Dog-Fighting Game Pulled from Android Market

[Godavari]

And what the hell is Grand Theft Auto? I mean, I'm sure there were people getting outraged when GTAIV was released, but that didn't get pulled from shelves. Games glorify crime all the time. Yahtzee's best game from a year or two ago was Saints Row II. I can understand taking harsh action against real-life criminals who participate in this heinous crime, but a Mafia Wars clone about dog fighting? Give me a break. The big deal here is not that the game was released (although it was, in all likelihood, shovelware and should be dismissed as such) but that it has drawn so much scorn as to be pulled from the market.

 

[JUSTINtimeforalaugh]

Yeah! Get that violent, horrible game taken away. Now, I'm gonna go back to playing the game where I kill tons of people while in a gang. Or maybe the one where I rip out people's spines... So many options...

This is a completely hypocritical, and extremely biased, posting I thought I wouldn't see on here. But I noticed something, MOVIEBOB's name was referenced. Sounds like someone just wanted to make sure they were on his good side.

It doesn't matter if you think the subject matter is wrong (which it is in my opinion, but that is MY opinion), if you want freedom and equality for games (like this site has been screaming at us for awhile now with articles on the first amendment) than you have to stand by everyone's rights... not just who MOVIEBOB or YAHTZEE stand behind. That group may have worked on hard their game (I don't know though, I can only assume from my projects), and thought they would be a fun (maybe in a spoof way, or they actually like that stuff) game for people to play. And now you pass judgement on it (without having played it). Stop telling people about Mass Effect being a porn simulator and tell us actual news stories!

 

[Azaraxzealot]

Screw this dogfighting game! Now if you'll excuse me, I have some Pokemon to train.

quoted for truth.

how is making dogs fight bad but making any other assortment of animals burn, bite, slash, and electrocute the shit out of each other ok?

double standards... like how a man getting raped by a woman is funny but a man raping a woman is not...

 

[Dogstile]

this shit is worse than rapelay imo

What? How?

one simple reason amimals are 100% innocent and can never be deserving of callous behaviour such as torture in this case, people enacting horrors on each other is fine(for lack of better word) but don't enact it on the only truly innocent creatures of the world

What?! Animals are truly innocent? They kill people. They kill each other. They eat each other. They rape each other.... Are you implying that people deserve to be raped?

oh sweet christ i hope that was sarcasm

just in case it wasn't let me explain, animals are incapable of evil, humans are more than capable, an animal will only commit an act if it is towards either its own survival or towards the good of its pack

an animal will not inflict misery upon another life just for misery's own sake

Yes, yes they do.

Want an example? Mongooses kill snakes. Not because they eat them, not because they're afraid of them, they just hate snakes.

The same way squirrels will purposely jump into prams to attack babies (thanks cracked!). Animals are perfectly capable of evil.

How about an example not from cracked you say? A cat toying with a dying mouse.

 

[Agent Larkin]

No.

Just no.

Yeah free speech is great but that game...

No.

My friend also used to just say "no.". He was also the pisspole of our class and nobody liked him. He also liked anime, which fits perfect with his situation.

You know if he was your friend it means someone liked him

And I'm sorry that by typing No because I find the idea of a game about dog fighting horribly disturbing has caused you to share a tale of your freind who must have had a hell of a time if nobody (other then you that is) liked him.

 

[Dogstile]

snip

Want an example? Mongooses kill snakes. Not because they eat them, not because they're afraid of them, they just hate snakes.

The same way squirrels will purposely jump into prams to attack babies (thanks cracked!). Animals are perfectly capable of evil.

How about an example not from cracked you say? A cat toying with a dying mouse.

lol are you fucking retarded or something? A cat doesn't "toy" with a dying mouse, it's making sure it's dead.

Nice flaming there.

And erm, no, it toys with them. If my cat wanted to kill half the things it brought in, it would snap its neck or rip its neck out, like it usually does.

However, when a mouse has a broken leg and its trying to crawl away, the cat pulling it back, clawing it and letting it hobble forward, rinse, repeat until it dies is the cat playing with it. I've also seen my cat throwing around a barely conscious bird, that had both its wings broken.

Cats toy with their food, look it up

 

[Spongebobdickpants]

1st one: Im not sure about this one but i do think there is a reason for it but i cant quite remember it.

2nd: To ensure that cub doesnt one day kill him when it wants to become the alpha.

3rd: If a man kills a man without any concept of good or evil and simply does it as a means of survival then he/she cant be considered evil, commit an evil act sure but not evil. Animals lack the moral compass we do. They dont do stuff for the lulz like we do thats the jist of it, sayin animals are innocent is wrong because they are incapable of this.

If a step-father killed the children of his new wife... is that evil? Even if he KNEW his step children would kill him once grown up due to the politics of his marriage?

Hitler never thought he'd ever done a thing wrong.

In your opinion: is Hitler innocent?

Your ideas of morality are frightening if they are not contradictory.

My point was an animal is incapable of moral reasoning so is incapable of being evil.

Hitler commited genocide he may have "never though he'd ever done a thing wrong" but he knew he was taking lives for no more than an emotional prejudice, an animal wouldnt.

An animal would kill a direct threat or for survival. This is even demonstrated in my cats, i have twne is the alpha male of the neighbourhood the other... is the village idiot.

The latter was a kitten when the former was fully grown. The first sized him up and deemed him a non threat and doesnt attack him which he does to the other cats. Even when the second cat attacks him he just shrugs him off. The stupid cat literally walks up to him and bites him in the neck and he did nothing but shrug him off.

My stupid cat attacks the other on a regular basis but he has yet to be attacked.

Tl;dr Animals are unaffected by morality humans on the other hand have to behave in accordance with them. I wouldnt begrudge an animal bitting me but if a human attacked me i wouldnt be so forgiving because an animal acts on instinct where a human either acts on rational thinking or emotion.

 

[Treblaine]

No it does not. It protects you from government censorship. Meaning if you wanted to swear a lot the government couldn't do anything about it (except for radio and TV, thanks to a really bad court decision). But if someone wanted to kick you off their (private) property for swearing they could do so.

Which is a perfect analogy for what's happening here. Google is removing the game from their phones. If the makers wanted to publish their game on their own website Google or the government couldn't do anything about it.

Well that's all well and good but this isn't just one person's property this is a store providing a service for MILLIONS of phones.

The 1st Amendment was written to hold the POWERFUL to account, and that I think would today include companies who control large portions of the distribution. Even though in application it is almost always against the government.

I know there is no de-jure justification, but the spirit is there. I don't know if people on android phones can go to an alternate store to get this game but it seems to be from the way that phones are locked down that one company can censor millions.

I fully appreciate Google having discretion with the content of their store (if not their hypocrisy) but only if they allow an alternative store. In real life you can go to an "alternative" store if one has a certain image to cultivate.

 

[Codeman90]

Animals operate on a more basic level, and no they are not innocent and pure. They live to keep on living and expanding. Hence why invading species murder the shit out of the local ecosystems because they have no competition. Humans are the same way, we want to survive and prosper and we'll kill any species in our way to prosperity, whetehter that means aquiring more land or using more resources.

If I walk into a Hippo's "property" for example there's a good chance I won't be leaving alive. Also other animals will murder the shit out of eachother to survive and expand their territory. Oh and did you know that CHimps actually engage in conventional Territorial warfare? Conducting night raids and killing other chimps for territory. It's all about survival, innocence has nothing to do with it.

 

[THEoriginalBRIEN]

They banned Pokemon??

 

[Treblaine]

snip

Want an example? Mongooses kill snakes. Not because they eat them, not because they're afraid of them, they just hate snakes.

The same way squirrels will purposely jump into prams to attack babies (thanks cracked!). Animals are perfectly capable of evil.

How about an example not from cracked you say? A cat toying with a dying mouse.

lol are you fucking retarded or something? A cat doesn't "toy" with a dying mouse, it's making sure it's dead.

Nice flaming there.

And erm, no, it toys with them. If my cat wanted to kill half the things it brought in, it would snap its neck or rip its neck out, like it usually does.

However, when a mouse has a broken leg and its trying to crawl away, the cat pulling it back, clawing it and letting it hobble forward, rinse, repeat until it dies is the cat playing with it. I've also seen my cat throwing around a barely conscious bird, that had both its wings broken.

Cats toy with their food, look it up

It's futile. Too many disney cartoons with anthropomorphic animals. Too many animal activist campaigns. Too many hippie movies. Too much pop culture with idealised caricatures of animals.

Some people are just too attached to the delusion of animal innocence.

People fuck people over, it makes you untrusting, cynical and fuck over in kind destroy faith in even your own ideal view of human perfection.

But animals, pets have been BRED to be loyal. That just makes them seem perfect.

 

[Atheist.]

Well if it was fun, this is kind of a letdown. That said, most of the games on there suck, so it's probably not much of a loss.

Why it was pulled is ridiculous, but I suppose if they don't want these sorts of games on their market, we can always just download them off the internet.

 

[Treblaine]

No it does not. It protects you from government censorship. Meaning if you wanted to swear a lot the government couldn't do anything about it (except for radio and TV, thanks to a really bad court decision). But if someone wanted to kick you off their (private) property for swearing they could do so.

Which is a perfect analogy for what's happening here. Google is removing the game from their phones. If the makers wanted to publish their game on their own website Google or the government couldn't do anything about it.

Well that's all well and good but this isn't just one person's property this is a store providing a service for MILLIONS of phones.

The 1st Amendment was written to hold the POWERFUL to account, and that I think would today include companies who control large portions of the distribution. Even though in application it is almost always against the government.

I know there is no de-jure justification, but the spirit is there. I don't know if people on android phones can go to an alternate store to get this game but it seems to be from the way that phones are locked down that one company can censor millions.

I fully appreciate Google having discretion with the content of their store (if not their hypocrisy) but only if they allow an alternative store. In real life you can go to an "alternative" store if one has a certain image to cultivate.

The 1st Amendment was written to hold the GOVERNMENT to account. And those companies don't owe anyone distribution. Nothing in the 1st Amendment says that you gave to be able to get your word out. If they intended it to be the way you said they did, why didn't they include newspapers or something?

It's nonsense to say that anyway, those companies aren't owned by the public so they don't owe the public a service. The spirit isn't there at all, since even the government doesn't have to give people a way to put out their message. They can't go and restrict people, but they don't have to pass out a message for someone.

Regardless of the limitations of the 1st amendment, it's still censorship.

I know what google has done is not without precedent. It's just a growing trend I don't like where a single store serving so many millions of people applies a flat dismissal of a product for ALL people, it's too much power in one entity's hands without enough accountability.

I know Google doesn't owe anyone anything.

But what if Microsoft had a problem with you installing Steam on your windows operating system? Windows OS was made in a time when systems were expected to be open, now the default is closed.

 

[FogHornG36]

Remake this, paint the dogs blue and red, call then dogumon, no one thinks twice.