Manhunt 2 Banned in UK

[JustLikeHeaven1]

Thats fine that Nintendo won't sell the game (same for Sony), but the whole Adults Only rating doesn't make any sense to me...

A game that is rated M (for Mature) is only suitable for people that are the age 17+.  That means if you walk into a store and you are only 14 they aren't supposed to sell you the game. If you happen to view it/play it before you turn 17 your eyeballs melt*.

Now a game that gets an AO (Adults only) rating is considered suitable for anyone over the age of 18+.  You mean to tell me that all the sudden you turn 18 from 17 and you can view all these crazy things in videogames?  Do you have this moment right before you turn 18 where everything becomes clear and you say, "ah ha...I'm now mature enough to understand what boobies are."

If you ask me the ratings system needs a complete overhaul.  Its friggin bullsh*t that that the ESRB can determine what games get released and what games don't.  Even if Nintendo or Sony allowed the game you couldn't buy it anywhere (most big box stores have strict policies about AO games).  Yet, I can walk into a BestBuy right now, buy 10 uncut/unrated movies (that were deemed to offensive for theatres) and the cashier will just give me friendly, "have a good day sir."  That makes zero sense to me.


* note, eyeballs will not melt in the instance you play M rated game before you turn 17

[Atarifever1]

[QUOTE=JustLikeHeaven]Thats fine that Nintendo won't sell the game (same for Sony), but the whole Adults Only rating doesn't make any sense to me...

A game that is rated M (for Mature) is only suitable for people that are the age 17+.  That means if you walk into a store and you are only 14 they aren't supposed to sell you the game. If you happen to view it/play it before you turn 17 your eyeballs melt*.

Now a game that gets an AO (Adults only) rating is considered suitable for anyone over the age of 18+.  You mean to tell me that all the sudden you turn 18 from 17 and you can view all these crazy things in videogames?  Do you have this moment right before you turn 18 where everything becomes clear and you say, "ah ha...I'm now mature enough to understand what boobies are."


[/QUOTE]

That was put perfectly.  I really can't add anything more to it.  Well said.

[a1]

[QUOTE=Steerforth]
And we can and do decide what qualifies as art and freedom of speech. All the time, every day. Can I spit in your face and call it art? Can I walk behind your wife and kids at the mall and speak crude, evil suggestive things to them, as a demonstration of my own personal freedom? Can I piss in a glass jar and force the Museum of Modern Art to display it? (Though the probably would!) Of course not, because we cannot let personal acts of depravity trump the deceny and worth of the human being.
[/QUOTE]

That's ridiculous. There's a big difference between your scenarios and Manhunt 2. The biggest, and seemingly obvious, being the fact that you can choose not to play Manhunt 2. In your scenario I couldn't avoid being spit in the face, and I didn't want to be spit in the face, but with Manhunt 2 I could avoid it, and if I play it it's because I wanted to.

Also, I'm sick of you guys thinking that everyone defending the game considers it art. I certainly don't consider it art, and I don't consider a jar of urine art.The Museum of Modern art doesn't have to display your urine, but there should be no law against having the urine (if you're into that sort of thing). Free speech doesn't only apply to art.

If you have a problem with Manhunt 2 (or any game, movie, or cd) just don't buy it. Why do you care if someone else enjoys it?

[BigOldCar]

[QUOTE]

Can I piss in a glass jar and force the Museum of Modern Art to display it?

[/QUOTE]

In fact, that's been done, only more offensively.  Do a web search on "piss christ."  <--That isn't me being vulgar; that's actually what the (ahem) "artist" titled his "work."

[john-boy]

[QUOTE=m0zart]It is your PERSONAL responsibiliity to keep your hands off of other people's lives and property, and it is just as much your responsibility not to support any kind of collective effort which does just that.[/QUOTE]

I remember running across your weird politics on a debate about religion in videogames and put it down to you just liking the sound of your own opinions. But this takes the cake.

There are examples too numerous to list when it is our PERSONAL and SHARED responsibility to do just what you think we should not.

On another note: Thankfully, others, braver and less in love with their own voice than you are, did accept a draft. And they fought for the freedom of others, so that others might enjoy the same freedoms that their fathers died for to give them.

[m0zart1]

[QUOTE=john-boy]I remember running across your weird politics on a debate about religion in videogames and put it down to you just liking the sound of your own opinions. But this takes the cake.[/QUOTE]

I remember all too well the nature of your argument -- your specific position that the ideas and beliefs of religious people shouldn't be tolerated, with my personal caveat that they should as long as they do not attempt to push their own intolerance on others.  That was the big statement that constituted my "weird" politics.  So be it.

Coming from that mindset, I'll take the "weird" label as a complement.

[QUOTE=john-boy]There are examples too numerous to list when it is our PERSONAL and SHARED responsibility to do just what you think we should not.[/QUOTE]

Then list some of them, instead of just throwing this unnamed stuff out into the ethos.

[QUOTE=john-boy]On another note: Thankfully, others, braver and less in love with their own voice than you are, did accept a draft. And they fought for the freedom of others, so that others might enjoy the same freedoms that their fathers died for to give them.
[/QUOTE]

Eh, in wars such as WW2, they wouldn't have needed a draft to get me involved.  In this recent debacle, a draft wouldn't have gotten me involved at all.  Besides the inherent immorality in a draft that I've already mentioned, they are quite obviously way too much power to give a state driven by its own politics in favor of our own freedom.

In short, give me something worthwhile to fight for, and I'll do it willingly.  Take away my ability to do it willingly, and I'll have little left to fight for.

[Atarifever1]

[QUOTE=john-boy]

On another note: Thankfully, others, braver and less in love with their own voice than you are, did accept a draft. [/quote]

People who stood up for an ideal in the face of punishement from their own government and disdain from facists is hardly cowardice. You know some other groups that have had compulsory military service in the name of the nation?  The Nazis and Sadam Husein.  That's certainly a group of freedom lovers to number yourself among.

[john-boy]

[QUOTE=m0zart] Then list some of them, instead of just throwing this unnamed stuff out into the ethos.[/QUOTE]

You can't think of a single instance where people, or the state acting on behalf of the people, should intervene in in individual's life?

Either to protect them, or to stop them committing a crime, or to apprehend them after a crime?

You write too much and think and listen too little. And your superior, holier-than-though posturing is nauseating. Sure, everyone except you is [I]wrong[/I]


(also, maybe you could list some religions that have NOT pushed their intolerance on others, instead of just throwing this unnamed stuff out into the ethos.)

[m0zart1]

[QUOTE=john-boy][QUOTE=m0zart] Then list some of them, instead of just throwing this unnamed stuff out into the ethos.[/QUOTE]

You can't think of a single instance where people, or the state acting on behalf of the people, should intervene in in individual's life?

Either to protect them, or to stop them committing a crime, or to apprehend them after a crime?[/QUOTE]

I didn't state that.  I stated that you should be specific with instances, so that we could literally talk about specifics instead of you just throwing around conjecture from your acid tongue.

As I stated before on numerous occasions, any time someone is violating the rights of another individual, the State has a right to intervene, but that right exists only because the State exists as a force for the protection of rights, and anyone including a State can literally intervene when such a right is being violated.

That is precisely why I don't accept the State intervening to make slaves of its population through a draft.  It cannot protect those rights when it is the primary violator of them.  Or to put it in your language, the State cannot prevent crime by becoming a crime-committer.

[QUOTE=john-boy]You write too much and think and listen too little. And your superior, holier-than-though posturing is nauseating. Sure, everyone except you is [I]wrong[/I][/QUOTE]

How appropriate that the one who wants to encourage zero tolerance of different religious beliefs would accuse me of demanding to be recognized as 100% right in all cases.  All of us think we are right when we attempt to express our opinions -- me included.  Not all of us are intolerant of other views though -- something you clearly are.

[QUOTE=john-boy](also, maybe you could list some religions that have NOT pushed their intolerance on others, instead of just throwing this unnamed stuff out into the ethos.)[/QUOTE]

I don't need to.  All I need to do is point out that there are individuals who were members of those religions who haven't done so and yet still sincerely hold their religion.  Since I reject the idea of treating any group of people with collective guilt minus willing participation in the act itself by specific individuals, I have to exclude those who were objectors to that kind of interference in other peoples' lives.  This includes even those Moslems who do not believe that Islam should be dictating to people in the East or West by threat of law.  Of course, throwing around that kind of collectivist guilt around on nameless individuals is the same sort of random classification I was referring to when I used the phrase "just throwing things around into the ethos", only in that case on specific instances of law which go beyond protecting individual rights by instead justifying violations of those same rights.

[Alienblue]

I have no idea what manhunt is (my exwifes pahetic pleas come to mine though ) but ANYway....

On the "must be 18" thing...I took Psychology in college. Tests and studies have shown the brain keeps growing up til 18 in girls (and sometimes 19 or 20 in boys-take that gals!), and OVERALL behavior is still being "influenced", still growing. Hence the requirement that one is 18 to be an adult. (strange how in other times it was 12,13,15,16 and such...)

Personally, I do think there are many FOURTEEN year old "kids" who are more "mature" than some twenty-five year olds, so it IS a blanket condemnation. In Maine you must be 21 to drink...although I can't drink, I recall being 18 and feeling cheated that I could be DRAFTED and get killed but I couldn't have a beer!... still, with age comes parts falling off..er..wisdom, and I now think that waiting for something truly does make it more "special", more prominant in some way. Which doesn't help teens who are impatient by nature. Oh well. Life sucks!