...where is the line in making videogames that allow for users to simulate illegal activity?
If, for example, the gratuitous violence and prostitution of GTA is okay (I enjoy the game), then who's to say that a game as a rapist isn't? Obviously, even in America people would shrink from a rapist game, but where is the intellectual or moral line drawn? Is the line drawn merely by what will sell?
In movies, which I argue are the most relevant comparison, the MPAA rating system serves as a social control, because movies that exceed the R rating basically can't get a showing in theaters.
I agree that there is a line, but your comparison is flawed.
You compare GTA to movies that exceed R that can't get shown in mainstream theaters. The closest analogies of a movie to GTA would have to be either Godfather (R rated, and thought to be one of the greatest movies of all time), or Natural Born Killers (Also R). Both got shown in mainstream theaters, and both got critical acclaim. The problem is that most people don't really see anything wrong with those movies or their subject matter.
The mainstream theaters, for the most part, refuse to show the X+ rated movies (and in some cases, NC-17, as well) not because the theaters have any problem with them, but because a large number of their customers would avoid the theater if they did. Similarly, if a video game featuring graphic sex (forget rape or child molestation, let's stick to the tame stuff) were to be offered openly on the major US video game market, a great many game stores would refuse to carry it for the same reason. You think I'm off base, try to get a video game released on the major market depicting a graphically realistic representation of a man licking a woman to orgasm, and see how many 'respectable' stores carry it. The judgement is made because of financial reasons in either case, not due to any inherent rightness or wrongness in the video. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said "The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain."
To put this another way, a bunch of private citizens, who you have never met before, are telling the store/theater that they don't think you should be allowed to watch something. An d you, in your arguments, are supporting their ability to do so.
However, gaming is primarily a private enterprise, done in the home.
Private. Key word. Private means it's none of your business, unless it's directly hurting someone.
Is it right to allow people to indulge their more morally repugnant fantasies at home when we restrict them from the public in theaters?
Is it right to allow people to make your decisions for you, to let them tell you what, in their opinion, you should think is morally repugnant? Morals are a personal thing: be an adult - make up your own mind. "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."--Mark Twain. You may still decide you agree with the majority. But let it be your choice.
Now personally, I think a big part of what is wrong is the classification system itself. I classify murder, child abuse and rape as vastly more morally repugnant than consentual sex, yet a movie showing graphic violence & murder (Natural Born Killers [R, murder], Pulp Fiction [R, murder, drug use, white slavery], 8MM [R, rape, snuff film, murder], Usual Suspects [R, murder, extortion, etc], The Accused [R, graphic rape]) gets very reasonable ratings and is considered acceptable for our children to watch if their parents are with them, while a movie graphically depicting loving consentual sex between a happily married couple would get a XXX rating (and couldn't get played in a 'respectable' theater).
.
What I am really getting at with all this is that whether you and I agree with glorifying murder or violence or rape, or not, to say "This you cannot see, this you must not know, this subject is forbidd
Hmmm.... Odd, I had assumed that the article was about genetics/genetic engineering of some kind from the cute little DNA icon. After that, 'GM' kinda becomes intuitively obvious. (Although, I will admit that it took me a whole half second to figure out the M, as my first thought on seeing the icon was "Genetic Engineering". But for those who got confused by GM, GE wouldn't be much better.)
Next time, how about making sure that you haven't overlooked some obvious hint as to the meaning of the acronym before venting about it?
This excludes, of course, the truly geeky who are reading this via Lynx. But then, the truly geeky usually are interested in gaining a bit of knowledge, and actually read the articles, not just the headlines.
It is not a matter of making it look more 'professional'. It allows the publishing entity to ensure that their document will always print looking the same. HTML and.TXT do not allow that. Anyone who has used the web for more than a few weeks should be aware that different browsers display HTML documents differently. PDF avoids that problem; it is a publishing standard, not a display format, as HTML is.
It also makes it MUCH more difficult for the recipient to alter the document. HTML can be saved and altered very easily, PDF cannot. When publishing any kind of official information, this is a VERY important factor from a legal standpoint.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. You use the word Libertarian as if it were some sort of perjorative.
Max
If, for example, the gratuitous violence and prostitution of GTA is okay (I enjoy the game), then who's to say that a game as a rapist isn't? Obviously, even in America people would shrink from a rapist game, but where is the intellectual or moral line drawn? Is the line drawn merely by what will sell?
In movies, which I argue are the most relevant comparison, the MPAA rating system serves as a social control, because movies that exceed the R rating basically can't get a showing in theaters.
I agree that there is a line, but your comparison is flawed.
You compare GTA to movies that exceed R that can't get shown in mainstream theaters. The closest analogies of a movie to GTA would have to be either Godfather (R rated, and thought to be one of the greatest movies of all time), or Natural Born Killers (Also R). Both got shown in mainstream theaters, and both got critical acclaim. The problem is that most people don't really see anything wrong with those movies or their subject matter.
The mainstream theaters, for the most part, refuse to show the X+ rated movies (and in some cases, NC-17, as well) not because the theaters have any problem with them, but because a large number of their customers would avoid the theater if they did. Similarly, if a video game featuring graphic sex (forget rape or child molestation, let's stick to the tame stuff) were to be offered openly on the major US video game market, a great many game stores would refuse to carry it for the same reason. You think I'm off base, try to get a video game released on the major market depicting a graphically realistic representation of a man licking a woman to orgasm, and see how many 'respectable' stores carry it. The judgement is made because of financial reasons in either case, not due to any inherent rightness or wrongness in the video. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said "The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain."
To put this another way, a bunch of private citizens, who you have never met before, are telling the store/theater that they don't think you should be allowed to watch something. An d you, in your arguments, are supporting their ability to do so.
However, gaming is primarily a private enterprise, done in the home.
Private. Key word. Private means it's none of your business, unless it's directly hurting someone.
Is it right to allow people to indulge their more morally repugnant fantasies at home when we restrict them from the public in theaters?
Is it right to allow people to make your decisions for you, to let them tell you what, in their opinion, you should think is morally repugnant? Morals are a personal thing: be an adult - make up your own mind. "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."--Mark Twain. You may still decide you agree with the majority. But let it be your choice.
Now personally, I think a big part of what is wrong is the classification system itself. I classify murder, child abuse and rape as vastly more morally repugnant than consentual sex, yet a movie showing graphic violence & murder (Natural Born Killers [R, murder], Pulp Fiction [R, murder, drug use, white slavery], 8MM [R, rape, snuff film, murder], Usual Suspects [R, murder, extortion, etc], The Accused [R, graphic rape]) gets very reasonable ratings and is considered acceptable for our children to watch if their parents are with them, while a movie graphically depicting loving consentual sex between a happily married couple would get a XXX rating (and couldn't get played in a 'respectable' theater).
.
What I am really getting at with all this is that whether you and I agree with glorifying murder or violence or rape, or not, to say "This you cannot see, this you must not know, this subject is forbidd
Next time, how about making sure that you haven't overlooked some obvious hint as to the meaning of the acronym before venting about it?
This excludes, of course, the truly geeky who are reading this via Lynx. But then, the truly geeky usually are interested in gaining a bit of knowledge, and actually read the articles, not just the headlines.
It is not a matter of making it look more 'professional'. It allows the publishing entity to ensure that their document will always print looking the same. HTML and .TXT do not allow that. Anyone who has used the web for more than a few weeks should be aware that different browsers display HTML documents differently. PDF avoids that problem; it is a publishing standard, not a display format, as HTML is.
It also makes it MUCH more difficult for the recipient to alter the document. HTML can be saved and altered very easily, PDF cannot. When publishing any kind of official information, this is a VERY important factor from a legal standpoint.
A lot of us posted as Anonymous Coward because we were too damn lazy to actually sign up/in.