking duck and a talking rabbit. Soon the show turned violent when the rabbit hit the duck with a very large mallet. (Later, this same rabbit was seen wearing a dress and makeup. An obvious homosexual propaganda attempt to steal our children's prescious innocence and make them turn to the homosexual lifestyle.) Not five minutes later, the child left the room, got my large mallet from the garage, snuck back into the room, climbed onto the back of the couch and walloped me on the head 4 or 5 times.
I thought the child was going to kill me. Luckily the child's mother came home and found me in laying in a pool of my own blood with her child standing overme with the blood stained weapon.
Why did the child do this? "I wanted to play with the birdies."
Write your congressman and senator now!!! Hearings need to take place before another child blungons someone!!!!
You missed the point. Jamie just took one case where he had strong moral grounds and used it as a counteroffence. He could use Silver Stallone movies, gun ownership, animal testing or whatever else.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
ill agree with you on that... when i finished the game the first time, i had around 1,000 kills.
---- Sig? What sig? Who needs one, anyway?
He stated his own analysis followed (that means opinion, you know). No different than a Katz article.... Shame on you for being ambushed by the truth and not liking it. Reality Does Suck, doesn't it?
veal rules. my ancestors didnt fight their way to the top of the food chain so I could munch on carrots.
A classic bait and switch. I read his analysis thinking that I would get something about violence and technology and instead got a diatribe on animal violence. Last I checked, this was a "news for nerds" site, not a PETA site. BTW... notice that the violence is against humans too, which seems to be ok to the author, as long as we don't harm the sacred cows
Unfortunately I don't think that this is exagerated. In Kentucky, you can have your children taken away for spanking them.
Free as in speech, free as in beer, or free as in lunch?
In Canada you are not allowed to own a handgun or rifle even if you are a battered wife and your husband is kicking the door in and the cops are 20 minutes away. Nazis.
--
Canada was a British territory, and is still part of the British commonwealth (hence, the word 'British'), and 'Columbia' refers to the 'Columbia River', which we share with our American neighbors.. not to the south-american 'Colombia'.
That's because those arcades, which are located on the 'bad' section of the main street through town, are filled with stuff other than video games. The tamest of them have softcore games where you simply uncover pictures of scantily clan Japanese women. The other end of this range is that some of the arcades share a backroom with porno stores, which definately are unwholesome for kids.
Government preventing my children from renting violent games themselves, so they must have my consent to rent the games and can't go renting them behind my back: Good.
Government deciding for me whether my children will play violent video games regardless of what I think about it (and taking my children from me if I disagree): Very bad.
That the first thing could be a precursor to the second is frightening, but much too plausible.
The enemies of Democracy are
--
I think it all comes down to parents. At the age of 12 i was blasting away at Nazi's and such and not thinking anything of it. My parents let me do this because they treated me with enough respect to see that i was mature enough to understand the difference between violence and game violence. While this game is much more detailed than good ol' Wolf it's still pretty easy to see it ain't real. Now grant it i wouldn't let my 8 year old kid go blastin through it but i might let my 11 or 12 year have a go, supervised of course. And i think that it is pretty funny when people get more upset about animal's dying then when people die. I will watch a movie with my girlfriend and she will get very upset if she sees a dog get killed but does not bat an eye if some guy gets chainsawed in the stomach. Now some people might say that animal's don't have any defense and that might be true but you have to ask youself "Who is more important? My dog or my mom (wife, dad, etc.)" I just think people have their priorities screwed up.
thx
(get your own quote)
There's a scene in that movie where the bad guys are brutally driving the natives off a cliff. Quggly pulls out his rifle and starts shooting at the bad cowboys.
At no point during this mass-murder scene, followed by the sight of people being shot did she react at all.
Then one of the bad cowboys that was shot stubled off the cliff, taking his horse with him. As horse and rider fell through the air, she loudly cried out "Oh my God! The poor horse!"
I have seen that movie a few times since then, and every time there are a few people in the group that watch unblinking as the the aboriginies are butchered on the sharp rocks, but are horrified at the depiction of a horse in peril. I blame Disney.
(No animals were hurt during the making of that movie. The horse that went off the cliff was fake, so don't even try to make a case about the horse not being a willing stuntman, you vegan zealots.)
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
It wasn't much of a point. Perhaps it would have been a little more relevant if the meat industry brought in kids for a field trip, passed out guns, and let them into the fields. I somehow don't think parents would like that, either ... but that's not what the meat industry does. The essay made no sense at all.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
I disagree with the majority of the posts; although a bit of a rant, this editorial is indeed on topic. To summarize, jesse argues that "we should not waste energy banning digital violence until we have successfully eradicated violence in the real world."
While the argument is legitimate, it is, however, wrong. The way I understand it, such censorship laws are meant to reduce the amount of violence in the real world, by reducing the amount our children (those who will cause the violence of tomorrow) are exposed to it. (Whether this will work is a different story, which I'll leave to the ever-verbose JonKatz.)
Joe Rabinoff
Are you aware that Homosapians are carnivores?
I wasn't, I really thought we were omnivores, oh well no more salad for me.. bring on the bacon!
You know, all the "mature" technical congnescenti here can whine that this is reprehensible and a breach of our freedom, but I have to say, I agree.
First, if I were a parent without a clue about computers, I'd certainly want to be made aware of what was in this game - I've seen it (and though I used to play some of these games when I had the time) was impressed with the detail of the deaths et. al.
Now, we limit a lot of other things which may be considered "dangers" in society. I am supportive of this to a degree, simply because I know there are wackos out there.
Where does the simulation stop and reality end? Will we stop SOF 4 Virtual Reality Center? Is there really a difference? These games simulate, in this case, rather graphically, killing. Sure, mature, normal, well-adjusted people can handle it fine and keep it once removed. But can everone? Can you allow every 14 year old boy to make this choice for himself? I'd say probably not.
Remember, the games aren't banned (such as they are in Germany - another interesting point), they're restriced, like alcohol, until the majority of people are first able to, hopefully maturely, decide for themselves.
Yep it is. There are also levels where innocents get mowed down in the cross fire, or where you see your "collegues" executed. Also, some of the weapons are just plain disgusting. If you use the "special" on the microwave gun, the victim blows up like a balloon and then explodes.
Make it idiot-proof and someone will build a better idiot.
Be fair, there are quite a few video arcades in Amsterdam. Weird thing is, though, they're really quite expensive... at least in comparison to video arcades that I'm used to in the States.
Which I guess makes sense, since who the hell would go to a video arcade, especially when one coniders that the average cost for a "suck and fuck" in Amsterdam is $25 and the average price for an ounce of weed is like $10? Suddenly, video arcades don't seem as much fun anymore...
These animals are NOT our brothers and sisters. They're not our cousins and members of the family of space ship earth.
They're OUR FOOD! I don't know where you get the idea that the death that cows face is so unbearibly gruesome.
They get a nail through the brain and it's over.
If you choose to be a Vegan, that's cool. If that works for you, I have nothing bad to say about that or you. Though I've never worked in a slaughterhouse, I know what happens. Just because one of you whines and crys about it doesn't mean that I'm going to stop eating meat. Beef is especially great because it's cheap and easy to produce. All you need is a cow, space, food, and time. Hell, traditional farms just let them roam all day and they took pretty good care of themselves.
We know that the meat used to be a whole animal. Yes, we know that it's dead. At least meat had a chance to run. Those vegetables that you murder are stuck in one place. At least meat is dead and can't feel anything when we cook and eat it. You cook and eat vegetables while they're still alive.
Live your life as you see fit. I'll live my life as I see fit. We can get along and I can kick your ass at Soldier Of Fortune.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
While I agree with you wholeheartedly, my first thought was that someone would attack the whole "rational beings" argument. This troubled me for a moment, until I realized it doesn't buy them anything. If either we are just glorified animals, or animals are slightly less intelligent rational beings, then we should be subject to the same rules. While certainly suffering isn't in order, eating meat has to be. Ever seen a bear out fishing for salmon, or tigers munching on anything they can catch, or vultures picking at the remains of a corpse?
Either animals are our inferiors, and we are free to use them as food, or they are our equals, and we can act in the same manner as they, and hunt and kill for our food.
-Tannin Kal
Pabloselbow CA (/.) 7/13/00 4:42 PM
ID Games announced today a complete departure from traditional shoot em' up games with the release of a carve em' up role playing adventure called: Pig Process IV! "The Oinking".
This release has drawn a lot of attention from groups apposed to such violence in the media including Louise McCausland B.E.'s director of film classification.
Starting Wednesday, it is against the law in Pabloselbow to rent the popular game Pig Process IV to people under 18 years old.
Pig Process IV allows users to assume the identity of the pig as it's being slaughtered. An experience that, many say, is just to overwhelming for the children.
"Depending on which industrial machine tool is used, the participant can experience the gory violence that results in the horror of evisceration, , gutting, decapitation and dismemberment" said a report from Louise McCausland, B.E.'s director of film classification.
She classified "Pig Process IV" as an adult game after a parent complained about its level of violence saying: "Yea, everyone loves Wilber, and we appreciate the work that PETA has done to bring this game to market, but this is just sick."
___
I would not want my children exposed to Pornography until they are old enough to deal with it, and understand it for what it is.
The same for violence.
I worked in a slaughterhouse for 2 years, working midnights to put myself through University. You cannot imagine that kind of work environment. Heavy, loud death metal. Pantera, Slayer etc. Meanwhile you are rotating between the kill floor, processing (skinning and gutting) and breaking the animals (cutting them into managable sizes.
Some animal, which is sometimes scared out of its mind, walks up through the chute, you trap its head in a cage and put an explosive powered nail in its brain. Its nerves twtch for a few seconds. Or a few minutes, depending on if you were sloppy where you placed the projectile. Then it is chained up and goes to be gutted and skinned. And along trots another helpless animal. For 8 hours a day.
Incidentally - this is the only legal job that you can hold that disqualifies you for jury duty. Because it desensitized you toward death and killing.
I am not a vegetarian, but there are some meats that I will not eat. I will not eat pork, because of one incident I found extremely cruel (after the previous description, I'll let your imagination dwell on what I find to be extremely cruel...) But I do eat meat once or twice a week.
Being desensitized as I am, I find stories of animal abuse to be extremely shocking. But that is because my history permits me to see both sides of the argument. I would never hurt any animal, not would I kill an animal I did not intend to eat. And then I would do it as quickly and painlessly as I could.
I would not, could not allow a child to witness the horrors I have seen until they are ready for it. I totally agree that the BC government should take this position (even though I am a Red-Necked Albertan :-P ). Children should not see violence, animated or otherwise, until they know the difference. Notice I did not mention at what age this should be. That depends on the child.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
It is not the belief in morals or other things that people dislike. It is the attempts by some people who believe that their morals and beliefs should be universal to regulate freedom that most people have a problem with. Why is making laws that restrict our basic rights so nessicery? Morals are not universal. Ugly people go to hell.
- Abortion claims millions of lives a year, and it is considered a "right" by some.
- Schools get sued if they post the 10 commandments or let students pray at graduation.
- Lawmakers insist that capital punishment (state sanctioned murder) is necessary to combat crime.
- They villify people who express belief in morals as "intolerant"
I don't believe this is about protecting children. It's about control. As the article states: Our society is filled with culturally sanctioned violence; the only reason why soldier of fortune is treated this way is because it doesn't fit the mold of our culturally sanctioned violence categories.The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
>but government hypocrisy
Good point but goverments do have laws against animal cruelty. And these rulings/laws are based on community decency standards (even though its an entire province).
Its a weak arguement clouded by the fact that jamie has a problem with the BC peoples eating habits.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Um. Check out Hardcase's thrid paragraph:
Seriously, I don't think that this piece of editorial tripe belongs in this story. Sure, animal suffering is a bad thing, but if you want to highlight the plight of animals, don't be sneaky about it...stand up and write an editorial and give it its own title!
Now the issue of whether the editorial was related to the title, is very much open. But your points are just plain wrong. May I recommend that you know what the post says, before presuming to tell me to read it again?
Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
Eating animals involves killing animals. Now you can either say that killing animals is ok, or that it is not. The problem is that our society tries to pretend it doesn't happen. To show a cow getting slaughtered on TV would cause switchboards to be flooded with complaints. Whether you're a vegetarian or not, it should be pretty obvious that this is hypocritical behavior.
Yes, eating animals is violence against animals. To say it is not involves serious denial. Now, many say that violence against animals is ok. Personally, I have no problem with it. But to pretend we live in a nice, sanitary world, where cows just sort of magically turn into hamburger is to be in serious denial.
It's a bloody world out there in nature. In order for a lion to live, an antelope must die in pain. In order for you to eat a hamburger, a cow must die in pain. That's fact. It is not deniable. It is logical to say "that's the order of things" and go ahead an eat meat. It is not logical to pretend it isn't true, that we're not really hurting anything. That the kindly old cow doesn't really feel a thing. What utter bullshit.
People had a much better understanding of things when eating meat meant personally killing animals. When eating a chicken meant going and getting a live one, and wringing its neck on your own. But now we're so removed from that, we want to pretend that the meat just magically appears, in a factory some where.
Personally, I think that every child ought to be required to behead a chicken with his own hands to graduate high school. The fact that many nonvegetarians would find such a suggestion abhorrant says a lot about how screwed up and in denial this society is.
It is just like all the nonvegetarians who call hunting "barbaric" (something very fashionable these days). I mean, it is one thing to say that people shouldn't eat meat, and therefore shouldn't kill a deer. It is quite another to say that to kill a deer with a rifle is bad, but to slit a cow's throat in a slaughterhouse is perfectly ok. Can anyone not see how utterly hypocritical and illogical that is?
</rant>
The cake is a pie
OK, OK, ya got me there. I love sushi too. :-)
But raw meat's another story. It will generally just make you ill- although I know that people DO eat raw beef, it's not real healthy. And I don't know of any people that eat raw chicken. Raw meat, on the other hand, IS really healthy for "real" meat-eating animals like wolves, pirahnnas, sharks, etc. :)
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
Now, *here's* a freakin' buisness plan, guys -
We collect the names and e-addy's of all the film boards that make ignorant, moronic, or just plain stupid decisions/pronouncements and put 'em up on one web page for easy access by anybody who gives a shit about their opinions.
Then the rest of us can more easily ignore them.
Ok, so it probably won't make me the next Bill Gates, but what the heck...
As for the vegan/omnivore deadlock (no pun intended), maybe we could have a "Nuke 'em/Kiss 'em" section with different methods of killing and eating your preferred food sources.
See Also: People for the Ethical Treatment of Insects, The Bacteria Preservation League, and "Screw the Goddam Kiddies!"
Thank you for your support...
"...they may harpoon us, but they ain't gonna pick us up on no radar screen!"
I'm sure I don't need to describe the conditions under which these animals live and die.
Obviously I can't speak for every company which kills animals, but the pigs I've seen are put in a shallow pool of water and an electrified prod is put in the water, the pigs die instantly. I've heard plenty of herbivores imply that animals are basically tortured to death. What would be the advantage of prolonging the death of an animal? Companies strive to be as efficient as possible, and a quick death is more efficient than a slow drawn out death (the exception is, of course, when a slow drawn out death is important, such as with veal). I'm sure there are some small farms out there who can't afford anything better than a knife to kill their animals with, but I would expect that the majority of animals killed by humans die a better death than they would if they were killed by any other predator.
You almost described a classic game called "Chiller". It was a simple shooting gallery game, but in one scene it takes place in a dungeon, where there happens to be about 3 people in stocks,etc.
If you accidentally shoot one of them in the right areas, you see rib cages, dismemberment, etc, and it's a bit on the bloody side.
Mind you, it was made in 1986 by Exidy, so the blood and guts are nowhere near as detailed as SoF or anything else.
Since Q1, there have been a lot of these first person shooters that become popular simply because they're more realistic. But is that really making a good game? I think a lot of the creativity has been lost because of the focus to improve the reality of the game.
In contrast, I think we can all probably think of a number of games that are highly addictive, not because they were all the real or even necessarily that the quality (graphically) was all the good, but the idea was new and inventive and the story was enchanting. A few examples: Civilization (pretty bad graphics), Myst 1 (good graphics, but not earth-shattering), lots of early space games, etc...
I'd like to see the focus less on making us think we're standing there and more on inventing a truely new or enthrawling experience.
"Let your heart soar as high as it will. Refuse to be average." - A. W. Tozer
--
Sorry, I speak French... So I know its the "Charte Canadienne des droits et Libertés", but the exact english translation was not known to me. And you'd be surprised if you followed our Supreme Court...
ok, i've played all the Quakes, SoF, nreal, UT etc....but blasting bad guys with weapons such as the BMFG, plasma ray, razorjack or the microwave-pulse gun, or whatever it is in SoF is no where near as real as games like Rainbow6 and Rogue Spear. i mean come on. sitting in a bell tower with a Dragunav and seeing the whites of your targets eyes before you squeeze the trigger?? i would think that would lead more people to worry about their kids getting desensitized to violence and pull another Columbine.
"learn to swim" - TOOL
Please ban this game. I just purchased this game a while ago. And while it had great graphics, a compelling storyline, and kept me on the edge of my seat, like a good horror movie that I would be allowed to watch, I felt something strange was happening to me. I applied to the Army and Merchant Marines, but I was rejected for psychological disorders or something (stupid bastards, I will kill them tomorrow). So I just decided to become a mercenary. All of a sudden I'm in a world of killing, maiming, assassinations, guerilla warfare. Usama Bin Laden just called me this morning actually.
So you see this is not a joke. This game should be banned before other kids like me go bad.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I think you totally miss the point of limiting access to "adult" (read: morally reprehensible) material. Everything in the world can be used for good or bad, depending on context, motivation, etc.
The creation of a human starts with the same act between husband and wife that will get a man and woman arrested in the context of prostitution. Pulling a trigger and killing someone can be done in self-defense, and hence totally justifiable, or as an act of cold-blooded murder - an awful crime punishable by death. War is, as the saying goes, Hell, but sometimes necessary to stop something even worse. And yes, killing an animal can be to eat and sustain yourself, or, as a video game, serve to feed blood-thisty tendencies. The point of limiting access to things like Soldier of Fortune is to avoid desensitizing people to senseless and pointless violence. Eating hamburgers is neither senseless nor pointless. I do agree, however, that any slaughterhouse which tortures an animal before its death (or in the act of killing it) should be closed. There are quick and painless ways to kill, and to do it any other way is much worse than playing a game.
Terrance and Phillip had it right. More fart jokes and less violence.
Sipping on Jolt and Dew. Laid back. With my mind of my cubicle and my cubicle on my mind.
Your commentor is kind of nuts, isn't he?
He doesn't comment on people killings, outside of the fact that it can be pretty cool.
He does comment on the meat industry, which he regards as, shall I use the word, "Evil."
I for one welcome the rating on the game. I don't believe children should play any of the games mentioned for the same reason I don't let children watch XXX-rated videos and "Faces of Death." Some things children simply can't handle. Sure a sixteen year old could handle all of this stuff, but you have to draw the line somewhere. How's about you draw the line at the same age where someone can be qualified to be carted off to some foriegn country to have their head blown off.
Your author is nuts. Animals, even those that can be pets, are food. We could eat them alive, but where's the humanity in that.
I read Slashdot for Industry related news stories, not political diatribes by intensly insane authors with an ax to grind. Leave the food politics at home.
Beware the wood elf!!!
... that usually the 'censors' are very lenient. For example, the "South Park" movie at the local video store has a '14A' sticker (equivalent to PG-13). Another example - "Scary Movie" is '14A' as well.
So something must have really pissed them off.
to the BC govt. i am in vancouver and perhaps we could even get some other /. readers here to protest this blatant act of hypocrisy. i will take the day off tomorrow. e-mail me if you are in BC and are interested in making some noise on friday, july 14.
-- This sig is.
Uhm. for those of you who didn't actually READ the whole rant, it's really about how hypocritical politicians are. That is, they allow all of this violence against animals to put them on the dinner plate but when it's shown in a video game it's wrong. (Note: I don't necassarily agree that putting meat on my dinner plate is bad, but I'm not going to argue that point). The rant against the animal violence is really just demonstrating the point, rather graphically (hmmm, maybe his post will be banned in .ca also!), that animals being eviscerated, beheaded and the like are common everyday occurances.
All in all, if you don't agree that slaughtering animals to provide a delicious baby cow roast for your dinner table is bad, at least accept that there are people who do feel it's wrong. And, if they feel that way, then they most certainly are allowed to get upset when politicians do things that do not agree with their beliefs. At least they're being consistant, unlike the people who rant and rave against the slaugher of little kitties in china but go on eating huge steaks once a week. (aawwww, the little kitty is cute so we can't kill it, but a cow is the ugliest thing i ever did see so kill it and serve me up its ass.)
** Martin
I usually wave off users who insist on posting "This story has been covered" or "this isn't news" or "slashdot sucks". I usually completely ignore them. Feel free to do the same to this post.
I clicked on the article. It looked interesting. Being Canadian, I wanted to know what my government/censoring bodies had to say, and I must say that I was disgusted as I read further and further into the slashdot article.
I do understand that it's Jamie's job to give his opinion, and to editorialize on concepts, but as I read the article, it quickly became nothing but a pro-vegan article, with a twist back to the headline at the end. I have no problem with vegans. I don't pressure them to try and change their point of view on meat, just as I expect them to leave me alone when I'm about to chow down on a nice piece of steak. I enjoy eating meat as much as vegetarians and vegans enjoy NOT eating meat.
If I had've known that the article was going to go from video game violence into a short list of reasons why it's evil to eat cows and pigs, I never would've clicked on the article. And I'm sure that if the title of the article been focused on this, and not on video games, a lot of other users would never have clicked on the article.
Don't get me wrong. Feel free to say your piece. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but please let us know it's coming, so I can ignore it. I hate hearing about how meat is evil, and not because I feel guilty, but because it's tired. I have my own reasons that you would call justifications why I don't think it's bad to eat meat. Leave me alone.
well, personally, I don't like movie ratings because they give really violent movies an R or Pg-13, but god forbid we have anything about sex in a movie.
I try to be anti-censorship, but I really do think that if kids play video games where violence against what is obviously humans is a central focus, it desensitizes you against said violence. I saw a game the other day in the arcade called "slient sniper" or something where you have a big rifle with a scope and were picking people off rooftops. Granted, they were "bad guys", but still. If kids' parents are too stupid to think "hey, maybe it's a bad idea to let my kids play this game", then I have no problem with the rest of us (as expressed through the will of our elected representatives) doing it for 'em.
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
One final note - just because you feel evolution has made you an omnivore (which is a very debatable point ...)
Sorry, it's not a debatable point. No reputable biologist would agree with you there. For instance: open your mouth -- what kind of teeth do you have? How about the mouth to anus length of the digestive tract? We have a relatively simple digestion -- not as simple as a dog, much more like a bear, nothing at all like that of a cow or rabbit.
We could all probably stand to eat less meat (we're omnivores, after all, not true carnivores), but there's no debate that nature designed us to be scavengers. Certainly there are legitimate moral reasons not to eat meat, to say nothing of the health benefits that can accrue from vegetarianism, but to try and pretend that we're not physiologically omnivores is intellectually dishonest, and just plain wrong.
Best,
(jfb)
To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
I remember eating raw ground beef back when I was much younger. It used to be not a bad thing to do, simply because the ecoli wasn't a major issue at the time. It has been a long time since I had a nice medium rare burger.
I like my steak blue though. (charred on the outside, bloody on the inside)
It depends a lot on what sort of vegetarian you are. You are right for vegans. If you are an ovo-lacto vegetarian, and eat diary, it is pretty easy to eat a balanced diet.
The cake is a pie
That's the problem with ANY rating system: a small group of people have to decide what a huge group of people will think about something. Kinda like /. moderation... ;-)
The bloodiness of the game isn't really relevant, it's the fact that they're taking over the parents' job of paying attention to what their kids are doing. "Sorry Johnny, the Government says the Teletubbies are fags." It makes me physically ill how moms and dads can be so righteous in the face of legislation but then you see them with their 4 year old at movies like "Stigmata" cuz they couldn't get a sitter.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
first, a jon katz review is posted by timothy....now, an article about violent games turns in to a "meat is bad" rant.
oooohhhhhh, i can't wait to see what's next!!!!!
To quote HHGTTG
"Well, it's better than an animal that DOESN'T want to be eaten!"
I've played SOF on windows, and it's not all that bad... Granted it is worse then other games of the same type, but PG-13 movies are worse then this game. But I can't wait untill the Linux port comes out! now i don't have to use another computer to play!!
It's the parents' jobs to restrict access of information to their children, not the governments. I am of the belief that people are responsible for themselves when it comes to things like this. Wouldn't it be great if your religion was banned in your country because they found that it is not suitable for citizens to partake in that religion (scientology). Where do you draw the line for allowing the government to choose what is good and bad for your information wise?
He who knows not, and knows he knows not is a wise man
that depict the horrors of falling into deep crevices, having anvils fall on animal heads and crushing them into the ground, as well as exploding ACME devices which leave the user in smoldering ruins when they backfire.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
SOF is pretty sickening. I wonder how many of you discussing it have actually seen it.
Now, I play Marathon, and Myth, and Quake, and I love putting a rocket at someone's feet or planting a shotgun in their chest.
But the point of those games (and probably anything that can be considered a game) is the sport of it: aiming while running, dodging, being where you're not expected, etc. I enjoy planting a shotgun in my friend's chest because it means I out-thought, outmaneuvered, out-played him/her.
Tactics. Maneuver. Not killing. Not blood.
If you're playing a game for the blood you need to be removed from society, cause you're a sick fuck.
Yes, you're a vegan. Good for you. Your leadin sure made it sound like you were going to be discussing game violence, when in reality it was a rant against the meat industry. Shame on you.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
Isn't it also quite (okay, very) possible that the game makers wanted to make something so horribly realistic that it would gather this type of attention? And... I hate to say it, but kids flock to "things that they are not allowed to have," such as smokes and beer...
Well, it wouldn't be the first time someone tried that...
Increased controversy == incresed interest just to see what it's all about. It worked for Harry Potter books. Why not for video games?
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
This is amazing. Simply amazing. I remember a study once of having people play doom opposite people playing lemmings and then measuring their anger levels afterwards (dont ask me how) and showing that doom lowered it. Catharsis works, let the kids shoot things up so they dont feel the need to do it in real life!
Please, give me a break. A cow raised for the purpose of becoming a meal is not tortured. Until there death they live well. I know because I was raised on a cattle farm. A cow is dispatched quickly (usually a blow to the head).
As far as regulating video games, why do you think that they should be regulated differently the violent film? It seems to me, if it contains the same kind of violence as a film, then it makes sense to regulate it just like a film.
Really, I could image a game based on a film that actually used the same scenes as the film.
I believe parents are ultimately responsible for the childrens viewing habit, but I see no contridiction in regulating video games the same as films.
This continued belief in the online community that somehow things on computer make them different than other media amazes me. Do you truely believe music distrubuted as MP3's is different than a CD? Should it be treated different in the law? Violent images in print or in movies is significantly different than violence in a video game?
Truely, this bifurcated view of the world is laughable. Violence is violence in print, in a movie, or in a video game.
Troy
I still say that no matter how bad any game is it is the job of the parents to regulate what the children do and see and NOT any government or laws.
At some point if parents did decide to let their kids do whatever what would happen? Jail....death......hmm good incentives to let the kids run hog wild eh?
Just a quick point....Parents should watch the kids not the government.
-Sarkdas
Video stores card you (ask for ID) when you first get your membership card, and then they card you every time you rent.
<O
( \
Will I retire or break 10K?
By setting the rental rules of some video games to those of adult videos, you are saying the content of the two are equally bad. Although perhaps a little less prudish than the US (correct me if I'm wrong here, guys), I wouldn't think hardcore porn in British Colombia would be a completely socially acceptable thing. Yet no one (again, to my knowledge) feels like the have to go incognito to buy any videogame (Well, there is the Leisure Suit Larry series...). To summarize, a previously socially acceptable activity (i.e. buying video games), has been equated to a non-socially acceptible activity. What does this mean? Are they trying to make violent games as socially unacceptable as porn? or what?
Note: I have very little knowledge of British Colombia. Please feel free to flame me on any innacuracies I have added to above post.
Save a life: Eat more cheese
- Naerbnic
So there I was, juggling apples and small animals, when I accidentally bit into the wrong one...
Your experience has to do with the specific laws of Vancouver, not of the province; the "nobody under 18" law for arcades means that the arcades ended up getting located next to porno shops, which have the same age restrictions.
Lest BC sound like the land of the non-free (or is that land of the contrib?), you can drink when you're 19 =)
I grew up outside of Vancouver, and spent many an hour playing Defender, Donkey Kong, etc. in the local arcades which were populated with members of my age cohort
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
I agree with you about Amsterdamn... lots of sex, no violence. :)
Those laws about arcades are basically trying to keep drug dealers from pushing to young kids, and only applies to Downtown Vancouver. You can go to Chuck E. Cheese and play video games like Street Fighter etc, however old you are... but they look at you funny when you're 20 and asking for more tokens.
realistic violence should be restricted by maturity, not age. It should be up to the person if they find the material offensive or too graphic to return the game (or not buy it in the first place) age restrictions are just a form of legal stereotyping
I respect your views as a Vegan, but you must also respect my views as a carnivore. To me there is not much better than sinking my fork into a juicy steak which I cooked myself on my grill. See, I believe that God gave us dominion over the animals as it says in the Bible. Thats right, I mentioned God and the Bible on a Slashdot message board. But those are my opinions, so moderate me as you will.
By the way, I posted a message on "animal rights" because that is what the original post was about. If it had been about what the headline said, I would have posted about that.
luckman
luckman
I don't involve myself with flames, much less know how to bait one.
These are not the only arcades in town. Go down to UBC a great normal arcade, or Metrotown to find a video game theme park (actually there are a number of them under the same name, which slips my mind at the moment). You can not judge a whole city (or province) by a small section of it.
Basically, there are no age restrictions on going into video arcades in BC unless adult material is being shown.
--www.mp3.com/kruhft--
I think instead we should teach children that using firearms and various other anti-personel munitions actually don't have any bad consequences. When you use these weapons the enemy should merely frown or fall down. In this way we can ensure that children do not grow up with the warped perception that using weapons and hurting people really has any bad consequences for anybody.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
i saw it running on a friends box and thought to myself that this is the sort of game i would never even consider to play. ugh! to look at the game gave me the same feeling like seeing someone die in an accident. :-((
i never even saw this game in stores which does not say anything because Q3 isn't available either... and i really like playing Q[1|3]
once i was in a game store and a 14-16 year old wanted to buy half-life i think... he was told that he was too young. but by accident his mother was with him and bought the game for her son. so... in the end all depends on the parents.
Meme of the day: I browse "Disable Sigs: Checked". So should you.
--
Well, raw meat from the supermarket is generally bad because it's been dead for hours or days, and had time to get bacteria infesting it. This isn't how we ate meat when we were animals =)
What you should be asking, is "do we go out, kill an animal, and eat it's raw meat off the bone?". That wouldn't be nearly as bad for you as eating raw processed supermarket meat.
Now I have a desire to try this....
You have to be 18 to rent or BUY the game. RTFA (Read The Fucking Article) :-)
As an (ashamed) citizen of British Columbia, I think this is just another step down the road to a Nerf world (name stolen from PJ O'Rourke) where the government tries to protect us from everything. Next thing you know, ID Software will find itself facing 20 wrongful death suits for Columbine...
British Columbia is an absolutely beautiful province (we have coast, mountains, rain forest, desert, you name it), but the political climate here sucks even worse than Vancouver winter weather. May a hail of cluesticks fall upon us...
This post is not an attack on the parent to this thread, just my opinion.
He who knows not, and knows he knows not is a wise man
Mmmmmm...veal
with humpy love,
with humpy love,
humpmonkey
But he does make a valid point which is the gov't is hypocritical. I'm not sure his slaughterhouse analogy is the appropiate one in this case. I would have focused on liberal gun ownership and the resulting carnage that ensues. Here in the U.S., 25,000 people are killed by guns each year.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
I'm quite astounded by a few things in this discussion.
:-)
One, that so many people are so rational about it. A lot of people really do seem to appreciate that the restriction enables parents to gain more control over their ability to effectively parent their children. It makes the purchase/rental decision an adult's decision, not a child's.
Two, that there seem to be a fair number of people who simply can not have had much interaction with children. Anyone who says that "hey, you can teach them the difference" isn't talking about very young children! Up to a moderate age (I'd say about 9ish), kids are simply incapable of completely differentiating between reality and fantasy. I don't believe any child under the age of ten-ish should be experiencing extremely violent, abusive or sexual material.
Three: I'm completely astounded that someone thought BC is in Britain. My god.
Four: Look up "Temple Grandin" on the web. She designs the enclosures and systems that lead cattle to death in the slaughter yard. Take note that she very carefully designs these structures to keep the cows relaxed and happy as they meet their doom. Frightened meat isn't very good meat.
Five: Plants are what food eat.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
... he should be armed with various firearms and sent on a mission to look for the next level in various urban/military settings.
Now THATS on-topic!
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
You know if we cut the speed limit in half the number of accidents decreases! Well don't stop there, thousand of people are hurt each year by pointy objects such as knives and pencils. I won't stop until every pointy stick has been licensed or confiscated! Its such a stupid argument to blame violence on an inanimate object. The gun flew across the room into your hand and the trigger pulled itself. YOU make the decesion to use a gun.
Someone driving a large SUV jumped the curb and plowed into a playground full of kids. Should we ban SUV's because someone misused it? Or how about punishing the person committing the crime.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
...could a discussion about a violent video game escalate into a discourse on why eating meat and animal-related products is wrong, even before a comment is posted.
For more information, click here.
that for all these years we could "virtually" kill people for years and years, but as soon as you throw in animals.. woah woah HOLD ON! animals? how can you possibly want to kill animals? Come on people, they're placing the value of an ANIMAL's life infront of that of PEOPLE. How sick is that? What is our society coming to that it's perfectly acceptable to kill people but an absolute no-no to even joke about killing an animal? I even see it in movies. People getting killed right and left and no one says a thing, but as soon as a dog gets it you hear a collective "awwww" from the audience.
Let's get our priorities straight.
hmm... I see you have read the National Post too much...
and I'd like to remind you that we, as French Canadians are much more open minded that you... I've not been saying that your are a fat idiot and that your favorite PM is telling people that pepper is better than baseball bats...
For the Parizeau quote, well its true that THEY (I'm in no way a separatist) lost because of the large amounts of money that the feds spent to save the country and because of the vote of the anglos. Because the francophones votes yes in a 60% proportion. Thank god we still have the anglos.
This is, alas, nothing new. "Don't play violent games", "but eat chickens" - which are processed and handled like bottles or any other non-living things in huge factories, being grabbed by mechanical devices and manipulated towards death...
Or, more generally and succinctly, in America, "porn is bad!", but, "prejudice is good!"..."don't judge people by how they look!", but, "make fun of fat people, and be sure to vote for your local prom King and Queen!"
'Big Brother' is us. Politicians go with public sentiment. Educate people, and bring day-to-day atrocities to the forefront; after all, it worked for the environmental groups.
I choose to be an omnivore because evolution (or God, whichever makes you happy) made me that way. I also happen to think that animals are quite tasty, so I generally tend to eat bits of one every day.
Seriously, I don't think that this piece of editorial tripe belongs in this story. Sure, animal suffering is a bad thing, but if you want to highlight the plight of animals, don't be sneaky about it...stand up and write an editorial and give it its own title!
=h=
Actually we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not a Bill of Rights. Perhaps it's time to expose yourself to some Canadian content. Maybe I'll take a page from the grammar nazi's book and start correcting all the Canadian mistakes. At least the ones written by Canadians.
I doubt there is a Charter challenge here. Clayton Ruby himself couldn't get this one heard.
Thanks for this bit of information... I stopped and thought about what it is I eat daily. Have you heard the Galactic Cowboys song titled "Kill Floor?" It's about a guy who works in a slaughter house. I thought of that when reading your post. They really blast Death Metal in the slaughter house? Why? Is it to instill a more trance-like state of mind so that you can focus on the job and kill? Or is it that they actuall like it and find it enhances the feeling of the job? It's something to think about. Got me thinking.
For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the sheltered will never know.
How does an article on violence in video games get turned into another lecture about the evils of eating meat?
I realize that this will be far enough down most people won't see it, but wtf? As for the constant insistance that all meat comes from "factory farms" it doesn't happen as often as you think. I worked on a farm for a large part of my life and cows had good lives. They were fed well, had plenty of water, could roam around the 120 acres of space they had (about an acre per cow) and in general stood around chewing their cud in the shade trees. Yeah, they were frickin' miserable all right! Damn cows lived one hell of a lot better than the poor idiots that took care of them (me included).
I'm not attacking the author for his views. He doesn't want to eath meat, that's fine by me. But I really get tired of hearing about the poor animals and how horribly they are treated. I also get damn sick of constantly being lectured about eating meat in the first place. We are omnivores. Some of us chose not to be, but does that mean that those of us that still eat both meat and veggies are stupid morons? Jesus, get a clue.
As for violence in video games, I think parents need to start spending some time with their kids again and actually paying attention to what they are doing. The government can only tell you so much about child rearing without taking your child away and raising it for you. If that's really what you want, don't have the kid to begin with. Letting the government control what is right and wrong for your kid is just silly. Each parent needs to decide what is right and wrong. And honestly, video game violence has no connection to being a meat-eater. Get over yourself.
Mod me down and watch me burn. I'm sure this will piss somebody off.
BTW, in the original attempt to post this the subject read:
What?!?!?!
and it was rejected by the lameness filter as ASCI ART. Clever.
Bite my yammer.
How do they plan to enforce this? Are they going to card you at the video/game rental store? Really. I was able to rent R rated videos when I was 15! I have *never* been carded at a video store.
Sure, everybody seems to be pretty confused about violence nowadays. I guess most people would agree putting your fists up is OK when you're being punched in the face, but not when you're trying to get a seat in a crowded bus. And that's the point you're missing: gratuitous violence (as in kill, get the bonus score, go on to kill some more) serves no purpose, and children who are young enough that they might be led into thinking that's acceptable should be protected. Granted, I'd rather have parents taking the responsibility for that, but it's not a perfect world and most people are lazy and prefer to have the government take care of everything for them.
Anyway, that's not the point I'm trying to make. I've had enough of the crap moral stand that vegetarians and such take, about how they care a lot about cruelty and violence towards animals. Good for you, but guess what? The use of violence for getting food is as valid as putting up your fists when you're getting hit. Isn't it violent to kill plants, or their seeds, for food, just because they don't have cute faces we can look at and feel pitiful? Get a grip! If you don't like beef or pork, don't eat it. But don't go around boasting what a nice guy you are because of it!
I don't expect you to understand what I'm saying, since your narrow views led you on a rant about how great it is to be a vegan, on what was supposedly a post on violence in computer games...
--
sig is gone.
But 1 gets you 10 that it was really banned for the violence against humans. The realistic, detailed, first person killing of other people.
This isn't about killing animals. Maybe it should be, but it isn't. Sorry.
-- IANAEG - I am not an elder god.
Disclaimer: I living in BC, Quake with the best of 'em, and have no kids (yet).
Every thing I have read dances around the real issue: <b>Do pixels have a different meaning than video?</b>
If as much blood and guts and animal cruelty was portrayed in a fictional film it would probably get a similar rating. Even Rambo and Saving Private Ryan didn't have as much gore.
So why are pixels so precious? The game is fictional, just like film, yet we cry fowl when ratings are imposed on games and don't make a peep for movies.
It can't be that we control the game but videos are passive. If anything it makes it worse. Think like Beavis and Butthead ("heh heh, he's grabbin' his groin! heh Stab him again! heh heh ).
I personally think a "R" rating may be more appropriate as an advisory for parents, but that doesn't change the fact are hypocrites when we treat pixels different than video.
Blacks have the same ability to reason that the rest of humanity does. A cow doesn't. We, as the top of the food chain and as the species holding all the power, have decided that those animals with a similar ability to reason are ascribed at least two basic rights (life and liberty).
If cows suddenly became sentient as a species, I would stop eating them. Happy?
[ home ]
Once again, government is too slow to react to even a perceived threat, as any kid who wanted to play SoF has already bought/downloaded it. The intelligent parents that try to raise their children according to their value would have already sanctioned/condemned their kids playing this game, and the ones that couldn't give a rats ass will just go buy it for their kid regardless of the restriction. Good intentions, bad idea, even worse execution.
"I live in a world of make-believe, with faeries and leprechauns and tiny little frogs with funny hats."
So, was this a story about video game violence, or being a vegan? Why do vegans always have to evangelize? I think a simple point about the hypocrisy of a society that tortures animals and yet bans video games about violence would have sufficed. I'm a vegetarian, and one who has no problem with people who eat meat, but I think that was way off topic.
I think the *real* reason they want to censor violent video games is clear; the politicos don't want people to wake up to the fact that we are indeed a violent society, and that they are mostly to blame. Think about it; who starts the wars, funds the abusive cops, and generally encourages the redneck/mullethead mentality? The damn politicians, that's who.
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
"Probably have been fewer funerals."
Amazingly no one was killed (except the burglars).
Other episodes have featured live carp and giant eel. "Not to be shown in the US" episodes have featured turtles.
Frankly, I think it's probably healthier for a culture to be aware that its' food was once alive. This doesn't make me any less willing to eat it. All living things exist off of other living things -- soil is just rotten bugs and worms. All PETA propaganda (and BTW, Jamie, what do you think of PETA hypocrisy in suing over one false domain name while using one themselves for political purposes?) does is make me want to go to McDonalds.
I've already heard (radio talk show) a bunch of folks saying what a great idea this is. I predict the movement to classify and restrict video games is about to emerge in the U.S. Nothing like demonizing something and launching a crusade to make yourself look good for the voters. Dylan and Klebold (the killers at Columbine High School) will be resurrected as examples of how evil video games can warp the tender psyches of the young.
You have to be 18 to RENT, not to PLAY. This isn't the "government trying to raise my children". This is the government enabling me to raise my children. Now the choice to rent these games is back in the hands of the parents.
So then you can argue "but kids can get around the rules with older siblings/friends or less restrictive parents". Yes, but which rule is a child more likely to follow "Don't play video games with excessive violence" or "Don't play video games that are rated R"? Since they can rationalize the first one away, the second one is a better rule.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
...
but in effect that is what is happening more or less in Germany for decades. You classify stuff and then you try to protect the young from it.
But unlike in Germany here at least people have an easy time to buy that stuff, if it is on the so called "index" in Germany it becomes a HAZZLE to buy stuff because:
1. They are not allowed to advertise the product.
2. They are not allowed to display it in the store
So most stores don't even have it.
I agree that I don't think that computer games ARE a problem, but again, todays parents are not necessarily all the best in educating / teaching their kids. And as long as parents DON'T take responsiblity for what they're kids play, somebody else has to as it seems.
Michael
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
You are missing my point. YES, I can get those nutrients elsewhere. However, I wouldn't eat meat if it didn't fulfill all three criteria. Tasting good and ability to eat them are NOT sufficient; add nutritional value, however, and it is sufficient for me to eat it.
[ home ]
I have no problem killing my food; but I also love pets. Growing up closer to one's food, in the midst of nowhere, imparts on one how animals are great values to man--in more ways than one. They can be great pets or great food. But they are not rational beings and do not have rights. There's no point in senseless sufferring, for sure, but there's less sense in foregoing one's food.
Remember that humans are omnivorous.
steve
OTOH has there ever been a found a proven conclusive link between on-screen violence and tendencies towards violence in the real-world? Or is it just cultural?
I mean, in Switzerland every adult male is legally required to keep a fully automatic rifle in their homes. Still the homicide rate there hovers around the 1.1 per 100,000 and in the good ol' US of A it's something like 10.3. [ObDisclaimer: Data from around 1988 when violent computer games weren't as graphic as today]
My spoon is too big.
"I've never played 'Soldier of Fortune,' but the screenshots are roughly as bloody as Q3A's giblets of flesh when a rocket hits a dead body"
For those of you who haven't seen the game in action... SOF is probably the most violent game I've ever played, because they went to great lengths to simulate the effects of weapons on various areas of the body. In Quake, a bullet hit is a bullet hit. In SOF, the enemy will react according to the part of his body you shot... grabbing his throat, losing an arm, grabbing his crotch and moaning in pain, etc.
There's probably more blood in other games, but trust me- SOF has brought a wince to the face of many a jaded gamer who wouldn't bat an eye at a Quake3 gibfest as they see an SOF enemy have both his arms blown off with a shotgun and then sink to the ground with a knife in his groin.
Still though, it's not much more BLOODY than other games, it's just a little more realistic-feeling...
Also, I really liked Jaime's point about the animal violence... if they're REALLY concerned about the animals, why do they kill so darn many of them up there? :)
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
I haven't. Maybe the posters should play it before they go off talking about how censorship is wrong, blah, blah blah.
:)
I live in Vancouver, and I disagree with the mentality that some people have towards video game violence.
But from the descriptions of the game, it sounds like it is extremely violent to the point of being too realistic. Quake III isn't realistic, it's cartoony.
What I do like in BC is the fact that everyone is allowed to go topless at beaches and other public places if they want (women included). Wreck Beach is the local nude beach near the University of British Columbia, and everyone accepts that.
The attitude toward hemp is also much more relaxed here. While the police bust the larger grow ops, they're not going to arrest you for possessing marijuana.
Plus the drinking age is 19
I'm really surprised that this comes from BC because the NDP is presently forming the government. For non-Canadian readers, the NDP is the "far-left" (would be extreme-left in the US and center-left in Europe) party and is known for its progressist opinions. As an example, one of their most pro-eminent federal MPs is Svend Robinson who is a gay activist and defends the right to assisted euthanasia. I would have been much less suprised if this had come from neighboring Alberta which is the most red-neck province in Canada.
But I dont believe that this will go far as we also have a constitution, Bill of Rights and a Supreme court that will probably strike that down.
> Now 17-year-olds can't play a video game because it's called violent - and real violence is still called dinner.
:)
To quote Dr. James Hurley (formerly employed at the Bethesda Naval Hospital): "Plants are alive too. Why don't you just starve?" How about we look at the plight of plants. This cute (arguable, but work with me) little tomato plant is sitting in this garden (that, for some reason, is weed free and watered regualry. huh) enjoying the sunshine, when, suddenly, this guy comes along in funny clothes carrying a basket. What's he doing? My buddy Frank is shaking for some reason. Oh no. He's reaching for me, now. What's in the basket. Hey! Let go of my fruit there. Ah! He just ripped part of me off! Oh! The pain! The torture! Will this ever stop? Nope. Little Tommy Tomoato gets plundered regulary by those evil vegetarians.
This aversion to the "violence" against livestock bred for human consumption is, in my opinion, quite absurd. That field of bulls, just like your garden, has been carefully tended to produce a food item for personal or market consumption. Maybe both. Could we kill our animals more humanely (I find that interesting when applied to animals)? Sure, but how you shut your yap until you quit cutting the heads off all that grass with your lawn mower, butcher!
Unpolished, and probably dumb, but there it is...
jason
Have a good day?! Impossible! I'm at work!
If anything, probably not violent and sickening enough to get the point across. I want combat sim games to get at least as realistic-looking as the special-effects sequences in Starship Troopers, where hapless troops were impaled, dismembered and decapitated by the aliens.
If we had live-video-quality images generated in real time, we could start seeing what kind of horror white phosphorus, napalm, and Claymore mines perpetrate on flesh. Maybe if, in a first-person shoot-'em-up, it were possible to get wounded by shrapnel that turns out the be the bone fragments of the guy next to you -- as happens sometimes in real-world combat -- it might make a few would-be Sgt. Rock types stop and think a little.
"How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
--
--
"Insert witty quote here."
Well, that's good. Because if you were saying all that I would have had no idea what the hell you were talking about.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
No serious nutritionist nowadays believes a healthy diet requires meat.
And "meat" (or food in general) is not the same thing nowadays than it was when homo sapiens evolved. You know, they didn't have agriculture back then; the foods they ate were very different from what we have today. The animals people ate were wild animals they hunted-- this means far leaner meat, less frequently. Also, the variety of plants consumed by prehistoric people was far larger than that the typical post-neolithic person eats.
Whatever we evolved to eat is not relevant in the way you think to what we should eat in today's very different environment.
Are you adequate?
After reading this, the commentary misses a huge issue. In the US, we got bent out of shape over parental advisory on records. That was JUST a lable, record stores can still sell you an album with a parental advisory if you are under 18. We call this censorship.
In Canada, they take a game that is apparently not much more violent than anything elso out there, stick a huge no-no lable on it, and refuse it to be sold to minors.
Rather than spouting off about freedom, you would prefer to write about your deep compassion for animals because they are being tortured for food. I don't care where you stand as far as your diet goes, the issue is not killing animals, the issue is repression. The Canadian government has already taken their citizen's guns away, now they are taking their video games too.
Free as in speech, free as in beer, or free as in lunch?
...and so is anyone else that thinks it's wrong to kill animals for food, but perfectly fine to kill plants (or maim them, abort their offspring, etc). I could see an argument for not eating as much meat as most of the western culture does, but for health reasons only. If you're against killing, get your minerals from a rock!
This is stupid. The US already has the ESRB, so we don't NEED any laws for this. If you are under 18 you are your PARENT'S RESPONSIBILITY. If they think you can play it, they should allow you. If they don't they shouldn't. By mandating this type of thing you take power AWAY from parents and assume that big brother knows best. This is so ridiculous because anybody can read the ESRB label that says mature audiences. What next, are they going to make Liesure Suit Larry illegal?
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
CrotchShot for Unreal Tournament
The point that you are missing about a rating system is that it gives a good idea of whats inside the box (game, video, music, movies, etc) so that I, as a responsable adult, does not have to watch, listen, rent, buy every damn thing before I deceide whats good for my kids or not. When I see "g" I know I can safely bring it on my TV (and not watch it before I listen to it again with my kids) and that people wont get stabbed, killed, blown, etc.
This is not censorship either, they are not trying to prohibit the sale, if you want it, you go in the big guys section, if not, you can go rent Benji movies & games.
Soldier of fortune is an extremely violent game. I play it myself and like to kill dummies espacially with the riffle. But that does not mean that it should not be rated adult. Here in Canada, we dont have a 17 rating like in the usa, so it's 18.
The fact that violence exists doesn't mean that it should be flaunted for people and children of all ages. Nor does it mean that someone whose lifestyle causes violence to be done to animals, is a hypocrite because he tries to prevent children from viewing it firsthand. The editorial is a non-sequitur fallacy. 'jamie' says that
- person x eats meat, which is the result of violence.
- person x wants to prevent children from seeing violence.
- person x is a hypocrite; the fact that his habits cause violence precludes his ability to prevent others from viewing that violence.
Following his logic, children should view their parents having sex, or see all kinds of intimate behavior between adults. A man who has had children has had sex, so his children should be acquainted with the details of that process.Therefore:
Lay off the editorials, or make it a different heading so we can choose not to see them. matt
The author should be eviscerated, decapitated, dismembered and burnt to death...
...and then eaten.
FWIW, I had to ask the guy behind the counter at Toys R Us for a copy of "Perfect Dark" because it's rated M. I'm sure that's We Be Toys' corporate policy.
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Ok, I'm a moron. I should have known that since my aunt is from there. That's one "cool point" for me *GRIN*
Eh...
...this game was banned for minors in Canada, not the US, so I'm not sure how much of a case for government hypocrisy you can make there, given that Canada is pretty strict about guns.
Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
There are plenty of people who don't support movie ratings either. Especially because the MPAA admits bias in how they give them. For example, Coming Soon and American Pie came out at the same time. American Pie was more explicit, but since it was about male sexuality, it got an R rating while Coming Soon had trouble avoiding nc17. And the MPAA admitted that they were being biased, but said it was okay because they were just representing what parents would think. For reasons like this, plenty of people oppose movie ratings. So don't assume that because video game rating are similar they must be okay.
The bus came by and I got on
That's when it all began
There was cowboy Neal
At the wheel
Of a bus to never-ever land
I'd rather be lucky than good.
ok. first off, let me say that I own the game and I already played it in its entirety. this is another case of brain-dead politicians making decisions on crap that they know nothing about. on the news sites linked to in this article, they are talking about renting games and video arcades! this si a freakin' computer game! it isn't in arcades! and I wish that I could rent computer games! In fact, I admire the SOF developers for their parental controls. there are warnigs all over this product talking about the violence. parents can lock their children from playing with all of the violence options on. I tried playing with them all off, and it isn't very bad at all. in the US, stores are starting to obey laws regarding selling video and computer games with an "M" (mature) rating. I'm 15 and the only reason that I got the game without my parents is because one of my friends works at Electronic Boutique. i think that it is a very nice game, if you can't stomach it, turn off the violence options (hey, it runs faster and smoother too!). -greg mcclendon
Yes. I am pale. That's genetic. I am a white american with an Irish background. Both my Gradfathers and my father suffered from skin cancer and I burn quickly so I have spent most of my life playing/working indoors or wearing clothing that protects my skin (long sleaves and a hat).
As far as being a "fat loser." You are wrong. I am six feet tall and weigh 185 pounds. I am not fat, although it is obvious that I do not go without eating a couple of good meals every day. As far as the loser side, you can judge that based on whatever criteria yoo use to make yourself feel more important or worthy of others. Since I feel that even the guy on the street begging for a cigarette is worth something, I tend not to peg people as "winners" and "losers." - However, I do not make slanderous statements about other people and their children while hiding behind anonynmity, and that would place me outside of the "loser" category in a lot of people's books.
Have a nice day.
Brought to you by Frobozz Magic Penguin Fodder.
my bad. should read libertarian anti-gun-control lobbyist.
Can your IM do this?
First of all don't flail me to death, because I didn't read many of the replys to the article. In fact, I just searched for "Germany" and "Bloodpatch". This post isn't going to be read by anyone anyway, because it's already "old" and I am poster number 50034567.
Here in Germany ultra violent movies and computer games are put on an so called "index" when they become too violent. Just like pornography you have to be 18 or older to buy that stuff.
No commercials and no ads allowed. But it is not as bad as being x-rated is for an American movie. Fight Club was 18 or older in Germany and many people saw it. Quake sells well. And anybody of legal age can get the stuff, even in "normal" shops, no guilty feeling of visiting a seedy sex shop is involved ;-).
(The violence is gauged on the psychological impact it causes. This is very subjective, but helps you to distinguish between Tomm and Jerry and some kind of Blood and Gore Flick which glorifies violence. America has that, too. South Park the movie, would have been x-rated if it weren't a cartoon.)
On the negative side, some vendors "censor" their games for release in Germany. Blood is green. Soldiers in Half-Life are robots, body's can't be mutilated, etc. But than there are so called "Bloodpatches" available on the internet that turn everything gory again.I can live with that. It's just restrictions and not censorship. You do not have to buy the tamed German version of a Game, you can get an import. I think Quake is on the "index", no cutie German Version, and everybody plays it. A well known computer magazine uses it as a kind of standard for real world graphics perfomance for video cards.
Restricting pornography and violence, so that kids don't get too disturbed (parents are not always a big help) seems quite OK to me. Americans might Ask themselves why is pornography restricted while violence is not ? That' strange, too. Or swear words and blasphemy, there seems to be a taboo on those while in most European countries nobody gets exited.
Or take something like the American Nazi Party. Something like this (left or right) is forbidden in Germany, because it "acts against the basic concepts of our democratic society"(TM). We had our experience with a totalitarian organization that ursurped a democracy and we do not want it to happen again. Too much government, you might reply and you might be right. But isn't it a basic principle that government and society should reflect each other, be two sides of a medal ? Maybe that truism is why we accept that kind of rules, even though it comes close to censorship.
So on the one hand we trust our government more than Americans do and on the other hand we keep a close look at it so it doesn't get out of hand. (One example of that "closer look" is the number of people participating in elections. Not a 100 percent are voting, but it is a lot more than in the US).
Aaaaaah, that rant felt good. And maybe I clarified one or two things that make America and Europe (Germany) so very different even though we share so many similarities in our belives and goals.
Marcus (mmkhd are all of my initials, I laugh at a single middle initial :-)
Let me get this straight - it's okay for kids to rent or buy games that play down the results of firing a weapon at someone/thing, but it's not okay for kids to see what a gun can really do?
I grew up with guns, and I knew from an early age that what they did was *nasty*. Shooting something doesn't make it "fade out", and shooting a limb doesn't make a living thing die.
This isn't to say that kids should be allowed to play SoF (not my kids, none of my business), but if it was *my* kids, I wouldn't let them play a game that downplays the consequences of weapon use either.
Oh, and just because plants can't run away doesn't mean they want you to eat them. I'm an equal opportunity predator.
In Tahiti, you'll see wild dogs roaming the island. The original inhabitants brought chickens, pigs, and dogs, all they needed to survive. Yes, they ate dogs.
Then the missionaries came, and forbade them to eat dogs. Now they have wild dogs. Having dogs as a pet is still largely and alien concept.
My question is, where the fuck in the bible does it say not to eat dogs?
Cultural imperialism.
I think I would eat my precious Shiloh, if I was starving. I'd probably have to get VERY hungry to eat another human, but to avoid death, I would do it.
Cows, on the other hand, are very tasty, and I'll even eat a steak if I'm nearly stuffed.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
It's a perfectly consistent argument: we, as humans, are the most powerful and most influential creatures on the planet, giving us dominion over the Earth (whether you are religious or not; I am atheist).
Since we can reason, we as a society have decided that some animals are worthy of some types of rights, and so we grant them those rights. Since innate rights do not exist (as they are defined strictly by society, tradition, and convention), animals have no rights we do not grant to them.
Logically, then, we must grant animals any rights we wish them to have. I am not against giving animals rights if society decides to do so; what I am arguing against is the notion that _anyone_ --- animal or human --- possesses innate rights divorced from rational society.
Questions?
[ home ]
P.S.: Anyone who thinks that a video game(console, PC, or arcade) is a training simulator has either never played one, or never been on an actual killing spree.
Does this sentence not scare anyone else?
Please.. tell me your geography isn't that bad.
Do you really think 'British Columbia' is in Britain?
I suggest you have a look at your map again, and notice the giant land mass between Washington state and Alaska....
The addendum about animals etc. is pure relativisim: other things are real bad so the just plain bad stuff is okay. If your point is that you don't think video games can ever be realistic enough to influence a child's value system then you've got yourself an argument, but at least try to stick to the issue raised by the item.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
So they want to censor games that depict wanton and gratuitous violence. We need to address a few things first...
Why are they doing this? It seems that they're trying to protect influential minds from such gore, which, in a sense, is a good idea. I'm sure if I had kids I wouldn't want them playing a game that teaches them to kill. Of course, on the other hand, if you look at the six o'clock news, there is violence in everyday society.
How will the censorship help? It's not just the censorship that works; We have to help out the people we're looking to protect. If we just put in a label that says 'This game is gory', it won't work. Educating children if you are a parent or guardian is the best bet. Even if you let your children play the game, tell them that this is not real and that violence is not the way to solve problems in the 'real' world. Let your children watch the news with you and explain what is happening. This way here, you are not only protecting your children, but educating them as well.
Whether you agree with censorship or not is your own personal matter. Protecting our society from real-world violence takes everyone.
-- Ni. --
"Right now, parents are flying blind. They don't know whether a video game that's picked up by their kid at a store contains graphic depictions of violence that involves their child in killing or maiming or torture -- or whether it's a benign hopping hedgehog that's bouncing off balls and collecting points."
Well gee, heaven forbid they should turn the package over and look at any screen shots or anything.
A friend gave me SOF to try a while back, and I must say, it is the worst game I have ever played interms of blood and guts. I am a avid QuakeIII, Quake II, and Unreal player, but they just cannot hold a Candle to SOF. If you shoot someone in the head with certain weapons, you will only blow away half of the head, leaving realistic lookin skull fragments and brain, etc. Like wise, shooting in the gut will lead to realistic intesines spewing out of their stomach. One of the areas of the meat packing plant is the sewer, where you slog through disembodied cow parts, a river of blood, and various red objects falling from grates and tunnels. Let me say this again: The bloodiest game I have ever witnessed.
Now, while I do not condone censorship of any type, I must say that this is not something I would let my children (if I had any) play. I don't think government should be playing the parents role in situations such as this. But on the other hand, I can see why this game was given this rating.
Eric
Make it idiot-proof and someone will build a better idiot.
the descision to not allow kids to play this game... but I dont think it has anything to do animal rights. In this society, cows/pigs/etc are viewed as a commodity.. sure, their slaughter IS violent, but killing a cow to eat it doesnt teach someone violent tendencies. What these people are worried about is kids killing digital animals/people in a violent manner, and enjoying killing them (developing violent tendencies). Do you think that people at slaughterhouses get a huge rush every time they kill a cow? sorry, i have to insert this flamebait: 'If we're not supposed to eat animals, then why are they made of meat?'
Boycott Shampoo! Demand REAL POO!
The point is that the act of violence is something that children shouldn't witness. The implication is that the slaughter of a cow in a slaughterhouse is going to be less psychologically damaging to little Johnny than witnessing Columbine-esque chaos on CRT's a few inches away. (Many parents naively still think of pacman when they think of video games).
While it is true that the slaughter of livestock is very real and very horrific for some people (perhaps people who know what actually goes on), eating a hamburger is much different than witnessing and enacting nearly photorealistic carnage and brutality.
Amazing magic tricks
When I visited Vancouver about 10 years ago (at the tender age of approximately 12) there were lots of video arcades but we weren't allowed into until age 18. I think they also had porno of some kind there, but I can't really remember. I think it's interesting that the orientation of the video game market is so different there than in America. (However, it was possible to play Street Fighter, etc. at local convenience stores, so I don't think it is/was strictly an age-restriction issue.)
Personally I like the Amsterdam model: lots of sex and drugs and almost no violence. (And now that I think of it, few or no video arcades, either!)
Ben Chadwick - Editor, Zero Future/Post-Collegiate Malaise
And I've never spent a night in a hospital. So, the assertion that it is extremely difficult to live well on a vegetarian (or at least a lacto-ovo vegetarian) diet is falsified by my experience. And the experience of my siblings. And my parents. The least healthy of all my relatives is my father, who has reverted to a carnivorous diet.
The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
That's the funniest thing i've read all day. And i've seen an above-average number of funny things today.
--
Max V.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
This is one of the few times I wish there were moderator points for stories. I would hope this story would be voted to -1 (I set mine for 2).
Not only is the story/rant off topic but completely misses the point of this ruling. As a resident of BC I find that our provincal government is quashing a personal rights and freedoms on a daily basis. This ruling doesn't surprise me coming from a goverment that when it can't pass a law makes it a Worker's Compensation regulation. They have actively gone against court rulings on subjects because they didn't agree and wanted to push laws through. The ironic thing is that we protect our children from violent video games so they are safe to go home to parents that beat them. What sort of logic is this? They pay lip service to "protecting children" but they won't hire more social workers to help kids. They just want Band-Aid (tm) solutions to these problems hoping people will go away feeling something has been done.
I whole heartedly agree that games should have descriptive warnings on them to allow parents to make choices but I don't think that this is allowing parents to do their job. It lets the government do our thinking for us because "they know best." Let me decide how to raise my children and I'll let you decide yours.
We are a province reduced to the level of children. "Won't somebody please think of the children" I believe I've heard that phrase mentioned a couple times on Geeks in Space (You guys want to comment here?)
To the author of the vegan rant: What an ego you have to think that you know better than Mother Nature. Who made you god to decide who lives and dies? Eating meat is part of nature and we as human animals are part of that cycle. While I agree that our treatment of animals is abhorable, I don't think flying in the face of your own nature is the way to do it.
Additionally why are you picking on the plants? You must be a low specist person to kill and torture helpless plants in the name of saving animals. (once again returning to the concept of who made you god)
BTW: I don't eat veal for "cute animal" hypocritical reasons and often go vegetarian for a week because I like it. Food is not moral. I am a strong believer in nature and I hate extremists like "vegans".
In an attempt to avoid "embarrassing" various of the Dictators who would be showing up for the conference, the Canadian government attempted to place all sorts of operational restrictions on protest at the conference. This was rather problematic given that the main leaders' conference was going to be at the University of British Columbia.
Despite some questions in RCMP ranks, about the legality of these restrictions, some very constitutionaly questionable actions were taken. Among the most questionable were the pepper-spraying of protestors, and the MOST questionable of those was when staff seargent Stewart walked up to a group of protesters in an area which, up until then, they had been allowed and -- on about 9 seconds warning -- sprayed the whole group including a CBC reporter.
In response to complaints about RCMP overreaction at the event, Cretien made a couple of comments, including one that "At least it was better than using Baseball Bats". At a later protest, when Cretien returned to Vancouver, police DID use baseball bats on protestors.
Numerous CBC articles on apec here. and Here .
Some comments from the protestors' point of view
OH, and while I'm at it: some video on the Soldier of Fortune story. (to stay on topic).
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I'm sure everyone will rush-out to buy the Linux port after the cheery introduction the game has recieved in this forum. :-)
Why are they worrying about solider of fortune? there's a game (I forget the name, which isn't helpful but oh well) that allows you to play a police officer and you are allowed to handcuff/beat and kill people.including some poor guy's mom who runs out of the house to stop you from arresting her son. My question is...how is this article related to Soldier of Fortune's 18 and up classification? All it talks about is the "hardships" that animals must endure and how wonderful it is to be vegan. As many vegan friends as I have I can honestly say that this is just too oversensitive and idealistic. Yeah so what if baby cows are fed chemicals to help soften their meat? so what if they are kept under poor conditions. Perhaps you haven't stopped to think about what would happen if we suddenly released all these animals. Homo Sapiens and their ancestors were orginally hunters, gatherers, and woodsmen..but that doesn't mean we still are. We have evolved/digressed into a lazy animal that alters our environment instead of adapting, if you took a modern human and stuck it, defenseless in a large forest (somewhere they were unfamiliar with) then that human would most likely die. Cows are the same, the fat heifers of today are definately not the hardened bovines of yesteryear, they don't have a good sense of danger, they're fat and they'd die. Not only that, but the question of waste management comes into play. Hog and chicken waste are stored in large lagoons, above ground water levels, in order to secure the safety of the populous, but if you release all these fluffy cute little animals..they'll be free to defecate or die and rot whereever they please, creating hazardous conditions for residents within about 50 miles. Your intentions may be good but they aren't always practical. as for solider of fortune..."blow shit up!"
"that which does not kill me makes me bitter" -anon
Contrary to some early posters claiming that jamie's ideology leads him off-topic, I think it's perfectly fine. His topic is _not_ veganism or video games per se, but government hypocrisy - which is dramatically exposed in this instance. Sometimes it takes a free-software nut like RMS to expose hypocrisy, sometimes it takes a libertarian anti-gun lobbyist, and sometimes it takes a vegan. Having an ideology is not a problem, as long as you use to to expose real problems, IMHO.
Can your IM do this?
I wholly agree with you! I think it's wrong for the BC government to ban the sale if either porn or violent games/movies to minors.
:-) This is where it's REALLY going! hahahaha
All my original post said was that since they're banning porn, they better ban violence too, or risk looking like hypocrites as well as idiots. On the "banning violence" part, I can't wait till there are iron clad content laws in place, then watch some complainer try to ban graphic descriptions of nailing a guy to a cross.
thats all
You've turned this into an animal rights thing... when it's not.
They law of B.C. apparently prohibits minors from seeing that type of carnage... so be it.
If you want minors to be able to see that kind of carnage, well protest. However, you shouldn't use it as an excuse to push your ideals about animal rights - that's not what this is about.
I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with your stand-point, or even the POV of the submitter or even the B.C. Government... I'm just saying that this is not the appropriate place (or topic) to discuss animal rights.
BlackNova Traders
I read this news item assuming that it would be informative on what sort of video game violence was being kept from those under the age of 18, or at least would talk about video game violence.
Instead, it takes the point of the hypocrisy of a government.
While I am a fan of games of this genre (not especially SoF, but many others), allow me to point out a flaw in your logic:
When an individual kills something in a game, it's for fun. You can argue whether it's a "killing simulation" (I'd disagree) or merely a game of skill, but either way, you're finding pleasure in it. To compare this with the slaughter of animals for food is completely unfounded. Unless you're talking about some twisted individual who takes joy in killing cows in a meat packing plant, then you're off on your analysis. The people who work in those establishments aren't having fun, or killing for the sake of killing. It's a job.
If you want to analyze whether it desensitizes people or makes them like killing, then post under that topic. This has nothing to do with video game violence.
--
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I am omnivorous. I choose to be that way because meat is good for me (in limited quantities) and I like the taste. That's all there is to it.
I'm not an inherently cruel person. I don't torture animals for fun. However, I would like to make it very clear that animals have no inherent rights. A "right" is a human construct: in the wild, "rights" simply do not exist. Therefore to talk about "Animal Rights" is to ascribe rights to animals that society has not yet given them.
I do not torture kittens because society has decided to give those particular animals the right of humane treatment. If we, as a society, come to believe at some point that killing animals for food is wrong, then we will have given them the right to life. Until then, they are ours to do with as we please, simply because we are the most powerful creature on the food chain.
[ home ]
For you non-Canadians out there, section 33 is known as the Notwithstanding Clause.
Basically, it states that the government can disregard section 2 (labeled "fundamental freedoms"), sections 7-14 (labeled "legal rights"), and section 15 (labeled "equality before the law"), under slightly irregular terms (but not requiring any special justification).
Furthermore, section 1 says: "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
This sounds nice, but our supreme court only seems to read "subject to...reasonable limits", meaning that if the law infringes on your rights, but the judges think it it's "reasonable", the law stands and the rights are ignored.
So, between these two sections, we Canadians have no rights over whatever laws our current government sees fit to pass.
We screwed up bigtime. Watch your government so it doesn't happen to you.
I was reading through this article, and was thinking to myself, "Why would it be considered an issue whether or not the death of animals or people in a video game would be relevant?" Then I played the game. It is pretty gory, but not to the point where you'd regulate it. It is gory, and it is Disgusting, but is it that violent to the point where you honestly have to take it off the shelves and not let people rent it? I don't know if this is legal in Canada, since I'm not canadian, but in america, if they tried to pull something like this, I'm pretty sure people would raise a fit. It's a game for christ's sake! I can see maybe if it were REAL, but not a game. Sorry to say, I would agree to some sort of regulation, but not to the point where they would not allow children to buy or rent it. Does anyone remember when 2 live crew (sp) put out their album, and all the flack that they got for that? I do understand that, but not this. This is pretty wrong. I think that putting a warning on it would be enough for parents to look at it and say "Maybe we shouldn't get this for our children", and in the opening credits of the demo it SAYS that this game contains realilistic gore and violence. Any parent who cared about their children at all would see that and think about the repercussions of this. Does this game make people into violent criminals? No. Does this game depict violence in a way that hasn't been done before? No. Does this game take it to the next level in Violence? ABSOLUTELY. Is that bad? In some cases yes, but in others, no. I live in California, The land of Raincoat laws. Every day I see more and more rights taken away from people because of one thing. People are stupid. I heard a quote once, and it went something like this "The day that you Idiot-proof software is the day that someone makes a better idiot." It's so true though. If people are stupid enough to actually act out the depictions in this don't really have any sort of control to begin with, not to mention a very low IQ. This game is not for those of the Weak of stomach, and of heart, But for the hardcore gamer it's an adrenaline Rush. That's my 2 Cents.
(The violence is gauged on the psychological impact it causes. This is very subjective, but helps you to distinguish between Tomm and Jerry and some kind of Blood and Gore Flick which glorifies violence. America has that, too. South Park the movie, would have been x-rated if it weren't a cartoon.)
South Park was going to be X-Rated anyway, they had to omit a scene to prevent it. And are you trying to tell me that people in Germany can't distinguish between "Tomm and Jerry and some kind of Blood and Gore Flick" on their own? Hello? Hello?? How do you translate 'independent thought' into German? By the way, violence is glorified every day by every government with a military, including yours. Move to Switzerland.
We had our experience with a totalitarian organization that ursurped a democracy and we do not want it to happen again.
Sounds to me like the pot is calling the kettle black.
People eating meat does not, at this point, preclude others from eating something else.
Furthermore, I have yet to see the law forcing American farmers to produce food to give away for free. Last I knew, we were still in something approximating a free market which has a high demand and correspondingly high supply of meat.
Those who are interested in upholding this (presumably non-binding) "Charter of Human Rights" are free to accept charity and use that to purchase food for the rest of the world. If they demand enough grain, the supply chain will shift toward producing more grain. Wonderful thing the market is.
[ home ]
I'm an omnivore, though I cut back on meat consumption and cook vegetarian meals once in a while for health reasons and for variation. I made a conscious decision to do that, and personally I wouldn't mind at all becoming vegetarian, but hey, I like the taste of meat, and I know where it's coming from.
:)
I hunt sometimes, with my father and a few friends. We barter the game to a local hotel in return for having some of the hares and pheasants skinned and cleaned for us, and some of the larger animals turned into the occasional gourmet meal. We have get a licence to do that, and do it under the supervision of the local wildlife preserver.
Hunting, which is called barbaric by some, is much more natural than buying meat in the 7/11. Some people say they wouldn't eat meat from an animal they've seen alive, but I say that's extremely hypocritical - when I eat meat, I think what a shame it is that I DIDN'T see the animal alive. I know how they make saussages, I've seen it done, and I've done it the traditional way, and I still eat saussage, dispite the saying that those who respect the law and love saussage shouldn't see either made.
Actually, I think many vegetarians and vegans are equally hypocritical. Those who do it for tree-hugging hippy reasons should realise that EVERYthing has a good and a bad side. They don't want to be responsible for harming those poor animals? Well, what of the car you drive? The hard-wood furniture and woodwork in and on your house? Your nice silk clothes? How do you think the electricity that powers your computer is made? Wake up, people, stop the whole "holier than thou" thing. See the light, AND the darkness.
Yeah, I'm Pagan, so what?
)O(
the Gods have a sense of humour,
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
When cows can speak and form social groups (as even the most primitive humans have done, including those slaves), we'll reconsider their status as food animals.
The leap from "Africans are people too" to "cows are people too" is a big leap. As lowly as any slaver would rate his slaves, I'm sure he would rate them above cows.
My first /. Post is about violence. I wonder what that says about my personality... SOF is a very cool game. While the engine is outdated (Q2 engine) the level of realism is incredible. It adds a whole new level to the game. Shooting bots with a rocket gets old while plugging somebody in the crotch for an instant kill (yes, Groin shots are death shots) makes it more interesting. Also, I don't think that violence in games contributes to violence out of games. I am still just as appalled when i see someone get shot on the news as I was before I started fraggin. My advice is buy game and enjoy it. --LR
Society needs some enforcement mechanism. Yes, certain segments of society have ascribed to animals a certain set of rights, but those people are powerless since they do not have the majority-controlled government on their side. So, society as a whole (whose force is represented by the government) has not given them those rights.
[ home ]
I agree 100%. kids + bloody violent game = bad news bears. Especially considering how much better and more realistic video games are getting, i don't think that 13 year old kids who can't get into Scary movie should be able to see stuff like this. Call me a little old fashioned, but I think kids mature too fast now adays. And that's why you have 10 year olds bringing guns into school. (sorry, i really should stay away from that subject too. i'm just gonna piss everybody off today
kids should value their kid-hood. go outside and play. ride a bike. don't sit inside and rot watching terribly bloody video games all your life.
hell, maybe we should ban ALL video games until the age of 10 or so (ok, and i just pissed off the geeks too now. I'd better quit)
These kids are our future. They're gonna have to take care of me when i'm old. i want them to at least have a firm grip on reality so that i don't get Euthanized as per Death Race 2000 just because they find it entertaining.
-Superb0wl
-Superb0wl
It's not that I'm lazy....it's that I just don't care.
...until I started reading their comments on Slashdot. And then Jamie's offtopic rant appears and seals it for me. Most vegans I've seen here are irrational hypocrites. Nevermind the fact that we all use animal products in our everyday lives...Humans eat animals just like every other animal eats things lower down in the food chain. It's a fact of life, DEAL WITH IT.
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
Course, the point has probably been missed....
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
:wq
Actually, the language law is practically unconstitutional. They actually have to pass it under section 33, which revokes your constitutional rights. The bill must pass by a 2/3 majority, and it fizzles and dies after 5 years, at which point the Quebec gov't passes a new language law.
If they didn't invoke section 33, the language law would be declared unconstitutional so fast it would make your head spin.
Is this post not nifty? Sluggy Freelance. Worshi
Geez! We're right across the border from you!
Kids are banned in Canada from viewing porn.
IMHO violence is worse than sex. I think most would agree with me. (I would rather get laid than shot, how about you?)
So could the BC government really let violent games be sold and rented to kids, and not look like hypocrites?
All you freedom of speech freaks, take a deep breath, relax, and realize that all the governmnet is doing is trying to be self-consistent in it's laws regarding childerens access to information. This is a GOOD thing. And if the child wants to play the game or watch the porn anyways, let mom or dad buy it for them. That is the way it should be.
Flame on brothers.
Who doesn't have a big brother to go and get the game for them (under aged players i mean)????
I don't it. That part of the world is barely like Britian, and nothing like Colombia. Naming a providence something like that should be charges as false advertising
What? - Einstein
First, as someone has already pointed out, that was way too much ranting about people eating meat based solely on the line "kills and maims animals and humans." Which you will note, includes the phrase "and humans."
It's a pretty well known fact that killing animals is legal in this country. It's also a pretty well known fact that the people must be 18 or older in order to view violent material in this country. Whether you agree with that judgement, it's nothing new. The MPAA hs been around for quite a while.
I would say that a game where you play a character who commits acts of violence is more intense and "worse" than a movie that just shows it to you.
So if you have a problem with this age restriction, don't get all outraged because of Soldier of Fortune. Write your Senator or Congressperson or whoever and try to explain to them why the MPAA is unconstitutional.
What's wrong with putting a restriction on the game? Of course, I'm turning 30 this September, so you will have to take my opinion with a grain of salt.
I guess if I were 16 and someone were telling me that I couldn't play Zork because the written depiction of the death of a troll is too graphic (or how about that fantastic altar sacrafice scene from Infocom's Enchanter?) I would be VERY pissed and ready to fight for the right to play the game.
Content ratings are a good thing, if they are used by PARENTS as tools to make sure that their children are playing games that are suited to the child's age. They are bad when they are used by governments and businesses to ban content to individuals (If my daughter rents a movie or game that I find offensive, as a parent, I can just tell her that she cannot watch or play it.) The problem is that too many people want to use these kinds of ratings as a replacement for responsible parenting. Parents who take an interest in their kids lives have more than enough opportunity to direct their kid's viewing and game playing habits.
Oh, and I am not a vegetarian. If meat is murder, then murder makes good cookin'.
Brought to you by Frobozz Magic Penguin Fodder.
Check out the violence in those sometimes. You'll be stunned. Yeah, morals sure are decreasing, aren't they? The violence in those games is nothing compared to the violence in some cartoons from the '40s, '50s and '60s that are still shown today to children all over the world. And what of the Big Bad Wolf eating Little Red Riding Hood and her Granny? Or the evil witch killing Snowwhite? Yeah, we really gotta ban that too.
)O(
the Gods have a sense of humour,
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
Arg... I'm still not used to posting on slashdot :-)
The other game that's struck me as kinda sketchy is Kingpin... Beating a very realistic-looking whore to death with a steel bar in order to steal her money seems a bit risqué.
Wah!
I wonder if they bothered to look on the store shelves. Maybe they missed the "no gore" version sitting right next to the "regular" versions.
It was Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold that were terrorists at Columbine Why the hell do people all the sudden have to relate everything to that school? The place is only a few miles from my house (Luckily I go to a different school, in a different school district, because Columbine is at the North East end of Douglass county School District, where just a little farther apart becomes Littleton public Schools.) Anyway, tragedy happens, we must move on, bringing up bad memrories only hurts people (Image going to school the next day with all the publicized threats, especially to my school), the damn legislation should have required education on weapons (Banning won't help, education is the key.) But then to have people blame outlest of hostility (preventing further problems) as the source of the problems is idiotic. Following the same logic we should ban religion because some peope turn to it for support and end up getting messed up. I am sick of all this Columbine bullshit, just stop it. Common sense should take people further than hurting people by bringing up memories. W Mitchell
The fact that you're a Vegan and PETAn has no bearing whatsoever on the controversy at hand. Hopefully you'll avoid such weak segways to self promotion in the future.
Aside from the (-1, Offtopic) nature of this rant, how is this different from movies?
If a parent found thier child watching an R-rated movie that they either picked up for them mistakenly (not knowing that it was as bad as it was), or the child picked up for themselves, we would expect a similar outcome (and not really take any special notice, either).
This is just about video games being treated like movies - and really, why shouldn't they be? It's about having sufficent warning so that parents can make informed decisions, and not allowing the children to make those decisions without thier parents consent.
How do you, as a parent, intend to 'control what your kid sees' (as everyone here wants every parent to do), if they're allowed to walk into a movie/game store and buy whatever the hell they want?
As for the animal slant, talk about focusing on an irrelevant point. Anyway, as a parent, would you really be comfortable with your kid looking at stuff like this.
British Columbia is in Canada...
Read a book!
BlackNova Traders
B] We kill many animals every day for human consumption
I'm sorry, you've presented a very eloquent and passionate plea against the slaughtering of animals, but I don't think what you're comparing has very much to do with each other. Come on, one is a computer game and the other is a choice of food. Whether or not food in our society is prepared violently has very little to do with purchasing a violent game.
--
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
Now there was a "War is cool!" movie if I've ever seen one.
The opening scene did a pretty good job of showing the very worst of war, but the final bridge-guarding scene was total "rah-rah the American army kicks ass!" tripe (entertaining though it was). Yeah, some of them died, but not the main characters, and they were very improbably successful against those odds.
I bet that movie did wonders for US army recruiting.
I expect Diablo 2 shall be joining the ranks of dubiously deadly games fairly soon; what was a over hyper rumour in Diablo 1, a handy cheat code in Starcraft, is udder reality in Diablo 2: There IS a cow level.
... but that's not really the point!
Once the orange menace from the nether regions have been dispatched (That's Diablo folks!), the intrepid murder can perform a simple ritual and open a gateway to pastoral level filled with... cows... (cleverly enough, Blizzard calls this "The Secret Cow Level")
Freed from any legal restrictions the cowkiller to be can then KILL, MURDER, DESTROY those hansome heifers in all manner of sick ways (while they go "MOOO" with some regret), from swords, knifes, bows and arrows, sticks and bones, fire and ice, sick and twisted spells, or simply by pounding them with your fists!
Think about the damage this may do to a fragile mind!
Of course they walk on their hind legs, outnumber you about 500 to 1 and all wield halberds
--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
You're about to kill a thing and you worry about causing it pain? It's a good idea not to cause unnecessary pain to an animal you're going to keep, because otherwise it might turn on you or otherwise be harder to handle, but a painful death gives exactly the same result as a painless one.
I wouldn't gutshoot a deer, but that's because I'd hate to either lose it or foul the meat.
I think the proper way to kill livestock is to bleed them. It makes the best meat and doesn't contaminate the meat with CS fluid (which may or may not spread mad cow disease).
IMHO, we should save our concern for those who will still be alive tomorrow.
When I die, I want to go out kicking and screaming, not caught unawares or drugged mindless.
This comment contains graphic language, not suitable for those under the age of 18.......
Oh God. Cut the sentimental crap. All you slashdot people are the same. So full of righteous bullshit.
This is a good move by the Canadian Government. It allows consumers to go into a purchase knowing full well what they are buying, rather than waiting until they get home to find out that the video game they just bought is a bit too graphic for their tastes. It doesn't restrict the fucking purchase of the game.
If you're 18 or over, who the hell cares.
If you're 17 or younger, your parents are in charge of you and they have a right to know what kind of purchases are made on your behalf. This just gives them more information and then they can decide whether to buy the game or not.
I don't give a shit about your fucking animals in torturous slaughterhouses, or your kittens and puppies at your shelter who are put to death each week because noone loves them! They have nothing to do with a parent's right to know what they are buying for their children. So leave all your Vegan self-righteousness out of this discussion.
If a kid wants to play the game, he will be able to. Maybe his parents won't buy it for him because of the age limit, and he won't be able to buy it himself. A kid today can buy a gun if he really wants to! No big deal.
You have a good point.. If there is no economic interest in caring for the lives of our "food" animals they would be left on their own. Farmers would release the animals to free up grassland for plant life (which would be much more in demand). These animals would die off in vast numbers as they coped with being free and eventually the population would level off or die out. The preditor population would temporarily explode as a new consistant food source became available... I imagine we'd get some new disease floating around from all the carnage.. we'd probably get some wierd neurological problem from the lack of meat... humans would slowly get dumber.. then the astroid would still hit the earth and we'd all die, because Bruce Willis would be too wimpy from all the sprouts to blow the fucker up... it's a lose/lose situation so we might as well eat the fucking cows.
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
I am going to invent a helmet that kids can wear that digitally blocks out everything that I think is bad. I'll put it on my kids so that they never hear or see anything bad in their life until they are 18. This will make the world a better place. Of course, this will have to be closed source, because I wouldn't want someone using their morals instead of mine! Just think, a few generations of that, no one will even remember what sex and violence and profanity is. Right? (Make sure Orin Hatch never reads this!)
I'm only 24 and up to a short while ago I thought the ratings were a load of s**t too, I remember playing violent games where I slaughtered endless badguys(contra, ect.). But not to long ago I was in a store where I saw a kid(12 or 13 yro) playing a FPS, it's a heck a lot more realistic than any game most of us played at that age. With the realism and violence in games mainly FPS's I think there should be rating on them similar to movies.
I have no
Sci-fi showed an episode this morning about the future of dictatorships in civilization. The executed an obsolete librarian. After all, libraries were no longer needed because books were done away with because they presented ideas to people that would threaten the well being of the state. The bible was apparantly the first to be eradicated from the earth. :) :)
Anyway, that's how everything will keep going as long as people who are not directly parenting their children decide what should and shouldn't be censored
The coolest thing about that episode is that "The state has PROVEN that God does NOT exist." Sounds like something the liberal end of the US government would do to any non-christian deity one of these days
This is NOT about violoence against animals... Its about violoence against humans.
Do you see games like "Deer Hunter" (or whatever) getting banned in Canada... No? Hmmm...
Boycott Shampoo! Demand REAL POO!
The release of SoF in England also received an 18 certificate by the British Board of Film Censors. This means that you have to be 18 to buy or rent the film.
SoF isn't the only game to be affected, with Perfect Dark also getting an 18 certificate.
Unlike the ELSA certs we have here, the BBFC classifications are enforcable by law.
To my mind this is fair. Games are getting closed and closer to reality and such savage portrails of violence should come under some form of censorship. Even though it has not been proved that violence in games or in film has an side effects, it has not been disproven either.
I'm going to ignore the whole veggie rant thing and just talk about the way games are classified in the UK.
At the moment games are not subject to any mandatory classification, but will have a tiny little mark on the back describing the recommended age group. In my experience very few people take any notice.
However it is fairly common for games to be submitted by the publishers for classification by the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification), the body who rate movies and videos before release. This is because the legal boundaries between videos/films and games are somewhat blurred since everyone started using decent graphics so publishers play it safe and submit their games.
Being fairly cynical I'd also say that they submit their games for classification in the hope that a certificate will be refused, which is effectively a ban on the distribution of the game. When this happens they can make a huge fuss and get loads of free publicity and when released the game sells like something that sells REALLY fast (I haven't had any coffee yet this morning so the similes are lacking somewhat). Two notable cases of this are Carmageddon (1 and 2) and Grand Theft Auto. Both of which made it onto TV news - advertising you just can't buy.
For the record Soldier of Fortune was given an 18 rating - the highest, with no fuss. I bought it and was suitably impressed with the realism of the game engine in how it deals with shots and blows to different parts of the body and the motion capture etc, and pretty unimpressed with the extremely linear level design and bollocks plot.
-- "Sponges grow in the ocean. I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be if that didn't happen."
Society may, at some point, decide to change the rules such that eating meat either (a) becomes very expensive or (b) becomes persecuted. The cause of such a change is irrelevant to the discussion.
What is relevant is that society will have then made a conscious decision to grant extra rights to someone (e.g., to animals if eating them is considered "wrong", or to humans if we decide that eating is a "fundamental human right"). Rights do not exist in a vacuum; society decides on sets of rights for sets of people/animals/inanimates, and imposes a form of government to enforce those rights.
[ home ]
check it out http://www.g eek-ware.co.uk/article.pl?sid=00/06/06/1918223 :)
He reckons the gore is the best reason to buy this game
==============================
http://www.geek-ware.co.uk
==============================
PROUD to be GEEK
I know not too many are going to read a comment this far down the list, but I had to say something about this.
I've worked in an abattoir, and I'll be the first to admit, periodically something goes wrong, and an animal (cattle in my case) dies a painful death. But generally, they are killed as quickly and painlessly as possible.
This is due to the fact that calm cattle taste better. This is especially true when it comes to the males.
I do feel, however, that the conditions that some animals live in are pretty atrocious.
You can never put too much water in a nuclear reactor.
Of cows are not people. But the difference between humans and cows is a difference of degree, not type. A cow is not as smart as an adult human, but it sure is smarter than a newborn human baby. Similarity shouldn't be a prerequisite for compassion anyway.
SOF is heavy stuff by 2days standards but that standard will no doubt change in 6 months time, eg Duke Nukem featured Bimapped Stippers and red pixels for blood! Slap a 18 on that! Now a days the game would get a 15 at most. But at the time it was "heavy" (for lack of a better term, or lack of sleep, I cant remember which).
But lets face it, if a kid wants a game he just gets him folk 2 buy it for him!
Da Cr33p
Um... The cartoon is a Bugs Bunny cartoon from the 1950s. He was being facetious. Chill ;)
karma is for the weak >)
I have SoF and yes, it is the most violent game I've ever seen, but, the people who made it decided to add a parental lock and adjustable violence levels so one can choose if there will be blood, gibs, dismemberment, etc. Personally, I don't think realism makes too much of a difference. Last year people were still complaining about Doom on TV. If people want to worry about this game, they should worry not about how much or little blood there is, but fact that the game emphasizes running around and killing people. Anyhoo, I think its time for me to play some more SoF.
Cheers all. I live in BC, and I'm rather aggravted by this. So, I found a place to make noise about it. One can contact Andrew Petter, the man behind the Ban here.
http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/contacts/emailag.htm
Save the Games.
All the best,
Fractal_Wave
This is a myth. People believed this back in the 70s, but it is simply not true. You don't need to match foods for proteins if you're a vegetarian. You could get all the proteins you need from just eating potatoes. Of course, the best thing to do is to eat a variety of vegetables, legumes, grains and fruit. If you do this, you are guaranteed to get all the nutrients you need, save for B12.
Are you adequate?
Big deal. Many, many games have been given the British censor's '18' rating. A few include Grand Theft Auto, Doom 2 (later downgraded to 15), Phantasmagoria 1/2, 11th Hour. Not that parents take much notice of these on games.
Then why is it that a higher-than-normal percentage of homosexuals were sexually abused as children?