Front page poll 04/13/07 - Now that Manhunt 2 has been effective banned from the US..

[Queue]

Now that Manhunt 2 has been effective banned from the US, what are your feelings on the situation?

a)It should be rated M on all platforms and released as is.
b)Rockstar crossed the line and the game should be banned.
c)The ESRB made the right decision.
d)The ESRB caved in to Watchdog groups and turned this into a political matter.
e)I do not have enough information to make an informed decision.

================================================== ========

[Joe Cool]

I live in Ireland, so I may yet get to play it! Ha! In you face USA!!! :yes: :lol: :wink:

[azurechaos]

i thought that the news was that it has been banned in the UK, not the US?

[Rob]

The UK and many European countries have a ban on the game, however, both Sony and Nintendo have recently stated that they will not allow an AO rated game to be released for their systems, therefore, Rockstar currently cannot release the game in the US.

[Kalbrecht]

I personally lean toward "b". While I don't think the game "should have been banned HAHAHA suckit Rockstar" I don't think the game should ever have been greenlit at a publisher level.

[Joe Cool]

To be honest it will most likely be banned here aswell. I sooo dont care I'm mean the first one looked crap.

[yummyzebra]

I think a) It should be rated M on all platforms and released as is.

BUT not released for the Wii due to the player having to physically perform the actions in the game.

With an M rating adults should be able to make the responsible choice on whether they want to play the game or not, and minors restricted from buying or playing the game.

[entr0py]

I think there should be one more option. f) Nintendo and Sony should change their licensing policys to allow AO rated games.

Honestly, none of us have played it. So we don't have any basis to say that the ESRB incorrectly rated the game. But do we really want the makers of the platform to ban games on the basis of content? Imagine how popular a DVD player that can't play unrated films would be. Or a cd player that refuses to play anything with a parental advisory. As I see it, Adults Only is the perfect rating for this game, because truly it is not designed for, or suitable for children.

Of course, Focus on the Family would be baffled by that last sentence, because they believe all video games are ultimately meant for kids. All gamers know what a mistaken and outdated view that is. But as long as Sony and Nintendo ban any game that's truly for adults, they are only encouraging that view.

[Rob]

Actually, there are DVD players that cannot play adult content.

And I think any company should be allowed to restrict what they do and do not want on their console. That is their choice. It is our choice whether to support that company. And they are not banning all games aimed at adults. There are many games that feature gore, adult language, content and so forth. This game crosses some line. I am not for the government censoring the game like Europe does, but I am happy Nintendo and Sony stood up and said they were not going to allow the game on their system.

You contradict yourself
Honestly, none of us have played it. So we don't have any basis to say that the ESRB incorrectly rated the game.

As I see it, Adults Only is the perfect rating for this game

[Kalbrecht]

Nintendo have great policy in place, IMO. You have a console with an incredible amount of interactivity, and a brand that is going great guns with kids, and more importantly, the older generation. It's providing interactivity and gaming in ways no other console has. Allowing AO violence, gore etc games would destroy so much of that headway that Nintendo have done in legitimising gaming.

[draco7891]

Allowing AO violence, gore etc games would destroy so much of that headway that Nintendo have done in legitimising gaming.

Bollocks, gaming has NEVER needed to be legitimized; it's a form of art plain and simple, and the capricious decision to limit its expression and the freedom of the consumer is based on the same failed logic and sensationalist diatribe that infects mass media today.

What IS being legitimized is the fallacious idea that violence begets violence, and that little Johnny will turn into an axe murderer instantly if he so much as glimpses a drop of blood, or a serial rapist should a nipple become exposed for even a moment. It's ridiculous, completely refuted by every scientific study done on the subject, and even proven false by anecdotal evidence (like the sharp decline in violent crime rates over the last 25 years).

Would you accept an analogous situation? What if Panasonic announced that they wouldn't allow any R-rated movie to play in their DVD players? What if GM said that no one over 300 lbs. could drive their cars? If Durex said that no one whom engages in homosexual activity could use their condoms?

Certainly, these companies are taking ethical stances, but they are doing so only to appease the watchdog groups that hound them into legitimizing ethical restrictions, and the regulation of a moral standard. These are things that should be undertaken by PARENTS and their morally-responsible children, not bureaucratic agency and their corporate whipping-boys.

I think it's obvious that Manhunt in its current form is what the consumers want (else it would not have been developed into the game it is), but the ESRB and all their lackeys are too afraid that a super-violent game might be a commercial success; instead of allowing market forces to dictate the spread of the game, they've forced the consumers hand. No doubt Rockstar is already busily recoding the game, because they must release it. They must put something out to recoup their development times.

Let's hope that it's not only bloodless, but that every weapon is replaced by a salami, and the death noises covered over by kittens mewing; the environs repainted into garish Dick Tracy pastels, and everyone dressed in clown suits. That'll show the Jack Thompsonites.

I for one eagerly await Manhunt 2: Soccer Moms Too Tired to Teach Their Children Morality Edition. It should go lovely with the ADHD Edition and the limited I Can't Distinguish Between Reality and Fantasy Edition.

Draco

[Rob]

Why is everyone blaming the ESRB? They simply gave a rating. It is the government, Sony and Nintendo who have made their decision based on the rating.

And draco, we are not talking about a drop of blood or a nipple, we are talking about a person tearing someone's testicles off with a pair of pliers, and that is just the beginning.

Something of that nature does not need to be in the hands of kids, and while I wholeheartedly agree that parents should step up, they have proven time and time again that they can't, so yes, I am going to flat out say it, it needs to be censored.

[Chylde Roland]

I think the ESRB made the right call. A game showing that kind of excessive violence should definitely be rated AO.

Some of the stuff in movies should also definitely be rated AO. Things like Hostel, Hills Have Eyes, etc., are all extremely, extremely graphically violent and are the product of a somewhat imbalanced mind. Calling horrible brutal acts of rape, torture and murder "art" is detestable, and it's a despicable defence for that kind of depravity.

I for one see nothing "artful" about brutal murder, pain and suffering.

If you want to make the game, go ahead. But don't expect it to be picked up or lauded by the moral majority, and don't expect it to be easy for kids to get their hands on it.

[draco7891]

Why is everyone blaming the ESRB?

Because there are those whom believe that the ESRB's rating was influenced by said special interest groups, rather than being an entirely honest assessment of the game.

Something of that nature does not need to be in the hands of kids, and while I wholeheartedly agree that parents should step up, they have proven time and time again that they can't, so yes, I am going to flat out say it, it needs to be censored.

Because the group that should, can't or won't, everyone should be made to suffer for it?

You would honestly deny me, a healthy, normal, nearly-20-something the opportunity to purchase and enjoy what I want, when I want, because of
YOUR moral beliefs?

What makes your morality ANY more genuine or correct than mine? Than anyone elses? This is an act of censorship, and it leads down an impossibly slippery slope. I'll tell you this, I wouldn't play the game if it came out, it's not my cup of tea. I don't like things like this, but it's the principle of the matter: my gaming should not be detrimented because YOU don't agree with the content.

As is often said, "I don't like what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Draco

[Kalbrecht]

Bollocks, gaming has NEVER needed to be legitimized; it's a form of art plain and simple, and the capricious decision to limit its expression and the freedom of the consumer is based on the same failed logic and sensationalist diatribe that infects mass media today.

Riiight, because clearly every group involved here - from gamers to parents to lobby groups also see gaming as a work of art. Gaming SHOULDN'T need to be legitimised. It's a completely valid form media expression. But what does need to be legitimised is the fact that games need to be accepted as that valid form of media expression rather than purely as an outlet of testosterone filled angst OR as an interactive cartoon for pre-teens. In the same way that Rock Music, swearing and violence in movies, the influence of comic books all had to be legimitised beyond their rebellious revolutions to become what they are today.

This has nothing to do with legitimising the idea that violence begets violence (by they way, it's not true that every study has refuted that claim). It has everything to do with the idea that some forms of expression can go too far, and are inappropriate.

It might amaze you, but corporations can actually take a political stance WITHOUT it being the influence of lobby groups. I'm not surprised that Nintendo took this stance. Of all the console makers, they've always been the one most closely aligned with childhood, innocence and family values.

What if Panasonic announced that they wouldn't allow any R-rated movie to play in their DVD players? What if GM said that no one over 300 lbs. could drive their cars? If Durex said that no one whom engages in homosexual activity could use their condoms?

Except for that ridiculous Durex analogy (which would rely on unrealistic technical limitations), those companies are well within their technical rights. And guess what - companies already do that. It's simple brand alignment, and they're completely within their rights to do it until it crosses a line of protected discrimination - so it might be, and often IS, morally repugnant of a company to do so, and many get called on it when they go too far. Thank god for media/lobby group watchdogs, and for competition in the marketplace, which offers alternatives.

As consumers we make a choice - to play or not to play. We make a choice what console to buy. And we make a choice what brand to support. Rather than farting around trying to take the money of every type of consumer, I'm glad to see a console maker mature enough to take a stand on what they see as unacceptable.

A last point - art and 'what the consumers want' rarely go hand in hand. We're in the early days of seeing the gaming industry evolve into something that supports both facets of expression, similar to the movie/music industry.

[Kalbrecht]

You would honestly deny me, a healthy, normal, nearly-20-something the opportunity to purchase and enjoy what I want, when I want, because of
YOUR moral beliefs?

Your opportunity to purchase and enjoy what YOU want is dependant on the technical limitations of what the console maker wants. Noone is denying you the opportunity to purchase Manhunt 2. But the medium on which you play is NOT your right to determine (edit: needs clarification - the console the game is 'made for' is not your right to determine). The intellectual property of that technical limitation belongs to Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft.

It is Rockstar's choice whether to change the game to let it play. They licensed the right to make a game that fits the code to play on the system. That doesn't give them the automatic right for their game to be playable on the system.

[draco7891]

Calling horrible brutal acts of rape, torture and murder "art" is detestable, and it's a despicable defence for that kind of depravity.

But that's a matter of opinion and subjectivity. All art is art, regardless of whether or not you agree with its subject matter. Should the Louvre stop displaying Michelangelo's David because it has clearly visible male genitalia? Should we burn the works of Latrec for portraying prostitution?

It is just as despicable to dress censorship in the guise of moral superiority in order to use it as just cause.

If you want to make the game, go ahead. But don't expect it to be picked up or lauded by the moral majority, and don't expect it to be easy for kids to get their hands on it.

But that's the heart of the matter: that fundamental choice to obtain the game is redacted. I don't want every 7 year old playing the game, but I want the freedom should I so choose to be able, as a consenting adult of appropriate emotional well-being, to buy and play the game. This is what has been denied, and what should be rallied against, regardless of the subject matter. Today it is Manhunt, tomorrow it could be all games with violence.

Draco

[Rob]

Because there are those whom believe that the ESRB's rating was influenced by said special interest groups, rather than being an entirely honest assessment of the game. Just because people do not like that it was rated AO doesn't mean it should not have been rated AO. All of a sudden it is a conspiracy. The game deserved that rating, not because of some special interest group, but because of the content within.

What makes my morality better then yours? Not a damn thing. But it also doesn't make yours better then mine.

You would honestly deny me, a healthy, normal, nearly-20-something the opportunity to purchase and enjoy what I want, when I want, because of
YOUR moral beliefs?

Yes, just like I would deny you your right to murder, which quite frankly is simply a moral belief.

As is often said, "I don't like what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". And I will flat out say that is wrong. Hitler said and acted upon what he felt was the right. There was a war over those beliefs, and many people died to deny his way of thinking.

Just because you can, and feel that you have the given right to something doesn't mean in reality that you should or that everyone should allow you to do whatever you want.

[Kalbrecht]

But that's a matter of opinion and subjectivity. All art is art, regardless of whether or not you agree with its subject matter. Should the Louvre stop displaying Michelangelo's David because it has clearly visible male genitalia? Should we burn the works of Latrec for portraying prostitution?

It is just as despicable to dress censorship in the guise of moral superiority in order to use it as just cause.

I definitely agree. Art is subjective.

However - you are viewing Michelangelo's David at the generosity of the Accademia (in Florence, it's not in the Louvre) and the City of Florence. Who, incidentally, are not generous enough to allow photography of the statue.

What happens if, and it is well within their right, they decide not to show it? The curator of the museum decides that it's not appropriate (for whatever reason). They still have other incredible works there but that one piece - that famous, controversial piece - is not available.

Do you still have a right to view it? Where does this right stem from? It's a question of ownership of intellectual property and creativity. When art is not public domain, and in particular the method by which you access that piece of art, then our right to access it is not the same as owning it. If we each were able to purchase David, and the gallery it stands in, and take it home, then we DO have that right to keep on accessing it, but until that point, the right of ownership is not yet ours.

EDIT: the whole "today the jews, tomorrow they came for me" argument? While possible, it's also as fear-mongering as the stuff that the lobby groups churn out.

EDIT YAY!: To sum up. I do not deny you, or any other person that FITS the rating, the right to own and play Manhunt 2 on whatever system it is available on. I personally find the game disgusting, but do not deny Rockstar's right to make it, as much as I might applaud their failure.

I do deny that children should be allowed anywhere near this game. I DO support the ESRBs rating for a game I feel is completely inappropriate for a home that may have children accessing the game. And I DO support Nintendo and Sony's decision deny this game access to their system.

[entr0py]

Rob, you're right about the contradiction. What I meant to say is that I think the game's developers intended it to be played by adults. As such the AO rating seems fitting, and should be a viable option. The M rating, on the other hand, is more of a gray area. It's really just a suggestion to parents, and one that is often ignored. AO is certainly more clearcut, and that might be best for a game like this.

Yes, Nintendo and Sony have a right to decide what games they will license. But it should upset us as adult customers that their policy is to rule out any game which is unambiguously not for minors. Adult gamers get enough belittlement from politicians, special interest groups, and insane lawyers. We certainly don't need it from console makers.

To be fair to Nintendo and Sony, I'm sure their ban on AO games is simply a strategic move to avoid political fallout. And it's not that they truly think they need to protect adult customers from disturbing content. I don't completely blame them for it, they have a lot to loose if certain lawmakers were to get their way.

The kindest interpretation is that their policy is a capitulation to lobbying groups, and that should still be upseting. Ultimately, if we want games to enjoy the same first amendment protections as books and movies, this is not a political or legal fight that we can run from.

[Rob]

But it should upset us as adult customers that their policy is to rule out any game which is unambiguously not for minors.

But the point is they do not rule out any game that is unambiguously not for minors. GTA should not be played by minors, in fact, many many games should not be played by minors, but they get made and sold with little fanfare minus the inane ramblings of Jack Thompson and the like. What many of us are saying is that Manhunt goes way beyond mature content and deep into something that is bad for society. And the game may have been banned for a political reason by Nintendo and Sony, doesn't mean it was ultimately the wrong decision.

Is it being taking away rights from individuals? Yes it is. Is it putting power into hands that have no clue what they are doing and how to wield it. Yes it does. Is it censorship? Yes.

I am not trying to deny these claims, but sometimes censorship needs to happen. The Westboro church that has repeated crashed fallen soldiers funerals had a law enacted against them that prevented them from being close to the funerals so they could not be heard. That is censorship. Ebay will not allow anything to be sold with a swastika or Nazi paraphernalia, which is also censorship. Both forms I agree with completely.

It does come down to moral issues, and everyone is entitled to how they feel. This is my opinion.

[draco7891]

Is it being taking away rights from individuals? Yes it is. Is it putting power into hands that have no clue what they are doing and how to wield it. Yes it does. Is it censorship? Yes.

I am not trying to deny these claims, but sometimes censorship needs to happen.

Do you still live in Kentucky, Rob? Or perhaps you've stepped into Bizzaro Kentucky. Last I checked, this nation was founded on the principle that all censorship is by nature bad, that it limits the freedom and liberty to which all mankind is entitled. Censorship is never a good thing, because it is impossible to know where it stops (or if it stops). Shall we all be subjected to the same conditions as Stalinist Russia, so that the moral and ethical code set down by our political figureheads can more properly take root?

The Westboro church that has repeated crashed fallen soldiers funerals had a law enacted against them that prevented them from being close to the funerals so they could not be heard.

They can't be close because they stepped over the bounds of free speech and into harrasment. Their actions became criminal and thus subject to limitation, not censorship. The guarantee of free speech does NOT guarantee the platform from which to speak it.

Ebay will not allow anything to be sold with a swastika or Nazi paraphernalia, which is also censorship

... because it is illegal to do so in several nations, and eBay is an international company that would like to be able to continue doing business in those countries.

Both of these cases are not censorship in any form, and certainly not to the blatant and foolish fervor with which you would see disagreeable material stricken. You may say that neither of our respective moralities are superior to the other, and that much is true; the difference lies in that fact that you would seek to limit me only to yours, whereas I leave the choice of application up to the individual.

Free choice with a moral background is wholly different than imposed morality.

Draco

[Rob]

Last I checked, this nation was founded on the principle that all censorship is by nature bad, This nation was also founded under the principal that slavery was good and that women have no rights. Not everything this nation was founded on is right.

They can't be close because they stepped over the bounds of free speech and into harrasment. Their actions became criminal and thus subject to limitation, not censorship. We are simply talking about morals. Even though we do not like it, shouldn't they be protected by free speech? They didn't physically harm anyone. So why is one allowed and one not. The government stepped in and made a moral judgement, then made it law and people were happy.

And yes, I still live in Kentucky, just like I have lived all over California, Seattle WA, and Munich Germany. And although I did not live there, I also have spent time in Moscow and Saratov in Russia, Rome Italy, Canada and Holland.

Free choice with a moral background is wholly different than imposed morality. Except whose moral background? Why is restricting murder not classified as a moral background? Hindu's believe eating beef is wrong, yet most of us in America do it all the time and trample all over their moral code. You want me to not impede on your moral code, but you are in turn doing the same to me.

and eBay is an international company that would like to be able to continue doing business in those countries. And from this they made a moral code of censorship of what can and cannot be sold through their site. Exactly like Nintendo and Sony are doing with Manhunt 2. Yet you believe one is correct and one is incorrect, but they are the exact same thing.

[draco7891]

This nation was also founded under the principal that slavery was good and that women have no rights. Not everything this nation was founded on is right.

No, and no. Neither slavery nor women's rights are mentioned explicitly in the original document. Their status was simply not guaranteed, and it's something that was corrected long ago.

Even though we do not like it, shouldn't they be protected by free speech? They didn't physically harm anyone. So why is one allowed and one not. The government stepped in and made a moral judgement, then made it law and people were happy.

No, damnit. There is a fundamental difference between harrasing someone and free speech. The church is still allowed to say and think just whatever makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside, but they are not allowed to criminally HARRASS others to do it. Again, the freedom of speech does not guarantee the platform upon which to speak it.

Why is restricting murder not classified as a moral background?

I think it is, as a morality of the physical world. We're discussing intellectual morality.

Hindu's believe eating beef is wrong, yet most of us in America do it all the time and trample all over their moral code.

Morality lies in the individual. It is not "trampled" upon because I don't follow it. What nonsense to think that if I don't agree with your moral viewpoint that I must be restricting your right to practice it.

You want me to not impede on your moral code, but you are in turn doing the same to me.

No, I am not. I am proposing that the choice be left to the individual and NOT to government. You would acquiesce to censorship of the game and DENIAL of my right to play it out of hand. I would give you the individual choice, you would impose your morality upon me (and in so doing hold it as superior to my own). Do you see the difference now between the two stances? I would not force you to play the game, but you would prohibit me from ever playing it.

And from this they made a moral code of censorship of what can and cannot be sold through their site. Exactly like Nintendo and Sony are doing with Manhunt 2. Yet you believe one is correct and one is incorrect, but they are the exact same thing.

Again, and again, NO. Their policy is based on the laws required of them; their stance is one of legality. Just as including VAT on European purchases is not a "moral" action, and is not taken because they feel it is the right thing to do, banning the sale of Nazi regalia is taken for the strict purpose of being able to do legal business. You can make the argument that the law itself is based on morals, certainly (and it is), but the actions eBay has undertaken come only from their wish to conduct business. That is what separates the two.

Draco

[Rob]

No, and no. Neither slavery nor women's rights are mentioned explicitly in the original document. Their status was simply not guaranteed, and it's something that was corrected long ago.
Draco, just because it was not written down, doesn't mean that the country was not founded on those principals. The status was guaranteed with the continuation of slavery and the restriction of women’s rights. And you are right, they were corrected, but it is naive to think more could not still be wrong. Sometimes restricting the rights of some (in this case we can say slave owners) is the right thing to do, even if it impedes on one’s beliefs. And that is what I am getting at, yes, Nintendo and Sony are restricting your rights to play a game, but in my opinion, and apparently Sony’s and Nintendo’s, it is the right thing to do. Think of the sales they are going to lose, this is not to gain revenue.

No, damnit. There is a fundamental difference between harrasing someone and free speech. The church is still allowed to say and think just whatever makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside, but they are not allowed to criminally HARRASS others to do it. Again, the freedom of speech does not guarantee the platform upon which to speak it. There is a fundamental difference, but it is still a moral issue. It still boils down to ones interpretation of morals. They feel they are morally right. Hitler felt he was morally right. What makes it criminal is simply an interpretation of morality. That is what I was getting at with the Hindu example, though I worded it poorly. It is an interpretation of morality that has lead to two opposite beliefs. Due to their moral code, it is illegal to consume beef where most American’s think fast food hamburgers are in their own way divine.

I think it is, as a morality of the physical world. We're discussing intellectual morality.
The act of murder may be a physical act, but it is based on intellectual morality, everything is. The body does not act without the mind. I have no idea on your stance of capital punishment, but one person's murder is another person's justice. The only difference is moral opinion.

Morality lies in the individual. It is not "trampled" upon because I don't follow it. What nonsense to think that if I don't agree with your moral viewpoint that I must be restricting your right to practice it.

Do you think Hitler should have been stopped? If you do, then your moral viewpoint (as were all of those who opposed the Nazis) restricted his ability to practice it. I do apologize for repeatedly bringing this up, but it is a prime example of one group restricts the other on the basis of moral opinion. Which is the exact thing going on here. I simply believe that the restriction of the game is in my moral opinion, better the releasing it.

I am not arguing that I am not imposing my moral code on others. And I am not even saying I have the answer, because neither us can know. This whole thing is based on opinion and not fact. And I am enjoying this debate with you Draco, and mean no ill will. I wish others would jump in to make it more interesting.

[draco7891]

Draco, just because it was not written down, doesn't mean that the country was not founded on those principals.

Guilty by association? The acts of slavery and woman's rights are not explicitly granted to the federal government, nor explicitly so to the state governments, and thus are left in the hands of the citizen. It was the states that decided and enacted legislation to legitimize the practices, but there was no such founding association nor endorsement of the ideals of slavery or the restriction of women, ergo it is impossible to say that because citizens were free to make that choice, they must have thought to have made it. That's denying the antecedent.

And you are right, they were corrected, but it is naive to think more could not still be wrong.

Are you attempting to suggest ever so subtly that the idea of free speech is WRONG?

I have a *guffaw* at your general expense, sir!

...in my opinion, and apparently Sony’s and Nintendo’s, it is the right thing to do. Think of the sales they are going to lose, this is not to gain revenue.

Au contraire, think of the sales they will keep because of the positive PR. If Suzy Soccer Mom heard that that Big Bad Violent Game was banned by Righteous and Holy Nintendo and Sony, why she just might go out and buy that PS3/Wii little Johnny (Soccer Mom) has been asking her for all these months. All actions a corporation undertakes are by nature designed to reap maximum profit; it is the master dictum of basic business practice. S/N are betting that they will sell more systems/games if they deny this game than they would make if it were sold.

It still boils down to ones interpretation of morals. They feel they are morally right. Hitler felt he was morally right. What makes it criminal is simply an interpretation of morality.

Oh man, I've gotta keep better track of the Godwin's Law violations thus far. I think we're up to three now.

What makes any action criminal is it's counter-intuition against law. If there were no law against invading your neighbor and killing Jews, there would be a daisy in all Denmark to have been done about it. Take the Locke-ian idea of the state of nature; we are all free to take whatever action we please, but we give up that right and live under a commonly agreed set of rules that we can use to protect ourselves and focus on other pursuits. Hitler and the Hindus are free to think and say whatever they please, but it is in taking action against the law that makes it criminal.


The act of murder may be a physical act, but it is based on intellectual morality, everything is.

Not true, one does not murder to gain knowledge; in point of fact, it is antithesis of the free pursuit of information and entertainment. To murder is to step beyond the realm of thought and reason, to commit an act for the advantage it would bring your person, not your mind.

The body does not act without the mind.

Ha! Strike your calf just below the kneecap with the edge of your hand and say that again. :p:

Goosebumps?
Breathing?
Circulation of blood?
Digestion?
Cell division?

Getting a healthy taser-ing?

I have no idea on your stance of capital punishment

Personally, I like to line my money up and whip it for being such a naughty boy...

Oh, THAT kind of capital punishment. 5 minutes on high, stirring halfway through. That ought to do.

Do you think Hitler should have been stopped?

Have you stopped beating your wife? See: Loaded Words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_words)

If you do, then your moral viewpoint... restricted his ability to practice it.

Incorrect, just because I disagree with the message and conclusions doesn't mean that I will restrict the thought and legal expression of it. When that expression contravenes the law, then I will take action. I don't care if my neighbors want to kill everyone of color, but I certainly won't stand by if they do start killing them.

I do apologize for repeatedly bringing this up, but it is a prime example of one group restricts the other on the basis of moral opinion.

Again, Nazism was stopped because its pracitioners stepped beyond the legal limitations of society, not because it was a morally disagreeable ethos.

I simply believe that the restriction of the game is in my moral opinion, better the releasing it.

But you haven't provided any evidence that doing so would help anyone or benefit society beyond your own personal belief. I understand that you don't like the game, but why can that be translated into "censor the game"?

I don't like cigarettes or alcohol, can we please get rid of those?
How about those idiots with the impossibly loud stereo systems, them too?
Rap music?
Traffic lights?
White cars? Black cars? Grey cars?
Mushrooms, black olives, horseradish and capers?

(This is a reductio ad absurdum. I couldn't help myself. The doctors say I'm much better now.)

I am not arguing that I am not imposing my moral code on others.

So I reiterate my question: what makes your moral code superior to mine? You have explicitly stated that neither is superior, so why is it that you can stand there and support one over the other, in apparent contradiction of your position?

And I am not even saying I have the answer, because neither us can know.

THEN how can you base a conclusion on such a thing? You would say on the one hand that nothing is certain, and yet on the other are more than prepared to say that the conclusion so drawn must be correct!

It is better to maintain the competition of choice than the illusion of freedom.

And I am enjoying this debate with you Draco, and mean no ill will. I wish others would jump in to make it more interesting.

My professor would say: "Ethics are like herpes; once infected, you can never get rid of them. Sure, you can ignore it a while, but it always comes back to bite you in the end, and you'll have to tell everyone you're with you've got them". :thumbup:

Draco

[Rob]

I could have done without the herpes quote first thing in the morning. :lol: I think we are going in circles though so I will keep this brief. Besides, I haven't had my coffee yet.

Are you attempting to suggest ever so subtly that the idea of free speech is WRONG? Not even close. There are many things on this forum that have been said that I do not agree with. I have the capability to get rid of all of it by simply hitting a remove post key. I have the ability to alter your words to fit my opinion, but I won't. And not because I would have my mod status taken away, that has nothing to do with it. I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion and may express it.

Studies are useless, for every study you can find that says Manhunt causes no problem, I can find one that says kids are affected by these kinds of images. This isn't just some 'look at the news' and find violence on TV. There is a much more in-depth involvement with games beyond any other medium. I can play Mario without feeling the need to go stomp on the next turtle I see, but many kids can't help but drop kicking their friend after watching Ninja Turtles. My friends and I did it all the time and it was fun. Kids imitate, that is how they grow and learn. Watching my kids grow up they have picked up many of my habits, good and bad.

So, what happens when kids see something like Manhunt? A game so far over the edge. You have never suggested that a kid plays the game and I do not say you are even thinking this. But they will and this gets back to one of my points I made earlier.
[quote=Rob}Something of that nature does not need to be in the hands of kids, and while I wholeheartedly agree that parents should step up, they have proven time and time again that they can't, so yes, I am going to flat out say it, it needs to be censored.[/quote]

Parents cannot discipline there children anymore. My brother in law was arrested, and is not even allowed to be alone near his son because he smacked him for lying. We are not talking beating here, but smacked after repeatedly being warned. This is everywhere and not some isolated crack pot incident. Good parents have no authority, bad parents just do not give a crap.

The ESRB rated the game AO for its content, not for any watchdog group. It received the rating it deserved. This is not a new area for Rockstar, they keep pushing a bit further with each game, like a child testing their limits and this time they went too far and got what they deserved. Sony and Nintendo can limit and allow whatever they want, and refusing to allow an AO rated game is well within their right and I applaud them for doing so.

reductio ad absurdum, I know the term well, and itself is absurd. There is a line, and although it can be on a slippery slope, doesn't mean it isn't there or cannot be achieved.

I am not familiar with Godwin's Law violations so if you could explain, I would appreciate it.

I am heading out and I have not woken up, so I am sure I have neither explained myself well, or am missing a few points, so go easy on me this time.

[PsychoAssasin]

reductio ad absurdum, I know the term well, and itself is absurd. There is a line, and although it can be on a slippery slope, doesn't mean it isn't there or cannot be achieved.

You continue to say there is a line, everyones line is different, so who says where the line is? you? the government? big brother? Those who are in power will always be the ones who draw the line wether you like it or not, and in Canada and in America, we are continuing to lose our power over our own country everyday.

[Kalbrecht]

I am not familiar with Godwin's Law violations so if you could explain, I would appreciate it

Godwin's Law states that, on the Internet, if the debate is devolving to a state where you cannot logically win, the 'head-off' is to invoke Nazism, and imply/accuse your opponent of oppression.

Rather amusing BS, but also has absolutely zero value to real life or intelligent debate because it detracts from actual debate by invoking 'OMG Nazis r evil!'. But, also devalues any contribution using Nazism as comparison might have.

Anyway - on the founding of the US and the principles and idealism behind modern democracy - one of the most important features and foundations which lies behind capitalist/liberalist democracy is that censorship as a government feature is WRONG, but to promote the overall functioning of society, we must all accept the duty to self-censor ourselves.

Our greatest freedom is to choose when to restrict ourselves, so that others may enjoy theirs. This is the choice that Nintendo and Sony are exercising.

As I said before - noone is denying an adult's right to own Manhunt 2 if/when it is released. But where is it enshrined that it is an adult's 'right' to play/own it on Wii/PS3? You own the machine, but that doesn't give you the right to determine what to play on that machine. You don't own the technology.

[Rob]

Actually, my argument about Nazi's was not "OMG Nazis r evil" but rather it was a moral choice by someone who believed they were right. Acting against, for right or wrong, which I never stated, was denying a right just as is making murder illegal. It is still an oppression on someone's right. Again, I am not stating whether it is right or wrong, or accusing anyone for what they believe in is right or wrong, just pointing out that there are restrictions to freedom everywhere.

I do not believe Draco is a Nazi. I could just as easily used the Aztecs and their belief of human sacrifice as an example instead of Nazism.

[Kalbrecht]

Yeah. That's the problem with Godwin's. It's a stupid 'law' because it means that any argument involving the Nazi's immediately becomes devalued since Godwin's comes into effect as soon as the Nazi's are mentioned.

It only came into being because of the huge number of people on the Net who aren't able to articulate or debate well, and so anytime they lost or felt they were being wronged, would use the old "OMG I'm being oppressed you guyz r evil just like the Nazis!" to get out of it.

I find it best to ignore the existence of Godwin's and continue on as before - intelligent, rational debate. :-)

[draco7891]

Godwin's Law states that, on the Internet, if the debate is devolving to a state where you cannot logically win, the 'head-off' is to invoke Nazism, and imply/accuse your opponent of oppression.

Incorrect! Godwin's Law states that the incidence of ANY mention of Nazis or Nazism will approach one as the debate continues. It also contains the well-worn tradition that the mentionee has lost the debate, and that said debate is over.

Using Nazism as a premise for evil or detractatory behavior is assumed by definition; it's like trying to argue the merits of using peanut butter in a peanut butter sandwich. Thus, the usage of more subtle, coherent, or otherwise timely examples is encouraged. Its use is solely intended to eliminate hyperbolic or otherwise needlessly complicated associations to Nazis or Nazism.

Draco

[Kalbrecht]

Hmm - as in, you meant that the probability approaches 'one'? Yeah, looks like you're right on that.

It's a stupid law. Bringing up Nazism isn't a be-all end-all for an assumption of a radical extreme, as long as it's used in a rational manner. Using Nazism in an argument can be of great benefit. The problem with Godwin's is that, as soon as it is invoked, it devalues any rational context for using the Nazi argument, largely because it's the only 'great evil' the majority of people have any 'knowledge' of. It's also a sad reflection of Net debate, that people don't have the maturity to continue a rational debate without getting emotionally invested in it, and going to extremes.

(edit: not saying that about the arguments at hand, but in general about people arguing on the Net)

I vote to ignore Godwin's (fingers crossed - forever!) and get on with the more interesting argument at hand.

[Rob]

Using Nazism as a premise for evil or detractatory behavior is assumed by definition But I didn't do that. I was simply pointing at two things, first, to point out that there are strong differences of moral opinion where both sides feel they are right. Anyone who opposed the Nazi's, and again, I am not saying positively or negatively because that is 100% irrelevant, it is restricting someones freedom and who is to judge whether one person is right or wrong.

Two, IF you believed the Nazi's should have been removed from power, then you also believe that somethings that people believe they should have and are entitled to, should not be allowed. In my opinion, a game like Manhunt 2, which people feel they should be entitled too, is something that should not be allowed. And no, I do not think Manhunt 2 is = to Nazi's.

No where are we saying that Nazi's are evil. And I repeat, I could have used the Aztecs and human sacrifices, any other war in history and so forth.

[draco7891]

But I didn't do that.

Oh? I'll show you then.

Anyone who opposed the Nazi's...is restricting someones freedom

First, let us say that this is a conclusion drawn without premises. However, the premises that lead to this conclusion will inevitably relate Nazis to their morals (and must necessarily cast a negative judgement on them), so that morality can be related to restricting freedom. What is being carefully guarded here is the "why" clause; the premise that relates the two ideas of opposing Nazism and restricting freedom.

I oppose my neighbor having dogs, and yet he is still free to do so. I oppose people in the house staying up past 1AM, but they are still free to do so. It is in the specific notion of restriction here in the conclusion that must include why they are being restricted. In that, must be an inclusion of their morality, as well as a judgement over it (and in that, a rejection of it).

IF you believed the Nazi's should have been removed from power, then you also believe that somethings that people believe they should have and are entitled to, should not be allowed.

Here again, you have not yet established the relational link between Nazis removed from power and that not everything people want and desire for themselves should be allowed. Again, this conclusion must specifically include a relationship between the reasons of Nazi opposition and WHY people shouldn't get everything they want. That relationship is morality, and will necessarily be a rejection of Nazism so that you can use the negative conclusion in the second clause.

Q.E.D., all definitions of Nazis and Nazism are by default evil (which is defined to be "morally wrong", and is thus just a moniker), and are thus not arguments but definitions. Godwin's Law applies.

Draco

PS: However, if you can whip up a valid and sound argument that doesn't relate Nazi morality, I'd like to see it. I'm always interested in being wrong.

[Rob]

You are making much more about this then you need to and your premise that all definitions of Nazism are by default evil is simply taking the word and immediately dismissing everything else I am saying. It doesn't matter if the Nazi's were good or evil, which again, is why I never established that premise. You can reverse the situation and say if you opposed Allies and believed Germany should have taken over the world it would be a better place, you are imposing your moral belief and restricting the rights of others to better the world. It simply doesn't matter.

Depending on your views, you could also easily say that the British colonies revolted and started a long and bloody civil war against their home country just as easily as you could say that the British colonies demanded freedom and the British started a long and bloody civil war to keep what they felt was their land and people. No side is inherently evil, it just depends on your views on which side was correct.

Or we can simply tone it down. You bring up people staying up past 1am. What about people blasting their music at 1am? There are laws in place that restrict this and someone will most likely call the cops to have it stopped. Are you not restricting their right to play loud music simply based on the fact you do not feel it should happen at 1am?

It is also against the law to sell your body for sex, even though you can give it away for free. It is their body, why can't they use it how they want to?

[draco7891]

You are making much more about this then you need to and your premise that all definitions of Nazism are by default evil is simply taking the word and immediately dismissing everything else I am saying.

I am dismissing it because it is an amoral conclusion from a moral argument, which isn't allowed. You have to recognize that the key relationship in the argument is a judgement of morality, and that the conclusion so presented must cast a negative tone on said morality.

Something much closer to a moral conclusion would be "If you disagreed with the Nazis morals, then you restricted someones freedom". Which, I have already covered in a previous posting as being false.

Try this instead: "If you support one ethos over another, you will inevitably disregard the others practices, and in so doing act without concern for the restrictions put in place against the latter for the benefit of the former". That is not only amoral, but is also completely arbitrary, without reliance on a predefined moral role, and is much closer to what you're trying to say without running around the point.

The obvious corollary to this conclusion is that the best idea is to support NO ethos over another, in favor of the individual's choice, which is EXACTLY what I've been arguing for, and you against.

You can reverse the situation and say if you opposed Allies and believed Germany should have taken over the world it would be a better place, you are imposing your moral belief and restricting the rights of others to better the world.

Here again you would presuppose a moral role for both Germany and the Allies, and use it to cast judgement over them. Thus, only a moral conclusion can result, and not an amoral dictum.

Are you not restricting their right to play loud music simply based on the fact you do not feel it should happen at 1am?

If I do not phone the police, have I restricted their rights? Who is the more guilty here, the ones violating the law, or the bystander that does not report the crime?

I believe I have already established that the law is by nature a moral entity. I have also stated my belief that the populous should reneg only the most necessary and essential rights from the state of nature for the protection and safety of the whole of society, and no more. If I do not want them to play the music, I will ask them not to; I don't need the force of law to compel them. I do nothing to restrict their rights, despite my opposition to them doing so. Apparently enough people are willing to give up their right to play loud music at night such that it IS restricted under law, but just because my position parallels that of the law does not mean that I restrict their rights. Thus, we have the separation of the individual's morals and the law, just as it should be.

It is also against the law to sell your body for sex, even though you can give it away for free. It is their body, why can't they use it how they want to?

Well, first let's point out that it's not illegal to do so in a few jurisdictions. Prostitution has gone on for thousands of years, with and without legal sanction. One of the many problems with it is that it tends to attract all kinds of other incidental crime, that the industry is largely uncontrollable, and that there is little to nothing to be done to control the "quality" of the services rendered; if I bake brownies, and one of the machines breaks down or starts putting metal shavings into the batter, I can know to stop the factory and discard the bad batch, and I can face criminal charges if I knowingly sell them anyway. If your prostitute doesn't tell you he/she has an STD or other such complication, there's little you can do about it, especially since you have to establish that he/she had previous knowledge, something notoriously tricky to do without medical records (which are also private). Prostitution occurs in many different locations at many different times, with many different people and is as such nearly impossible to regulate.

For these and many others, enough people have decided that they would give up the right to sell their bodies for money so that a law restricting the practice could be put in place. The law is a moral reflection of the will of the people as a whole, but that does not mean that everyone must automatically subscribe to it, nor that individuals cannot have thoughts counter to it.

Draco

[Kalbrecht]

Draco - what is your main concern about the Manhunt 2 situation?

That it's making it difficult for you to own the game that Rockstar wanted to make?

You feel that you have the right to purchase the game as planned as a mature adult?

That you feel the ESRB/Nintendo/Sony are bowing to political pressure?

That ratings in themselves are wrong? The ESRB is an outdated political tool?

Manhunt 2 didn't deserve the AO rating?

That we're all trying to impose a moral judgement on art?

It seems like you haven't addressed a lot of the more applicable arguments to the situation, and instead have chosen to tackle the more abstract moral/intellectual issues.

Rather than argue about the endgame - which is the ethics of democratic morality, why not tackle the issue at hand first.

[Rob]

Ok then, you may choose not to call the police, I have children and, after having already asked them not to do so, have called the police to make them stop. So maybe I do impose my moral view on others to restrict them from doing what I personally do not believe is right.

Despite your theory that Manhunt only received an AO rating because the ESRB and their lackeys are afraid the game might be a success, Manhunt 2 received the rating it deserved.

I also contend that Manhunt 2 is not art, it is violence for the sake of violence. Unlike books and paintings, video games have an active participation, and thus completely changes the venue of what art is and is not. Someone drawing a picture for everyone to view with a very bloody and violent theme is far different then making a game where the viewer is simulating the violence themselves, especially in the case of the Wii which really is taking a far more hands on approach.

The game deserved it's rating and it deserves to be banned.

[draco7891]

what is your main concern about the Manhunt 2 situation?

That the decisions being made here are largely designed to pander to a political agenda rather than being an honest and fair due process, that this is an act of censorship, an affront to free thinking and free expression everywhere, and worst of all, that otherwise normal, rational, and well-thought individuals are applauding it as though it were not an act of intellectual treason.

That it's making it difficult for you to own the game that Rockstar wanted to make?

Own? No, I suppose I could own the game forthright right now. But a game that cannot be played is tantamount to a book that has had its pages glued shut; the information is there, but without access, why bother?

You feel that you have the right to purchase the game as planned as a mature adult?

Yes, as do all other mature adults. Although I reiterate my stance that even if the game were to come out, I wouldn't personally play it, as it's not my kind of game.

That you feel the ESRB/Nintendo/Sony are bowing to political pressure?

Yes.

That ratings in themselves are wrong?

Not at all, I think the ratings are actually a well-thought out and comprehensive way of categorizing game content.

The ESRB is an outdated political tool?

More like the ESRB are now using the ratings to further a political agenda rather than their original and intended purpose.

Manhunt 2 didn't deserve the AO rating?

Difficult to say without having actually played the game (ah, conundrum). I say then that the rating was given because of ulterior motives and not as an assessment of content.

That we're all trying to impose a moral judgement on art?

That, and apparently free speech and expression, too.

It seems like you haven't addressed a lot of the more applicable arguments to the situation...

"You've been ignoring me". I know, I know, I'm sorry. :lol:

...instead have chosen to tackle the more abstract moral/intellectual issues.

That's all I had to work with, you know. If you want arguments that aren't about moral judgements or intellectual qualms, let's not cast them into the pool as a premise for argumentation, eh?

Rather than argue about the endgame - which is the ethics of democratic morality, why not tackle the issue at hand first.

Bah, why waste time on foreplay if we all know it'll just end up there eventually? I'd much rather assume my peers were intelligent, clever and articulate individuals that can appreciate, understand, and apply abstract concepts, wouldn't you?

Draco

[draco7891]

Let me say this in furtherance of my point: although this thread only deals with the decisions concerning Manhunt 2, I think that it is impossible to ignore the general trend not only in media but also in the public eye to portray gaming as the sole reason atrocious acts are committed; gaming takes far too much flak from people who are at-best ill-qualified to make such statements.

The ESRB has shown in recent memory several occasions where it has deliberately re-rated games either due solely to political pressure, or to content that would have been otherwise inaccessible to the player if not for the efforts of others outside of the developers. Both of these situations present a dangerous precedent that the ratings system is being used less as a tool for quickly assessing game content and more as a political tool of control for what is seen as "undesireable" ideas.

This would seem to cast an ominous light on any proceedings that the ESRB itself resides upon, and I feel leads down a very slippery slope that may well spell the deathknell for any kind of new or original game content that involves violence or sex. As a young adult whom is capable and properly emotionally equipped to deal with such subject matter, that concerns me, as well at the thought that we are again ceding control of what we see, hear, and think to politics or a de facto government agency.

Manhunt 2 is itself a very divisive kind of entity, especially now with the controversy surrounding it. However, if we take a step back and remove our emotional judgements about a specific game's content, and then we take a close look at the principles in operation, I think any free-thinking individual can plainly see that this move is representative of the first volley in a political struggle against what is viewed, not as it should be as a form of art, but as an ill of society, to be restricted and regulated so deeply that it is no longer worth pursuing.

I only ask that people recognize the underlying situation, no matter if you find the game itself interesting or abhorrent, and keep the ability to think freely in the hands of the citizen, and not delegate even that most basic of tasks to government.

Draco

[Rob]

I remember the uproar when Night Trap and Mortal Kombat were released back in 1992, it was and will always be there. So this is far from the first or last volley.

I 100% agree that video games have received tons of finger pointing and unnecessary flak and the whole Hot Coffee scandal was a head scratcher. It wasn't like it was some porn scene between Mario and the Princess.

Despite this long thread and my protests, it is actually difficult for me to fall on the side of censorship, but there is a line to be drawn. I just think our lines are at different places. What happens if they release a game where you can hunt down and kill children and infants in even more detail then what is being down today, especially using the Wii-mote or similar device? It has been a topic of discussion lately in movies as they are trying to one-up the shock value factor and more and more movies are using the death of kids to do it. How far is too far if Manhunt is not the line for you? Or do you believe there should never be a line and it is always up to the individual?

[Kalbrecht]

"You've been ignoring me". I know, I know, I'm sorry. :lol:

You better be sorry! ;-)

Foreplay is essential if the final engagement is to actually be enjoyable and have any real meaning. To go from debating a single, admittedly ultra-violent, product to the concept of an overarching moral evil achieves nothing and smacks of the same type of abstract bull that led the game industry into this place as purveyors of evil.

The game industry lacks the maturity to apply real world thinking. The vendors and retailers that they need to survive don't give a toss about the abstract layers of a moral democracy. They want to know how and why it should apply. That is far more interesting than bringing up Godwin's and abstract moral freedoms.

The conundrum of not having played the game also means that you are overestimating the ESRB's pandering to politics, and underestimating Nintendo and Sony's ability to make decisions as corporations.

Sony has, on a few occasions, made it clear that it can firmly stand its ground, quite stubbornly, on controversial issues. That they decided to stand with Nintendo doesn't smell like politics to me, but more that there are some controversies that even Sony will not touch. I think it says a lot.

As for intellectual treason? Bull. The greatest freedom we have is the freedom to say "no" - to ourselves and to others. That's the freedom Nintendo and Sony exercised. It was always clear that this was going to be a very controversial, ultra-violent game. That it came to this stage for them to take a stance against it is the only problem I have with it.

It may be art, but it's commissioned art in a commercial industry, which means that the method of expression is not completely free by definition. Manhunt 2, like all video games, is a retail product. Which means that it is always subject to the requirements of all retail products - they must pass the layers of approval from all the groups with a vested interest - from the producer (Rockstar), to the government (whose interest is in protecting society) to the vendor (Nintendo/Sony) to the retailers. This is a process all commercial art, let alone commercial products, must go through. And they can easily fail.

If Rockstar wanted artistic freedom, they would not have chosen to develop for the Wii and PS3. They made their choice, and licensed the technology with the full knowledge that they could have been shot down. To use your book analogy - they wrote a story in someone else's book. Someone they knew could easily tear out their pages. They chose the commercial path.

In other words, this IS capitalist democratic freedom at its best. It's the freedom for products to completely screw the pooch when they go too far. And I think that's a good thing - it shows two things - first, that there are people who are willing to push the envelope. And that there are also people who are able to say no. Gaming isn't a Wild West industry anymore. It's maturing, and as it matures, we have to accept that the 'anything goes' no longer applies.

Is the rating and controversy part of a grander political agenda? That is where it gets tricky. And where the game industry's abstraction is its current downfall. Without an effective gaming lobby group to counter the parenting groups, we are subject to their influence far more than we would hope, and than the ESRB would like to admit.

Now - are the ESRB and corporations subject to a political agenda and the influence of the lobby groups? Possibly. The people who make up these groups are only human, as they say, and as much subject to the media overload as we are. Probably more as they have to field calls from the lobby groups. But, having talked and heard interviews with a few people from the Australian's ratings board (Australia being even MORE censor-inclined than USA or anywhere in the 'Western world' apart from Germany, but also lacking the intense anti-gaming lobby group that exists in the US) there are some very strict guidelines that they have to follow, quite independently of lobby groups. They displayed a fairly cynical view of lobby groups, to an extent that it made me positive about the ratings structure. Similarly, corporations tend towards the result that is best for their brand. Which is why it never surprised me that Nintendo would say no. It surprised me that Sony did, but Sony is trying to improve its brand image. However - as someone who works with brand alignment/identity - the influence a lobby group has is overrated. A company/organisation already has a gut feeling and something within it's brand 'thinking' that says yes or no to a product. The same applies to government/national organisations like the ESRB - the thinking is already there.

Of course - similar to the legal system - they are potentially the subject of a 6 Degrees of Separation influence - they take their cues from the morals of the prevailing government and power, who take their cues from the population. Which is why there needs to be more done in the lobby group industry by the gaming industry and retailers. They need to work with the ESRB on a more effective means of displaying and promoting the ratings and why games deserve to be available as widely as possible.

Does this mean that it's a political agenda? I don't think so. While it's possible to equate market and brand strategy with political agenda, it doesn't always work that way. You mentioned once that Manhunt 2 was an expression of what the consumer/market wanted - well, it's easy enough to say that Nintendo/Sony's reaction is also an expression of what the market wants.

It's definitely not an agenda to restrict moral freedoms - mainly because such an agenda isn't on the minds. Realistically, we do NOT live in an idealised, morally free, society. The freedom to express oneself as an individual only extends as far as the next person's freedom. The requirements for absolute moral freedom don't exist, especially in a commercial industry, which means it becomes a circular argument that is important only to the 'victim'. The gaming industry needs to get over that hump and move right on to effective expression. If you're looking for artistic freedom then this, especially consoles, is the wrong industry.

edit: holy moley that's long.