http://www.gamespot.com/news/6144286.html
I like this bit "Likewise, in the interest of promoting the rights of sex workers"
ID:276723
 Feb 15 2006, 3:15 am
|
|
There is an official organisation dedicated to something that is illegal? I wonder how that works out.
Isn't it a bit hypocritical to be a part of one controversial organisation and cry foul at something equally controversial? Some of these people need to grow a brain; so many people want to have full rights and freedoms for what they want to do, but then strip those same rights off of anything they don't do. It's rediculous. | |
Elation wrote:
Also: wtf? Prozzies aren't in any position to guide children on moral issues, right? I'd have to disagree with that. Just like anyone else, some have better moral standards and some don't; that's the way it is with every person on the planet regardless of what they do or don't do. I would say that, in some ways, they are even enlightened, breaking out of the silly box society has created. | |
Sure, I can drive across the border and that's the case, but this organization's name has USA in it, so I assume that's where they are from.
Are there any places in the USA where it's legal? | |
A few, Nevada has legal prostituion based on very strict rules. There are a couple of other cities, but I think Nevada is the only one with a state law.
| |
Loduwijk wrote:
Isn't it a bit hypocritical to be a part of one controversial organisation and cry foul at something equally controversial? Not really, no (although it is kinda funny). What they do is controversial because of what other people believe. If they think that selling sex is OK and killing people is not OK (and hence by extension that glorifying the killing of people is, at the very least, in bad taste), then their actions are quite self-consistent. Some of these people need to grow a brain; so many people want to have full rights and freedoms for what they want to do, but then strip those same rights off of anything they don't do. Indeed many people do, but that's not actually what's going on here. The headline in that news article is inaccurate; what the organization is calling for is only a boycott, not a ban. Their statement: "Although SWOP-USA will always be adamantly opposed to any and all forms of censorship, as concerned parents ourselves, we wish to inform other parents of the potential danger extremely violent video games pose to children. And in the interest of furthering sex worker’s human and civil rights to life and personal safety, we object to any media which represents sex workers as legitimate targets of violence, rape and murder. Censorship is a blight on the freedoms we hold dear but we wholeheartedly encourage citizens to vote with their dollars by refusing to purchase products which encourage the denigration and destruction of prostitutes. Since the video game Grand Theft Auto accrues points to players for the depiction of the rape and murder of prostitutes, SWOP-USA calls on all parents and all gamers to boycott Grand Theft Auto." They're not asking that Rockstar and Take-Two be stripped of their rights to produce violent video games, they're merely asking for consumers to exercise their rights to not buy violent video games. It's rediculous. I agree, but for wholly different reasons. If it were true that GTA was actively contributing to an increase in violent crimes against prostitutes, then they might have a point, but I think that angle is rather blown out of proportion. | |
Leftley wrote:
Not really, no (although it is kinda funny). What they do is controversial because of what other people believe. If they think that selling sex is OK and killing people is not OK (and hence by extension that glorifying the killing of people is, at the very least, in bad taste), then their actions are quite self-consistent. Good point; hypocritical obviously wasn't the best choice of words there. Indeed many people do, but that's not actually what's going on here. The headline in that news article is inaccurate; what the organization is calling for is only a boycott, not a ban. Their statement: So I see now; I read it wrong the first time. I thought at first that they were pulling some nonsense with "We're against censorship, but..." then calling for censorship. I read it out of context, don't know what got crossed in my head to read it the way I did. Either way, I still think it's rediculous. I think welfare hurts the economy (and is all around bad anyway, but I won't go into that one) in the long run, but I never boycotted customers that came through my lane with foodstamp cards when I was a cashier, and I certainly don't tell others to. I also think junk food causes more deaths than GTA, yet I don't rally people up to protest and boycott Nestle; to do so would be shameful. | |
The organization quotes various points from Walsh's paper, including, "Children are more likely to imitate a character with whom they identify with. In violent video games the player is often required to take the point of view of the shooter or perpetrator."
Y'know, I haven't read the paper in question, but that quote doesn't actually say that violent video games will cause children to imitate the violence. Just because a player is "required to take the point of view of the shooter" doesn't mean that the player will necessarily identify with the character they're playing. On the other hand, given the name of the organisation that Walsh belongs to, I'm sure that he did actually mean to make that connection. | |
I think welfare hurts the economy (and is all around bad anyway, but I won't go into that one) in the long run What? So people that are out of a job should just give up and die? Old people should just give up and die? Because that's what you're suggesting. Get rid of welfare, you'll kill thousands of people. Just for the glory of 'the economy'. Here's a suggestion: Cut defence spending in half, (Getting rid of a significant proportion of your army in the process - you don't need that many people in this day and age), and put that 150 billion dollars you've freeded up into health, education, and welfare, in roughly equal proportions. With that money, provide a system for government-supported healthcare and education, that is as close to completely free as you can get. Triple the minimum wage. Also, the minimum wage should not take into account tips for people like waiters - they should get the same minimum wage as anyone else. The money you're putting into welfare can be used to provide a system where you actually give money to people that need it. Not much - on the order of half the minimum wage, because you want people to get a job, and welfare is supposed to keep them alive, not allow them to live in luxury, because that's unaffordable. Then rejig the tax scale so that it's back to being a proper sliding scale, where the low-income end has a substantially lower tax rate then the high income end. Probably ranging from 30% at the high end, to 5% at the low end. That will fix your economy. Your workforce is now significantly better educated, much healthier, and is paid enough that they can get decent nutrition without having to work two or three jobs. That will provide massive economic benefits. It's very, very simple. | |
I've never seen anything wrong with sex workers, they are just people like you and me and they are doing a job.
Granted some people may look down on that, but people do that with all sorts of things. I saw a special on this place called the Bunny Ranch, and as far as they said, they do background checks and have physcials every so often, so there will be no spread of diease. Just because someone is in a line of work like this does not mean they are morally corrupt or dirty. They deserve the same rights as everyone else and that involves the right to feel safe where ever they are. Still, hookers going after a video game, pretty stupid. I expected that from christans. | |
Crispy wrote:
The organization quotes various points from Walsh's paper, including, "Children are more likely to imitate a character with whom they identify with. In violent video games the player is often required to take the point of view of the shooter or perpetrator." That's interesting. Wouldn't a player taking up the point of view (if only for a few hours) of someone very far removed from the norm of a society be a good thing? It'd encourage critical thinking, open-mindedness, all the kind of things that are necessary for a successful free democratic nation. I propose that 'cop-killing' games, games that depict extreme violence and acts of obscenity are furthering the western world (and australia <_<), on the frontier of encouraging intelligent thought and global prosperity. :) | |
Shades wrote:
I've never seen anything wrong with sex workers, they are just people like you and me and they are doing a job. So because someone is a Christian means they would start a crusade against GTA? | |
Loduwijk wrote:
I read it out of context, don't know what got crossed in my head to read it the way I did. I wouldn't beat myself up over it. This is probably the one time a group has been against GTA and not wanted it removed from stores. =P | |
Data-Con wrote:
So because someone is a Christian means they would start a crusade against GTA? No, but usually it's groups of Christian fundamentalists that call for bans on GTA. It's just a bit strange when sex workers do the same thing - because those two groups are not the kind of people you would expect to agree with each other. | |
Jp wrote:
Triple the minimum wage. So long as we're living in a crazy fantasy land where we can generate wealth without actually having to produce anything, we might as well just fire up the mint and print off a hundred billion dollars to give to each man, woman, and child in the U.S. We'll all be gazillionaires! | |
The minimum wage in America is ridiculously low, currently. $5.15 an hour, according to wikipedia. Assuming a 40 hour work week, that's $206 a week.
Australia has a minimum wage of $484.4 a week, which is US$ 362. You would have to work 70 hours a week to match that in the US, at the minimum wage. You're just being ridiculous. America's economy is horribly skewed towards the rich at the moment. EDIT: Hell, I get paid at the rate of $9.5 AUD an hour, which is about $7.125 US an hour. I am 16, working in a supermarket as a checkout chick, and I get paid more then someone on the minimum wage in America. That is nuts. It's insane. | |
sex + violence = money back garauntee
Anyway, I wouldn't use a prostitute in real life. They're dirty. =(
Also: wtf? Prozzies aren't in any position to guide children on moral issues, right?