Sorry kid, but I actually am adopted, and my parents were in their teens. All my childhood pets died, none ran away to begin with :]MaxTheReaper said:
You Can't Be the Hero If You're the Rapist
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
*pets* keep telling yourself that, sport.MaxTheReaper said:
Kidding, I'm sure you'll one-up me more than just once.
can a game made to glorify rape be banned because of it?
would it be different if your killing a person than if you raped that person?
There are games that make us question are moral values, games that make us justify our actions
like "I killed him cause his a terrorist" or "self-defense" bottom line is you killed him for a cause or you simply wanted to. rape on the other hand can't be justifiable, have you ever heard of a vigilante who rapes people in the name of justice? no.
(If you look hard enough you'll probably find something like it in japan, a hentai of some sort)
but it's still just a game sure its evil, demented, perverted and some would even say diabolical but the point remains its just a game
scenario:
imagine playing a perfect life simulator MMO (think along the lines of the sims online)
where everything and anything possible in real life can be imitated in the virtual world
your avatar was taking a stroll around the park at night when suddenly a bunch of hooded figures jumps at you and violates you in ways you could never imagine and left you there
now heres where reality and the gaming world differ
in real life:
you go to the police and plead your case and hope the authorities catch and punish those no good criminals and be forever scared
in a MMO game:
you gather a bunch of friends stock up on guns and ammo and kill those who have harmed you with the most brutal way possible and you log-out with a smile on your face
see the difference?
lets not forget it's still your choice the buy/play the game in the first place
and to begin with if your mind functions normally you would know better than to buy a game
titled RAPElay or did you expect ground breaking storytelling and expect something decent
would it be different if your killing a person than if you raped that person?
There are games that make us question are moral values, games that make us justify our actions
like "I killed him cause his a terrorist" or "self-defense" bottom line is you killed him for a cause or you simply wanted to. rape on the other hand can't be justifiable, have you ever heard of a vigilante who rapes people in the name of justice? no.
(If you look hard enough you'll probably find something like it in japan, a hentai of some sort)
but it's still just a game sure its evil, demented, perverted and some would even say diabolical but the point remains its just a game
scenario:
imagine playing a perfect life simulator MMO (think along the lines of the sims online)
where everything and anything possible in real life can be imitated in the virtual world
your avatar was taking a stroll around the park at night when suddenly a bunch of hooded figures jumps at you and violates you in ways you could never imagine and left you there
now heres where reality and the gaming world differ
in real life:
you go to the police and plead your case and hope the authorities catch and punish those no good criminals and be forever scared
in a MMO game:
you gather a bunch of friends stock up on guns and ammo and kill those who have harmed you with the most brutal way possible and you log-out with a smile on your face
see the difference?
lets not forget it's still your choice the buy/play the game in the first place
and to begin with if your mind functions normally you would know better than to buy a game
titled RAPElay or did you expect ground breaking storytelling and expect something decent
If only the real world worked like that, and it were so easy for a person to confess to being raped (yeah, good luck getting a little kid to go tell someone they were raped) and not be ridiculed by others (they deserved it, brought it on their self, etc..).ninjanyne said:
If things were that easy, people wouldn't wait years to finally admit to a friend or stranger what happened to them, much less an officer of the law.
It's not just a physical violation, it's a mental one as well.
I've been thinking more on the idea that rape games aren't games in the conventional sense, they're pornography. One of the most commonly used arguments I see in this thread is "at what point in the game would any player need/want to rape someone?".
You could very simply ask, "at what point would a player need to slaughter innocents?" In God Of War, you do it to gain a health power up. In God Of War, the main character's a murderous psychopath. What if, during the sex scenes in the God Of War games, Kratos raped women instead of merely having sex with them?. How about a game that contains a non-interactive rape scene? What about a game, like Condemned or Quake IV, where the character's helpless in first person mode while something horrible happens to them, such as being raped?
People have argued that rape is more protracted and thus distressing than murder. Sure, that argument is silly when we apply it to pornography, but say there was a game where you could torture people to death over a protracted period of time if you so chose (I'm looking at you, Punisher)? Sure, there'd be some attention, but I think there wouldn't be such controversey or calls for a ban on torture as a whole. How about a game that allows you to inflict mortal or crippling wounds, taking someone's arm or leg off halfway and leaving them to scream and bleed out? It'd be shocking, but not to the extent we're faced with here. The taboo surrounding rape is a social construct. It's not logical or sensible, and it's something drilled into us. It's conditioning.
As a seperate point, games like Rapelay are just rape pornography, catering to a specific sexual fetish. Are we saying now that such material shouldn't be accessible to those who desire it? Porn's allowed, but not if it becomes rape? Are there degrees of interactivity?
Is rape allowable as a plot device, or story sequence? Then why the hell not as an interactive sequence? Surely it's the player's right to choose if they want to play rape games or not?
You could very simply ask, "at what point would a player need to slaughter innocents?" In God Of War, you do it to gain a health power up. In God Of War, the main character's a murderous psychopath. What if, during the sex scenes in the God Of War games, Kratos raped women instead of merely having sex with them?. How about a game that contains a non-interactive rape scene? What about a game, like Condemned or Quake IV, where the character's helpless in first person mode while something horrible happens to them, such as being raped?
People have argued that rape is more protracted and thus distressing than murder. Sure, that argument is silly when we apply it to pornography, but say there was a game where you could torture people to death over a protracted period of time if you so chose (I'm looking at you, Punisher)? Sure, there'd be some attention, but I think there wouldn't be such controversey or calls for a ban on torture as a whole. How about a game that allows you to inflict mortal or crippling wounds, taking someone's arm or leg off halfway and leaving them to scream and bleed out? It'd be shocking, but not to the extent we're faced with here. The taboo surrounding rape is a social construct. It's not logical or sensible, and it's something drilled into us. It's conditioning.
As a seperate point, games like Rapelay are just rape pornography, catering to a specific sexual fetish. Are we saying now that such material shouldn't be accessible to those who desire it? Porn's allowed, but not if it becomes rape? Are there degrees of interactivity?
Is rape allowable as a plot device, or story sequence? Then why the hell not as an interactive sequence? Surely it's the player's right to choose if they want to play rape games or not?
What on earth are you talking about? 'If you decide not to rape someone, you save cash because you didn't buy the game'? What?dogstile said:
Of course we have a right to say what other people do is wrong when it doesn't affect us. A man murders a family that you don't belong to or have any emotional ties to, just because he wanted to. Is this wrong? Of course it is. I'm not going to go into the censorship because I'm not talking about that.
Well, it essentially becomes the same as murder then; an inhumane act justified in being a means of defense. So then it's as worth it as the worth of killing. There's no real answer.MaxTheReaper said:
Violence in games is okay because there is a precedent set by television and film that violence is okay. The public mindset, as it were, has been conditioned to accept horrific acts of violence as a routine part of their entertainment diet. Rape, on the other hand, is a cultural minefield and pretty much anytime rape takes place on a television screen it is within a larger, 'serious' context rather than a by-the-by action; the rape is usually part of some big plot arc (inciting action, motivation for revenge, etc). Violence and murder can be slotted in just about anywhere, in any format, in any genre.
I am having trouble thinking of a gaming scenario where rape would be addressed with any degree of sensitivity or maturity. What comes to mind is a schlocky Grand Theft Auto mod. Not sure games, as a medium, have the range to address cultural taboos with any kind of critical perspective just yet.
I am having trouble thinking of a gaming scenario where rape would be addressed with any degree of sensitivity or maturity. What comes to mind is a schlocky Grand Theft Auto mod. Not sure games, as a medium, have the range to address cultural taboos with any kind of critical perspective just yet.
Ah, but there's also games that glorify murdering normal civillians (Such as GTA IV or Manhunt). Are those games justifiable?ninjanyne said:
EDIT: TL;DR
a)Heinous acts = allowed IF justified
b)Rape can be justified
c)Unjustified murder is allowed in video games: ¬a
conclusion)Hence either justified rape is allowed (b) OR unjustified rape is allowed (c)
This article was just plainly wrong and it's whole premiss is faulty. It works on the foundation that there are two types of heinous act, a justified and an unjustified heinous act. Murder and rape are both heinous acts yet murder can be justified but rape cannot. Here we hit our first hurdle. Rape, quite obviously, can be justified. Imagine the following hypothetical: Ayush the Space Cowboy has a nuclear device in every city in the world and the only way to prevent him from wiping out the entire population of the earth is to rape him. Is rape still unjustified in this circumstance? No. But in order to look at why we'll have to analyse what counts as justification.
It appears to me that the writer of the article was saying that the consequences of the murders in games are positive and that it's the consequence that justifies the murder. Thus, as long as the consequence of the action produces more happiness than abstaining from the action then the action is justified. Hence, raping Ayush the Space Cowboy would be justified as the happiness produced by the consequence, the survival of mankind, hugely outweighs the happiness that would be produced, by Ayush, if he were not raped and all of mankind were destroyed. To put this into context imagine murder in a video game. For instance, when I kill Lord Lucien in Fable 2 I commit an act of murder, yet the happiness brought to all of Albion through his death outweighs the happiness that Lord Lucien would feel were he left alive. This is why his murder is 'justified'.
But this argument from consequentialism becomes incredibly messy when we start looking at characters in video games such as Niko Bellic. Niko shoots the policeman to death (whilst, I might add, the policeman screams "Oh dear God I'm bleeding, I don't want to die.") and there's no grander reason than he wants to. If Niko 'dies' he'll just get straight back up at a hospital with no wounds. If the policeman dies the policeman will die. The consequence of Niko shooting the police officer is the death of the police officer and the continuation of Niko, but the consequence of Niko abstaining from shooting the police officer is the continuation of both Niko and the police officer. So, from a consequentialist point of view, Niko shouldn't shoot police officers. And yet he does. And it is seen as acceptable. So why is unjustified, no, despicable murder (which the author of the article admits is worse than rape) fine in video games but not despicable rape? How is RapeLay any worse than GTA?
a)Heinous acts = allowed IF justified
b)Rape can be justified
c)Unjustified murder is allowed in video games: ¬a
conclusion)Hence either justified rape is allowed (b) OR unjustified rape is allowed (c)
This article was just plainly wrong and it's whole premiss is faulty. It works on the foundation that there are two types of heinous act, a justified and an unjustified heinous act. Murder and rape are both heinous acts yet murder can be justified but rape cannot. Here we hit our first hurdle. Rape, quite obviously, can be justified. Imagine the following hypothetical: Ayush the Space Cowboy has a nuclear device in every city in the world and the only way to prevent him from wiping out the entire population of the earth is to rape him. Is rape still unjustified in this circumstance? No. But in order to look at why we'll have to analyse what counts as justification.
It appears to me that the writer of the article was saying that the consequences of the murders in games are positive and that it's the consequence that justifies the murder. Thus, as long as the consequence of the action produces more happiness than abstaining from the action then the action is justified. Hence, raping Ayush the Space Cowboy would be justified as the happiness produced by the consequence, the survival of mankind, hugely outweighs the happiness that would be produced, by Ayush, if he were not raped and all of mankind were destroyed. To put this into context imagine murder in a video game. For instance, when I kill Lord Lucien in Fable 2 I commit an act of murder, yet the happiness brought to all of Albion through his death outweighs the happiness that Lord Lucien would feel were he left alive. This is why his murder is 'justified'.
But this argument from consequentialism becomes incredibly messy when we start looking at characters in video games such as Niko Bellic. Niko shoots the policeman to death (whilst, I might add, the policeman screams "Oh dear God I'm bleeding, I don't want to die.") and there's no grander reason than he wants to. If Niko 'dies' he'll just get straight back up at a hospital with no wounds. If the policeman dies the policeman will die. The consequence of Niko shooting the police officer is the death of the police officer and the continuation of Niko, but the consequence of Niko abstaining from shooting the police officer is the continuation of both Niko and the police officer. So, from a consequentialist point of view, Niko shouldn't shoot police officers. And yet he does. And it is seen as acceptable. So why is unjustified, no, despicable murder (which the author of the article admits is worse than rape) fine in video games but not despicable rape? How is RapeLay any worse than GTA?
Normally, I'd agree with the whole, "good and evil are constructs" but...Locque said:
No.
Even in cultures where a husband is expected to kidnap and have sex with a new bride, no matter her will...
Just no.
There is a difference between accepting other cultures and treating them with the distance one does with an animal eating its own young. We're social creatures, and we must follow social rules. Sure, good and evil is relative to the society, but whether or not you want to admit it, you're a part of this culture, and if you don't believe that rape is wrong, then you're a sick, disgusting person.
So if you want to participate in modern Western society, get with the program, or get out.
There is no logic to be analysed in this post. It is equatable to you posting "Some cultures and people say rape is right. My culture and people say rape is wrong. Therefore rape is wrong." It's just pointless. There's no reason to post that since it isn't an argument.Erana said:
More like "causing the death of another person through carelessnes". Also, here in Germany (don't know about anywhere else) a murder charge is dropped to manslaughter if a couple of conditions are met, such as the killing not being planned, not having taken place to cover up another crime and a couple of others.MaxTheReaper said:
`BGH122 said:
And you just posted a straw-man fallacy.
If you need to simplify my post, it goes: "Some cultures say rape is right. This culture says rape is wrong. If you want to participate in this culture, but believe that rape is right, then by this society's standards, you are not properly participating. Therefore, if you want to participate in this culture, then you need to conform to society's standards, or not participate in this society."
That is a logically sound argument. You can write a logical proof for that. Whether it is "right or wrong" is a matter of personal opinion, but it is logical.