OT: Words fail me

[AMF]

Hunpecked said:
The "pimp" makes "money" by playing certain cards to "abuse", "exploit", and "addict" certain game objects called "women". When the game is over, however, the player (or "pimp") has no more of the real-world commodity we call "money" than he (or she) started with (and probably less, having paid some to the game's manufacturer), he doesn't drive a real-world "pimpmobile" (unless he already had one), and he hasn't done the slightest microscopic iota of harm to any real-world creatures we call "women".

Let me quote that last one again. You claim that "he hasn't done the slightest microscopic iota of harm to any real-world creatures we call "women". "

If we are engendering, even in the slightest, a generation of boys who treat women like "objects" then don't you think that we are doing at least some damage to "the objects we call women"?

I mean, shoot man, women are already treated like objects whose only real worth is physical in almost every magazine ad, movie, and other form of media. Now we sound like we're actually going to take that one step further and tell young boys that women are of even *more* value if they are your prostitutes?

Don't think that's the world we live in? Don't think the media is like that? Try this thought experiment: go see a movie. Take an action movie. Look at the genders involved and how they react and, more importanly, how YOU react to them.

Now, take that EXACT same movie and replay it, in your head, but with the genders reversed. And see how you react to that. Odds are, if you're honest with yourself, you'll react very differently to each of these movies. Why? Think about it. And think about how it affects the opposite gender, growing up with the roles as they are.

I repeat: I am *not* sure if the game in question is problematic. But I am pretty sure that there must exist *some* line of common decency, which, if we cross it as a society, there is some measure of injury. To say otherwise is to imply in part that we as humans develop completely free from any social norms or pressures that might mould who we are later in life. But, that is patently ridiculous. if I had grown up in different circumstances, then surely I'd be a very different person than I am? I can tell you for sure that if I hadn't gotten the boxed D&D game when I was fifteen, I'd be very different than I am today.

Who's to say what I would be like if, instead of D&D I got this "Pimp out women" game when I was fifteen?

No one can ever say (except perhaps the big guy upstairs). But I am not willing to say that such influences make NO difference to a person's attitudes in life and towards women.

[Hunpecked]

Alarikf writes:

>> If we are engendering, even in the slightest, a generation of boys who treat women like "objects" then don't you think that we are doing at least some damage to "the objects we call women"?

Note that what I wrote before is still unquestionably true: in the game itself no actual women come to any actual harm. Alarikf's concern is that some hypothetical "boys" playing the game may suffer a hypothetical attitude adjustment that may someday hypothetically result in some hypothetical harm to some hypothetical women. Hypothetically speaking.

Now I'm not up on the latest research, but my guess is that if there was a proven link between childhood fantasy and adult criminal behavior, games like "Grand Theft Auto" would have been legislated off the shelves long ago. No?

>> I mean, shoot man, women are already treated like objects...

Yadda yadda yadda. The question is whether it can be demonstrated (i.e. proven) that this "Pimp" game will cause significant additional criminal behavior. If so, ban it. If not, let it die its inevitable commercial death in the marketplace.

>> Who's to say what I would be like if, instead of D&D I got this "Pimp out women" game when I was fifteen?

My guess is that Alarikf might have played it a couple times, had some laughs, put it away, and gotten "D&D" at his next opportunity. I doubt that "Pimp" has the immersion value of "D&D".

>> But I am not willing to say that such influences make NO difference to a person's attitudes in life and towards women.

In other words, the "Pimp" game (and by implication all similarly "frivolous" products) should be presumed "guilty" until proven "innocent"? If we use that standard, then SEIV should also be banned, because it simply can't be proven that NOBODY is harmed in the slightest by the game (as I suspect numerous SOs can testify).

[Sivran]

There's this game I play. In it I run around with an MP-5 shooting people to death. There's another game I play, and in it I run around stealing cars and killing people willy-nilly.

There's also this game I don't play, but many others do. In it they duke it out mano a mano with fists and various melee weapons. There's a game similar to it, but not requiring so much memorization, that I do play. In it I beat up on thugs, men, women, dogs, laughing fat guys, and people with a real samurai fetish, and people with really bad hair and a superiority complex.

I, and millions of others, do not then go out and do these things in real life. I, and millions of others, choose to play or not play these games. Personally, I would choose not to play this "Pimp" card game. Not because of the subject matter, but because I'm not big on card games. Bottom line, the game is being released in a free country. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Call me nasty names for trying it, and call yourself worse names.

[Starhawk]

Heh I know people "sorry to say but mainly African American" who refer to their own dang girlfriends as and I quote "Ma' *****" with their girlfriends present and in earshot, but their girlfriends seem to not give a damn, in all honesty it pisses me off when people casually refer to women in such a manner and I'm sorry to say but I've given more then one bloody nose to someone who said something disgusting about this girl or that, for example I knew a 13 year old girl back when I was 15 and I can honestly say this is the first girl I ever felt any serious feelings for and when this little puke said.

"Man I'd like to bend her over and (edited, you can figure out the rest easily." I jabbed him square in the jaw lifted him about eight inches off the ground by his coat and told him that if he ever said that about her again I'd break his jaw.

Well now a days comments like that or referring to every girl as "poo tang," "tail" or other various crudities still makes me really mad, though fortunately I've matured enough not to go making people bleed over such stupid statements but I still often say something about it if the person they are insulting is someone I know..

Anyway my point is I would never approve that game PIMP because it's sick and disgusting, but I also would not ask that it be made illegal because it's none of my buisness they game you decide to play, I Mean to be honest if your out there playng one of those computer generated kiddie porn computer games I've heard about it's none of my buisness because it's not against the law, that doesn't mean I would AT ALL condone it.

We live in a country of limited freedoms where a whiney minority of jackasses who feel they should control what everyone else does can ruin it for the vast majority, because they petition and they nag the government until they get their way, and it's just not right, and those people need to be told to shut the hell up and let other people watch the legal stuff and by the legal stuff they want, especially these danged WHINEY PARENTS commitee's that got some of my favorite shows pulled because "Oh my little johnny might be traumatized" instead of just turning of their own bloody TV!


Well that's my 2c, peace and love to ya'll

[AMF]

Anyways....you all need to go join the Zeta 2 game... (and get back to something more based in reality)

[AMF]

Tee hee...this is a funny comic (attached), and somehwat (hilariously) relevant. After this, really, I am done posting. Honest.

Thanks,

Alarik

[AgentZero]

There's been a lot of posts here that refer to 'the line' that either needs to be drawn, or should not be crossed, but I'm going to let you all in on a little secret: There is no line! It's more of a box. Outside of this box there are a few things that are unreservedly bad (ie: will never, ever be good no matter what the circumstances), and there are a few things that are unreservedly good. Everything else, morality, religion, politics, theft, violence and murder, go in the box as they cannot be categorized as completely good or completely bad. Sometimes they're one, sometime's they're the other. If you want to speak in general terms, without talking about specific cases, you can only really say something is "mostly good" or "mostly bad."
ie: Charity is "Mostly Good", while murder is "Mostly Bad."

And will people please, PLEASE, PLEASE stop this endless moaning about "the children!" We do NOT need the government to protect our children from adult material. That's what parents are for. I can remember getting caught with a Playboy when I was 13. My parents sat me down and explained to me the whole concept of objectification (in general and of women in specific). Now, granted, if Playboy was illegal, my parents would never have had to have that chat, but therin lies the problem: It would never have been explained to me and a very important lesson on the road to becoming a responsible adult would have been missed.

If anything, the government should put less time and money into protecting our poor children from sex, violence & objectionable material and more into eliminating the concept of 'dual-income families'. I don't mean this in a sexist way, I don't care who is bringing in the money, but I firmly believe that at least one parent should be able to devote a majority of their time to ensuring their child becomes a mature member of society.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Re: AgentZero's last paragraph - Who really thinks daycare (1 to 3 people for 5 to 25 kids) can raise children as well as even a single parent? (1 parent, generally no more than 3-4 kids)

[dogscoff]

Re: AgentZero's last paragraph - Who really thinks daycare (1 to 3 people for 5 to 25 kids) can raise children as well as even a single parent? (1 parent, generally no more than 3-4 kids)

Exclusively, no. But if a kid can spend a few hours a day interacting with other kids in a safe and educational environment, while the parent or parents go out to earn a living and/or get a break from the stresses of parenthood, then that can be a very good thing for everyone involved.