ibe98765 Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Good to see someone taking a stand on gratuitous violence... http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3693947/New Zealand bans video gameCensor decries gruesome violence in 'Manhunt'The Associated PressUpdated: 4:57 p.m. ET Dec. 12, 2003WELLINGTON, New Zealand - A computer game that encourages players to kill all in sight in ever more gruesome ways has become the first video game banned in New Zealand.In a 12-page statement issued Friday, New Zealand's Office of Film and Literature Classification said the game "Manhunt" depicts horror, cruelty, crime and violence in such a manner that its availability was likely to hurt the public good.Chief censor Bill Hastings said that computer games generally appear to be getting more "edgy" _ but that "Manhunt," for the PlayStation 2, goes further than any that's been referred to his office. "It's a game where the only thing you do is kill everybody you see," he said. "You can choose to kill 'mild,' 'medium' or 'hot.'"Weapons used ranged from glass shards to garroting wire, plastic bags and machetes. The game has a mature rating. "You have to at least acquiesce in these murders and possibly tolerate or even move toward enjoying them," Hastings said."Manhunt" had been banned from sale or rent in New Zealand for its likely effect on "players of any age," Hastings said.The game was developed by Edinburgh, Scotland-based Rockstar North, a division of Take-Two Interactive Software in New York. They are "the same people who brought us Grand Theft Auto," the classification office statement said.The Grand Theft Auto series is the subject of a $246 million lawsuit filed in the United States by families of two people shot by teenagers allegedly inspired by the game. The suit claims marketer Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc., Rockstar Games and Take-Two Interactive Software are liable for $46 million in compensatory damages and $200 million in punitive damages, along with retailer Wal-Mart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest genaldar Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 They could've just made it for sale only to adults. But I guess they think New Zealand's adults aren't smart enough to tell the difference between pretend and real.btw wil you still applaud them when they stop banning games and start burning books? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibe98765 Posted December 13, 2003 Author Share Posted December 13, 2003 They believe the game has no redeeming social value. Someone needs to draw the line somewhere. If you want to kill people, don't play at it, go join the army where you'll be able to do it for real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest genaldar Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 You must be joking right? I can't believe anyone would endorse joining the military, so they could kill real pople, over playing a game where you kill polygons.The problem that redeeming social value line is that what gives you or me the right to decide? In the 1800's some states outlawed abolitionist writings because they had no redeeming social value and weakened the fabric of society. The Nazi's used the same line of bs when they burned books. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 I'm with ibe98765 on this one. These video games deserve no place in our already corrupt society.Haven't you ever heard the phrase "if you haven't got anything good to say, then don't say it at all". Same thing for actions. If these video games haven't got anything good to promote, then don't bother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddy Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Its sad that they have a Chief Censor position in gov't to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nlinecomputers Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 I'm with ibe98765 on this one. These video games deserve no place in our already corrupt society.Haven't you ever heard the phrase "if you haven't got anything good to say, then don't say it at all". Same thing for actions. If these video games haven't got anything good to promote, then don't bother.Oh really and who put YOU in charge of deciding that? Most every aspect of our society would fall under that wide qualification you just put down. You can take almost anything and find bad in it.Monopoly games should be banned. They encourage greed. Women should be covered head to toe as they encourage sexually.Firearms should be banned as they encourage violence.Television should be banned as they encourage people to be isolated.Cars should be banned for pollution.Public gatherings should be banned as they encourage insurrections.Vaccinations should be banned as they make some ill.Books should be banned as they spread unhelpful and destructive ideas.Banning anything is stupid. Want to increase crime? Ban something. Presto instant black market appears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Monopoly games should be banned. They encourage greed.Not: it encourages strategyWomen should be covered head to toe as they encourage sexually.Oh, and men don't look attractive to women? I sure hope so Firearms should be banned as they encourage violence.I'd like to see a cop try to take down a criminal without a gun ("Put your hands up or we'll...uh, um...chase you with my fist!")Television should be banned as they encourage people to be isolated.Only if you're lazyCars should be banned for pollution.Only once there is an affordable and reasonable alternative to gasoline.Public gatherings should be banned as they encourage insurrections.Right, that's what we do every year at my grandma's house for our Christmas gathering.Vaccinations should be banned as they make some ill.So, if it makes you sick, don't get it! I wouldn't be here without them.Books should be banned as they spread unhelpful and destructive ideas.Like I said before, only if that's where you let your imagination take you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonegiant Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 <sigh> I guess we are back to 'Let-the-government-do-all-my-thinking-for-me-because-they-told-me-they-know-what-is-best-for-me-better-than-I-do'... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibe98765 Posted December 13, 2003 Author Share Posted December 13, 2003 Parents [supposedly] draw a line for kids not to cross as they bring them up. Some do a better job than others. But just because you become an adult doesn't mean that you have suddenly become imbued with unlimited intelligence or discrimination. There are a lot of stupid people over the age of 18. Someone/something needs to enforce the implied social contract and draw the line for adults. Such a line is necessary to maintain a reasonable society. In this case, the government of New Zealand is doing that job, purportedly for the betterment of their society.This is a no-winner thread. While everyone can up with all sorts of extreme counter-intuitive examples, few of them have much basis in our society. One can only hope that whomever is making the choices and "drawing the line" has the intelligence and vision to make decisions that works best for the majority of the people. The alternative is complete societal anarchy. As Kris Kristofferson wrote and Janis Joplin sang - "Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Well said, ibe98765 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibe98765 Posted December 13, 2003 Author Share Posted December 13, 2003 You must be joking right? I can't believe anyone would endorse joining the military, so they could kill real pople, over playing a game where you kill polygons.No, not joking at all. If you find enjoyment in killing and destroying things, then why do it vicariously through a video game? The armed forces is the place to go to get a chance to do that for real (legally). After experiencing killing in the real theater and maybe also risk being killed yourself, you may find that fake killing isn't such an enjoyable pastime. Killing isn't and shouldn't be a game... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GolfProRM Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 epp... you do a fine job of making a counterpoint to everything Nline posted, but did you think of a counterpoint to this game? How about it should be allowed because it allows people to vent frustrations in a non-harmful way... There have been many times in my life that I've been pushed to the limit, and I've found that some games allow me to release that frustration... Much better to blow a game character's head off than a real person's head off... I agree that some games go too far, but there is something to be said for a virtual frustration releaser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibe98765 Posted December 13, 2003 Author Share Posted December 13, 2003 epp... you do a fine job of making a counterpoint to everything Nline posted, but did you think of a counterpoint to this game? How about it should be allowed because it allows people to vent frustrations in a non-harmful way... There have been many times in my life that I've been pushed to the limit, and I've found that some games allow me to release that frustration... Much better to blow a game character's head off than a real person's head off... I agree that some games go too far, but there is something to be said for a virtual frustration releaser Ha! You could go chop some wood or run around the block a few times also... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonegiant Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 So, ibe, are you saying that there should be no such thing as 'pretending'? That seems to be what you are saying. We can't pretend we are killing the 'bad guy'. What's next? We can't pretend we are in a dream job? We can't pretend we are someone who we are not? See where this is going?Here's another question based on: There are a lot of stupid people over the age of 18.Are the people that are 'drawing the line' the stupid people? My gut feeling is that they are. Why else would they ban something that a 'normal', discriminating person should be able to weigh the 'social value' for themselves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibe98765 Posted December 14, 2003 Author Share Posted December 14, 2003 So, ibe, are you saying ...To reiterate - there are many extreme counter examples, few of which have any basis in reality... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pc-tecky Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 Wow and whoa. My head is spinning.Some things just degrade and demoralize the human mind. Look at advertising, music, and music videos. Are they really much better today than they where 10 years ago? Art is typically thought to be good. What's the difference between the model used in a medical book and porn? It's all in the context of the viewer. Some people can get thier jollies just looking at a medical book or nude statues. Some think nothing of porn or see it as art, but for others, porn is degrading and demoralizing and is therefore taboo. Add the element of religion, and you have what's called sin.Talking about clothing. Thus to be covered head to toe doesn't make much sense at one extreme in 95% humidity and 105°F, and doing without doesn't make much sense either in the blistery cold of winter with windchills at -30°F. Somewhere there is moderation that balances proper atire with the weather, location, and tradition. Again, that pesky element of religion says it's sinful to be naked. Of course, maintaining hygene is a different story all together.In some cases there's a false frame of mind and a false assurance that it's ok, that nothing will happen, and that nothing will go bad. But what do you do when it does go wrong? How do you fix it after the fact? Well I for one am not "everybody else" who's doing this or that. Life is just better without some complications (such as affairs, voilence, drugs, and profanity just to name a few). Yes, I like my rosy sunglasses that casts a rosy outlook on life. We all have some sense of decency and some common sense (I dearly hope we do - but then again, it might have eroded to nothing by this point in time). Some people want to live to higher standard and I applaud those that do. I'm also forced to realize that not everbody is of the same mind frame and had my mother's and grandmother's sense of values of decency passed down through the generations. Thus it becomes necessary to say, "To each their own." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GolfProRM Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 Ha! You could go chop some wood or run around the block a few times also...Chop some wood? I live in an apartment, in the middle of the city, and don't have a fireplace, or an axe for that matter. I do run quite often... It's not really a stress reliever though... To get back to the original point though, I have no issue with New Zealand banning the sale of a video game... They're New Zealand, not the US... I don't know how their government works, nor do I really care. If they feel a game is bad enough to ban it, then by all means, ban it. If it's THAT bad, I probably don't want to play it anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest genaldar Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 No, not joking at all. If you find enjoyment in killing and destroying things, then why do it vicariously through a video game? The armed forces is the place to go to get a chance to do that for real (legally). After experiencing killing in the real theater and maybe also risk being killed yourself, you may find that fake killing isn't such an enjoyable pastime. Killing isn't and shouldn't be a game...That is possibly the most assinine thing I've ever read. Just because I enjoy killing IMAGINARY people in a game doesn't mean I want to kill real people. I've seen real people that have been killed and I don't want to make any of my own.btw the fact that I like to kill polygon people doesn't make me a degenerate like you're implying. It makes me human. Humans are killers by nature. Don't believe me? Go look in the mirror. You see those sharp teeth in the corners of your mouth? Those are inscisors, for ripping flesh from food. In order to get that food our ancestors had to kill. So for thousands of years our species killed, for food, for territory, for sex. Our ancestors are killers and if I want to capture some of that primal rage and fury without hurting a single living soul then that is MY RIGHT.Look there is speech that angers all of us. I hate the word pimp. I hate it because I've seen what that scum does to the women they manipulate into working for them. Every time some jerk uses that term, no matter how they mean it, I want to beat them until I'm flush and out of breath. Especially when its some yahoo from the suburbs or the country and doesn't know what its like to live in the ghetto. Who gets all their ideas from MTV and thinks its full of bentlys, "bitches" and bling-bling. But I don't, as much as that word angers me I just remind myself that it's thier right to be pompous jack asses who have no idea what they're talking about. Then I hope they realize that a pimp is scum, not someone to look up to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibe98765 Posted December 14, 2003 Author Share Posted December 14, 2003 Just because I enjoy (my emphasis) killing IMAGINARY people in a game doesn't mean I want to kill real people.Hmmm. So you "enjoy" killing. I submit that the line between reality and imagination may not be as clear and defined as you wish to imply it is.btw the fact that I like to kill polygon people doesn't make me a degenerate like you're implying. It makes me human. Humans are killers by nature. Don't believe me? Go look in the mirror. You see those sharp teeth in the corners of your mouth? Those are inscisors, for ripping flesh from food. In order to get that food our ancestors had to kill. So for thousands of years our species killed, for food, for territory, for sex.This attempted justification makes no logical sense whatsoever. Intellectually, there is a world of difference between hunting/killing for food in order to survive and doing it for pleasure (whether real or imaginary). Inability to recognize that difference is a clear indication of some loose wiring somewhere in the schematic. Our ancestors are killers and if I want to capture some of that primal rage and fury without hurting a single living soul then that is MY RIGHT.Umm, don't ever forget that the only rights anyone has are those granted by the society they live in. Should a society, such as New Zealand, represented by its government in this case (the government having been elected by some majority of people there), make the decision that you do not have certain rights (such as to play a certain video game), then you are bound by that decision as long as you choose to live in that society. But we're getting off track here. I just think it is positive that a line has been drawn. I think that perhaps we also need to consider drawing some lines here in the USA for the overall good of our society. IMO, video games of this ilk might be a good place to start. You can agree or not. That is one right that you certainly do have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest genaldar Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 Hmmm. So you "enjoy" killing. I submit that the line between reality and imagination may not be as clear and defined as you wish to imply it is.**** yes I enjoy it. If I didn't I would stop playing those games. The line is plenty defined. I've never been in a fight, other than self defense. And I've never killed anyone. Thats a pretty D*** clear line isn't it?This attempted justification makes no logical sense whatsoever. Intellectually, there is a world of difference between hunting/killing for food in order to survive and doing it for pleasure (whether real or imaginary). Inability to recognize that difference is a clear indication of some loose wiring somewhere in the schematic.First off don't insult my inteligence. Secondly don't question my mental stability. Both are personal attacks and aren't allowed on this board. You should know that since you're here more than I am. My point is that for thousands of years our species was violent because it had to be. But then suddenly civilization is here and its no longer desireable to be violent. Well guess what. That violence is part of our nature. You can't just change your nature at the drop of the hat. With all of that in mind then it should be clear that it is better for people to let their violent nature out in a way that harms no one. Rather than claim to be enlightened and completely deny our own nature. Doing the latter is delusional at best, and leads to pent up rage.Umm, don't ever forget that the only rights anyone has are those granted by the society they live in. Should a society, such as New Zealand, represented by its government in this case (the government having been elected by some majority of people there), make the decision that you do not have certain rights (such as to play a certain video game), then you are bound by that decision as long as you choose to live in that society.That argument isn't very sound. It seems like you are advocating accepting any decision the government makes on your behalf. It's that kind of thought that lead to the Nazis. They figured the government must know best. Sure its a slippery slope argument, but its also an alagory.btw I agree that lines must be drawn, but I believe those lines should be drawn by adults, as long as no one is being hurt. After all they're smart enough to vote for those government officials aren't they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibe98765 Posted December 14, 2003 Author Share Posted December 14, 2003 btw I agree that lines must be drawn, but I believe those lines should be drawn by adults, as long as no one is being hurt. After all they're smart enough to vote for those government officials aren't they?Good. And my contention is that just because someone has reached the age of consent, doesn't necessarily mean that they have developed the insight or experience to be able to fully understand the implications of, or even discern the difference between, what might be good for society and what might not. Merely becoming an adult does not anoint one with any special knowledge to suddenly be able to make intelligent and important decisions. Such knowledge is most often gained after many years of experience. Perhaps when you have grown older, you'll come to see the fallacy of your present arguments. But I'll leave the rest of your scribbling's to stand on their own weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest genaldar Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 Good. And my contention is that just because someone has reached the age of consent, doesn't necessarily mean that they have developed the insight or experience to be able to fully understand the implications of, or even discern the difference between, what might be good for society and what might not. Merely becoming an adult does not anoint one with any special knowledge to suddenly be able to make intelligent and important decisions. Such knowledge is most often gained after many years of experience. Perhaps when you have grown older, you'll come to see the fallacy of your present arguments. But I'll leave the rest of your scribbling's to stand on their own weight.LOL age doesn't make one wise and maybe I'll understand that when I'm older? Great argument, but I shouldn't have expected much more. After all you make yet another personal attack (my posts are scribles, meanwhile you probably think your's are down from on high). Please act a little more mature.btw you fail to see that just because we've elected someone (I've voted in a few elections and even campaigned for candidates) that doesn't mean they're qualified to draw our line for us. We elected them to represent us, not tell us what is good for us. Otherwise we wouldn't elected governors, presidents and legislatures, we'd elect moms and dads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibe98765 Posted December 14, 2003 Author Share Posted December 14, 2003 Good. And my contention is that just because someone has reached the age of consent, doesn't necessarily mean that they have developed the insight or experience to be able to fully understand the implications of, or even discern the difference between, what might be good for society and what might not. Merely becoming an adult does not anoint one with any special knowledge to suddenly be able to make intelligent and important decisions. Such knowledge is most often gained after many years of experience. Perhaps when you have grown older, you'll come to see the fallacy of your present arguments. But I'll leave the rest of your scribbling's to stand on their own weight.LOL age doesn't make one wise and maybe I'll understand that when I'm older? Great argument, but I shouldn't have expected much more. After all you make yet another personal attack (my posts are scribles, meanwhile you probably think your's are down from on high). Please act a little more mature.btw you fail to see that just because we've elected someone (I've voted in a few elections and even campaigned for candidates) that doesn't mean they're qualified to draw our line for us. We elected them to represent us, not tell us what is good for us. Otherwise we wouldn't elected governors, presidents and legislatures, we'd elect moms and dads.Sorry Craig, you are the one crying about personal attacks while continually using the pronoun "you" in your posts to me. Understand that I am not targeting you personally, only your justifications and arguments, which to my mind, are light on logic, depth and cohesiveness.Each post you make just provides more material to work with. For example, your second paragraph in this latest post: btw you fail to see that just because we've elected someone (I've voted in a few elections and even campaigned for candidates) that doesn't mean they're qualified to draw our line for us. We elected them to represent us, not tell us what is good for us. Otherwise we wouldn't elected governors, presidents and legislatures, we'd elect moms and dads.On the contrary, we DO elect the people to make decisions for us and to draw lines. These lines are called laws. What else do we elect people for? How else would they represent us? Whether these people are qualified or not makes absolutely no difference.You might want to review how government works:http://bensguide.gpo.gov/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonegiant Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 I've killed probably millions of 'bad guys' and lots of 'good guys' while behind my keyboard or game pad. Does this make me a serial killer? The NZ gov't seems to be taking the 'good of the few outweighs the good of the many' stance. Is that right and proper? Who knows. It might be for them. They are a smaller nation. One last thing: Take a hand and clench the fist. Now take a guess at how many people/animals/creatures larger than that fist I have killed in my lifetime. (hint: even a guess of all 5 digits on that hand is 5 too many). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlim Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 Bottom line...human nature being what it is...banning anything just makes it more attractive. Wait for the black market on video games to start up in NZ. My Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest genaldar Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Sorry Craig, you are the one crying about personal attacks while continually using the pronoun "you" in your posts to me. Understand that I am not targeting you personally, only your justifications and arguments, which to my mind, are light on logic, depth and cohesiveness.Of course I'm complaining of personal attacks. You have insulted my inteligence, my mental stability and called my posts scribbles. Notice the use of you. I've only used it when I'm specificly answering you. Do YOU get the concept? When I'm addressing YOU specificly it's correct to use the term YOU.On the contrary, we DO elect the people to make decisions for us and to draw lines. These lines are called laws. What else do we elect people for? How else would they represent us? Whether these people are qualified or not makes absolutely no difference.We elect them to make some decisions for us, not all of them.I know how government works, what YOU don't understand is that we don't give up all choices to the government (at least here in the US). If we did they'd decide who can marry, have kids and where you can work. Do you want some elected official deciding all of that for you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peachy Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 I know how government works, what YOU don't understand is that we don't give up all choices to the government (at least here in the US). If we did they'd decide who can marry, have kids and where you can work. Do you want some elected official deciding all of that for you?Hmm,Actually, some officials in the U.S. government do want a say in who you marry, if you happen to wish to marry someone of the same sex. Fortunately in Canada the federal government has decided that they have no right to bar same-sex marriages! (Actually the the Supreme Court told them they had no right to do so, since we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 OK, the shouting in here is resonating all over the Water Cooler! :'( Great discussion, but as had been pointed out ... let's ALL keep it to debating issues, not coming against other members on the Forum. We are all entitled to our own opinion.If you want to say what you do or like that's one thing, but we are not here to attack each other's point of view.Debate the issues, not other members. Would hate to have to put an end to a great debate.Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeber Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 I enjoy playing certain FPS games, especially U.T. with a bunch of user mod maps and levels. I am also a former soldier and police officer, both of which involved aiming real weapons at real people. Never once have I, while parked on my behind in my computer room in front of my computer, thought that I was having a real combat experience. In fact, it doesn't even relate to my previous experiences. It's a whole other thing.I agree banning something like this won't prevent violence. I don't even see how a court could establish without a doubt that anyone was "inspired" to violence by a video game. And P2P, if nothing else, will ensure bootleg copies of that game will still be available.See...as several of us have now shown...it is possible to state your own POV without dissing anyone esle's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.