Slashdot Mirror
Whiplash Causes UK Controversy On Animal Testing
Thanks to Video-Fenky for pointing out a UK Telegraph article discussing controversy over the content of Eidos-produced platform game Whiplash, which is "being criticized as 'irresponsible' by police and MPs" in England, because it "depicts animals being abused in a laboratory, including one experiment in which a hamster is fired from a cannon." Labor MP Ian Gibson said he "feared that children would gain a distorted view of animal experimentation", and a spokesperson against animal cruelty "claimed that the game made light of animal suffering, which was offensive." Whiplash is not yet out in the UK, and was released before Christmas in the States to little fanfare, though it garnered some critical adulation.
Hear, hear!
If you're offended by something then it's probably your fault for being a weakling, unprepared for what are perfectly normal occurences in the real world. Shit happens, learn how to build yourself some character and deal with it or you will live and die emotionally immature.
Personally, I wish these idiots would all go away. First Janet and now this. Will someone think of the children? More specifically, the harm all these faux moralists are doing to them?
When will it end? Next up on the block are sports games because we can't have games with competition. I mean kids today might lose and we cant have that. It's cartoon violence people. This has been around since the 1950's, and god forbid a kid plays this game. Its much better if a kid is playing this than Grand Theft Auto III.
a spokesperson against animal cruelty "claimed that the game made light of animal suffering, which was offensive."
That's how comedy (+parody) works. M.A.S.H. made light of human suffering, but got people to think about war and such.
Plus, the game is very light-hearted in a Sam & Max way. It will not be confused with reality any more than a typical Itchy & Scratchy cartoon.
Is there some U.K. law that states works of fiction may not be offensive?
Labor MP Ian Gibson said he "feared that children would gain a distorted view of animal experimentation"
Children? In the states, the game was rated 'T' for teen. U.K. has its own ratings; I believe the equivalent rating is '13' or something like that.
You know, some nights I can't sleep because I keep thinking about all those cop shows which may give children a distorted view of law enforcement. This kind of thing should be illegal.
Art should faithfully represent reality. People have no business making up stuff.
Isn't the point of the game that the animals had been the victem of cruel experiments and are getting revenge? Therefore doesn't the game thus reinforce the notion that animal testing is wrong?
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
In the future, please refrain from using the Acronym MP and Police in the same story context.
While a quick Google search would alleviate any misunderstandings, its generally assumed in america that MP stands for Military Police.
Member of Parliment is not exactly common knowledge around here, even amoung the more educated.
Like any reasonable person, I think that the fuss being made about depictions of cruelty to animals in a game is ridiculous. The content of fiction is just that, and hurts no-one, and if its entertaining, so be it.
(At this point I'd like to remind everyone that humans are animals).
But the belief that the suffering of non-humans in medical experimentation is justifiable by the possible benefits to mankind is equally ridiculous. What moral foundations is this attitude based upon?
Fundamentally, the foundation must be that the suffering of humans (by way of disease) is more significant than the suffering of non-humans.
We can further divide the anti-animal group into two camps:
* Those who refute the existence of non-human suffering
* Those who accept the existence of non-human suffering but claim it to be inferior to human suffering.
Both camps exhibit one fundamental deviation from reason. The only real evidence that anyone has for the existence of suffering is their own personal experience. These two camps take this sample size of one and extrapolate their findings to the benefit of their entire species and to the exclusion of all others. This is clearly a bigotted, unscientific and illogical position.
Those who simply refuse to accept that non-humans can suffer display simple blinkered ignorance. They can have no justification for their stance.
Those who hold that animal suffering exists generally, but that human suffering is a superior form, exhibit more subtle flaws in their reasoning.
* They admit suffering exists, hence they admit sentience of animal life.
* Without any rational possibility of understanding sentience other that which they possess, they immediately cast all beings similar in appearance in the same mental mould, and damn all others to an inferior mould.
The argument most frequently trotted out, and to which you subscribe, is that the suffering of innocent animals is 'nasty' but given that your loved one's may get some life extension out of the deal, you are happy to accept it.
Perhaps I'm from a different planet, but this reads to me thus:
"Its my feelings that count above all others. I'd be upset if people I loved were hurt, so they come next. Other people I haven't met but who share some DNA with me come after that - 'cos they're a bit like me. Don't want to know about the rest"
Given our understanding of the selfish gene, its not surprising this attitude exists. But given humans consider themselves above the limitations of their genes - "above the animals" - it stinks of the utmost hypocrisy.
Surely an animal "above all animals" can elevate its thinking above the selfish dictates of its DNA.
Let me just say that my mother and father have both had cancer. They were cured by chemotherapy; however I would not use their longevity as an excuse for non-human testing. I lost my best friend to an unexplained death. His absence is a continual ache to me, but I would not have him back if it meant innocent suffering.
The animals upon which we experiment in labs are innocent slaves being extorted for the highest price - their lives and freedom - to a clumsy, cruel, stupid and conceited master, The master hides his actions from his own miserable compassion behind a veil of self-deceit.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
A top UK university recently had to curtail its animal research due to the sheer cost of security that would be required to ensure the safety of its researchers.
Good. While I'm sure there are some less inhuman uses for animal testing than others, I can't see how anyone can think that the vast majority of it (e.g. sticking rabbits in restraints so that cosmetics and cleaning chemicals can be put into their eyes, sewing kittens' eyes shut to determine what the effect is on them if they never experience visual stimuli, repeatedly breaking dogs' bones in veterinary school so that students can practice setting them, then killing the dogs when the semester is over, vivisecting animals without anaesthetic because "it might skew the test results," etc.) does anything to elevate us as a species.
Anyhow, since most people seem not to have actually *played* this game (which is a shame, since it's great):
You play two animals who are escaping from a caricaturized corporation which tests on animals. Part of your objective is to free as many of the other animals as you can on your way out.
I fail to see what's so potentially horrible about that. If the British are so afraid of exposing children to what is effectively a cartoon's point of view, then their position must be pretty weak to begin with.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
In life, we human beings only have eachother. As such, I am committed to the survival of every person. Call it selfish if you like, but I believe it to be every creature's imperative to preserve its own kind.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.