Clinton Wants San Andreas +18 AO-rated [Archive]

TomO

07-15-2005, 04:13 AM

Senator Clinton wants to introduce legislation penalising (http://www.pro-g.co.uk/news/nid/1087/) retailers for selling videogames of unsuitable content to minors.

Following yesterday's news of Senator Clinton's stance against the sex mini-game scandal of GTA San Andreas, she has now been joined by Senator Joseph Lieberman, who together are calling for action from either the game's maker or the government.

"The disturbing material in 'Grand Theft Auto' and other games like it is stealing the innocence of our children, and it's making the difficult job of being a parent even harder," Clinton said.

Liquidize105: There's absolutely nothing that hasn't already been said. I look at this and I shake my head. Senator Clinton hasn't got a lick of interest in protecting the youth of America, nor does she have the means to.

Valchael

07-15-2005, 04:55 AM

Could she possibly want to be president?

Taco

07-15-2005, 04:57 AM

Meh, just combine this with the previous post. Too much hate and vitriol to spew accross two posts ;).

Kagger

07-15-2005, 05:00 AM

Liquidize105: There's absolutely nothing that hasn't already been said. I look at this and I shake my head. Senator Clinton hasn't got a lick of interest in protecting the youth of America, nor does she have the means to.

Yup...with a lady that supports Abortion that could not be more true.

I've said it once, I've said it again. If you want to legally inforce ratings, then the goverment must have a hand in rating them. Otherwise, I'd like to make my own rating committee...and get the goverment to use those.

Goronmon

07-15-2005, 05:21 AM

"The disturbing material in 'Grand Theft Auto' and other games like it is stealing the innocence of our children, and it's making the difficult job of being a parent even harder," Clinton said.
First off, I am not a parent, but I know how my parents raised me, so I figure I have at least background for an opinion on this.

"...stealing the inocence of our children..."

You mean the children that aren't supposed to be playing these games, but are because some parent doesn't have enough time or energy to actually keep track of what their kids are playing?

"...it's making the difficult job of being a parent even harder..."

You mean to tell me its "difficult" to spend enough time with your kid(s) so that you know what kind of games they play, movies they watch, etc?

I mean seriously, by the time kids are old enough to try to hide the things they are doing, there are a lot harder and worse things to catch them doing than playing GTA.

Liquidize105

07-15-2005, 05:24 AM

Yup...with a lady that supports Abortion that could not be more true.

I've said it once, I've said it again. If you want to legally inforce ratings, then the goverment must have a hand in rating them. Otherwise, I'd like to make my own rating committee...and get the goverment to use those.
Abortion is a complex issue, I thought you learned that already?

Clinton's "quick fix" is not gonna do any good because the problem isn't that simple. Granted, things in the real world go one way or the other; San Andreas is a game, a toy, a trip into a fabricated world from the confort of your own home - whether you act on the "suggestive nature" of the game is entirely of your will.

Making it AO would keep the game out of shops, but it wouldn't stop kids from playing the damn thing.

jeffool

07-15-2005, 05:31 AM

"The disturbing material in 'Grand Theft Auto' and other games like it is stealing the innocence of our children, and it's making the difficult job of being a parent even harder," Clinton said.Yes. Because looking at the box and reading a small sticker written with plain English characters, in black and white no less, that says "Mature 17+" is a tough job.

see colon

07-15-2005, 05:32 AM

i am a parent, and i agree completely with goronmon. the thing about this is, hilary doesn't seam to fully understand the situation. she's fighting to make it so you have to be 18 to buy the game when you already have to be 17. EB and gamestop both have policy in place that (if the clerks are doing their jobs and asking) prevent children from buying the game, at least without a parent.

history have proven both with the movie industry and the videogame inustry, once you start rating media developers/producers will push the line even further. pre ESRB the most "mature" console game was mortal kombat, now we have porno mingames in god of war and GTA. good job ESRB.

Kagger

07-15-2005, 05:37 AM

Abortion is a complex issue, I thought you learned that already?

I'm aware of that, but I also find it highly ironic though. I just can't take the woman seriously on issues regarding kids. I understand though that for many this is not a black and white issue, for me it is (and I've done my research).

Back on topic:

The last game my dad played was either tetris of jezzball on our 486. (He used to play Dr. Mario until I put peanut butter in th cartridge). My mom doesn't touch them:

I've got OCD, how does this relate to games? Images stay with me longer. I'm 16, I own a handful of M games.

Half-Life: I wanted it, they said no. I had a friend give me a CD code so I could play CS (no blood), they allowed that, no HL. Finally (after a year) I got them to approve of it. Half-Life 2 rolls around, no way to turn off the blood (have the commands now), and the textures to graphic, they say no.

Metal Gear Solid: A bit tougher. My agreement is I play them with the blood off if I have the option, at least until I move out. (can't do it on the original...but honestly)

Socom: My mom wasn't happy, but I still got it.

Blood may not seem like a big deal, but if its exptionally gory, I'll remember it. I can remember images for a looonnnnng time, even if I don't want to.

It is my responsibility to present the worst of a game to them. It's a matter of trust, something I have earned and kept from my parents.

And God willing I have kids, I will make sure they are ready to play the games that they own (its probably going to be my system anyways, I can just hide the memory cards if they to go around me)

Liquidize105

07-15-2005, 05:42 AM

Between those 2 issues, the difference is adult/adolescent.

But you're right, Kagger. It is ironic.

Kagger

07-15-2005, 05:45 AM

Between those 2 issues, the difference is adult/adolescent.

But you're right, Kagger.

Can you point out where that is referencing. I believe enter was hit prematurley, and I ended up with a huge edit rather than a one time post. so I don't know where it stopped for you. When I posted it....or though I did, your post was there.

Evil Avatar

07-15-2005, 05:49 AM

Abortion is a complex issue, I thought you learned that already?

Yes, the murder of another living human being is always so complex. ;)

Taco

07-15-2005, 05:51 AM

This thread is taking a turn for the worse :).

/totally 100% pro-abortion.

Liquidize105

07-15-2005, 05:54 AM

Can you point out where that is referencing. I believe enter was hit prematurley, and I ended up with a huge edit rather than a one time post. so I don't know where it stopped for you. When I posted it....or though I did, your post was there.

It's ironic that she campaigns for free choice but makes such a big fuss over a portion of the game that isn't even enabled by default.

I guess children these days all play San Andreas on the PC, know their way around mods, and are oblivious to internet porno.

jeffool

07-15-2005, 05:57 AM

Yes, the murder of another living human being is always so complex. ;)*cough*Iraq*cough* :D/totally 100% pro-abortion.Forced abortion? Wow, now that's hardcore. ;)

Evil Avatar

07-15-2005, 05:58 AM

This thread is taking a turn for the worse :).

Tru Dat. There are issues that shouldn't be debated in a public forum, since everything you say is black and white.

This is just another round of "Lets pick on video games to get my name in the paper." and it is kind of sad that it gets so much attention. We could ignore it here on Evil Avatar.com and not give these creeps the attention that they are craving, but that doesn't do a thing (except quiet down the forums) and the mainstream media will still run with it and it will still make headlines somewhere.

I guess this is just a part of the growing process... I'm sure Movies and Porn went through similar times in the beginning of their industry. Right now the video game industry is booming and drawing tons of attention to itself and so it is drawing its share of detractors.

But, it will die down and in time Hillary Clinton will just be another Washington nobody wondering where her career went.

Evil Avatar

07-15-2005, 06:00 AM

*cough*Iraq*cough*

That isn't murder, that is war. Apparently, when you kill people and call it "War" it is O.K.. It has to be, otherwise we wouldn't get all those cool WWII games. :)

MosBen

07-15-2005, 06:04 AM

All of this being as it may, I still support an enforced ratings system. I've seen far too many kids buy Mature games to have faith that the industry's self regulation works. Of course, people always bring out the whole "parental responsibility" argument, but I've never understood why we can't simultaneously blame both the parents for not being responsible enough and the stores for peddling product which is clearly for adults only into the hands of children. Both are to blame, but we can legislate the way stores behave; not so with parents, at least not in cases like this.

Taco

07-15-2005, 06:04 AM

Nah, I don't like the term "pro-choice" any more than "pro-life". It is what it is.

Goronmon

07-15-2005, 06:05 AM

IMO abortion is one of those topics where just the fac that its debated so hotly shows that society hasn't advanced enough for a decision to be made either way :p

Evil Avatar

07-15-2005, 06:09 AM

IMO abortion is one of those topics where just the fac that its debated so hotly shows that society hasn't advanced enough for a decision to be made either way :p

The real problem with the abortion issue is that we aren't allowed to vote on it. The government doesn't allow us to vote on it since they already know the outcome. (Last time I checked the vast majority of voters are anti-abortion.)

VoodooKarma

07-15-2005, 06:15 AM

Clinton's "quick fix" is not gonna do any good because the problem isn't that simple. Granted, things in the real world go one way or the other; San Andreas is a game, a toy, a trip into a fabricated world from the comfort of your own home - whether you act on the "suggestive nature" of the game is entirely of your will.

Making it AO would keep the game out of shops, but it wouldn't stop kids from playing the damn thing.

Your missing the whole point here. Clinton (or any other politician that jumps on a 'hot topic issue') does not really care if kids are playing this or not. She knows damn well this isn't going to keep the games out of kids hands. It's just a way for them to get into the news and grab some attention to further their careers. The politicians in this country make me physically ill. Even worse are the mindless sheep that buy into this crap on a daily basis.

Eon

07-15-2005, 06:18 AM

Why don't your leaders allow a vote on Abortions? Possibly because your leaders have to go out in public and rub shoulders with civilised nations - maybe they don't want to be embarassed by Uncle Goober and Aunt Hetty?

For a nation that has so many ways of lawfully killing I find it difficult to comprehend America's difficulty with Abortion. Perhaps it is your strange attachment to your backwards fundamentalist religion?

Have I barbecued enough sacred cows yet? Will you agree that you were grossly out of line mixing these two threads of discussion yet?

Taco

07-15-2005, 06:22 AM

Perhaps it is your strange attachment to your backwards fundamentalist religion?

Yeppers. .

jeffool

07-15-2005, 06:23 AM

That isn't murder, that is war. Apparently, when you kill people and call it "War" it is O.K.. It has to be, otherwise we wouldn't get all those cool WWII games. :)Heh, I'm anti-WW2 games also. But I'll admit that is by far the best argument I've ever heard for the rationale! Okay, no more, back to topic.

I work at an NBC affiliate and saw the small piece Dateline did on Hot Coffee Thursday. So when I got home last night/this morning I write one of those letters that you think only old people write to your local newspaper editorial. In fact, I think I'll write to the paper too.

I know it's nothing new, but It's a shame network coverage doesn't inform like you think it should. They did okay I suppose, but not 'good'. They noted that you had to download and apply a patch, and that Rockstar blamed hackers for "allowing this addition to the game" I believe was the wording. But after fear-mongering about how the game "is available in millions of homes and if you don't own it, your neighbor does!" when the patch hasn't even been applied to any console versions yet. Unless I'm wrong and the PC version was the largest seller, this it just lame.

doubtingthomas

07-15-2005, 06:30 AM

The real problem with the abortion issue is that we aren't allowed to vote on it. The government doesn't allow us to vote on it since they already know the outcome. (Last time I checked the vast majority of voters are anti-abortion.)

Last time I checked the vast majority of voters aren't pregnant. It's a complex issue, with different sorts of arguments on both sides. But it's certainly not an issue to be put in the hands of voters. I'm glad we live in a republic.

Thenetcase

07-15-2005, 06:39 AM

"The disturbing material in 'Grand Theft Auto' and other games like it is stealing the innocence of our children, and it's making the difficult job of being a parent even harder," Clinton said.

Last time I checked kids learned more than THAT in sex education in the Government Schools. And if they didn't learn it in CLASS, they learned it on the playground and by socializing with their peers.

So maybe we should put a note on the doors of all schools, "AO 18+ -- Strong Sexual Content, violence, nudity, vulgar language, verbal abuse inside. Parental discretion is advised". I think that this would help parents' job become much easier, due to the fact that we're warning them where the REAL PROBLEM lies. Or wait, maybe it's not a real problem? Maybe teaching kids about how to be socially and morally responsible is more important than going batnuts about hiding this stuff. MOST kids in the public school system would have been exposed to far worse than this stuff by the time they are 10.

Let's teach our kids properly and this stuff won't be an issue. And while we're at it, let's shoot stupidass politicians using kids and emotions to try to get elected... basards.

-TNC-

Liquidize105

07-15-2005, 06:43 AM

Your missing the whole point here. Clinton (or any other politician that jumps on a 'hot topic issue') does not really care if kids are playing this or not. She knows damn well this isn't going to keep the games out of kids hands. It's just a way for them to get into the news and grab some attention to further their careers. The politicians in this country make me physically ill. Even worse are the mindless sheep that buy into this crap on a daily basis.
I think that's a given, dude.

It's national politics.

TheHulk

07-15-2005, 07:01 AM

Of course the witch is trying to get free pub and jump on an easy target bandwagon, but from what I've played of the game it should definitely have an AO rating.

Darkbase

07-15-2005, 07:05 AM

Jesus, i was playing Duke Nukem 3D at 7, and to back Thenetcase, movies and video games cannot compare to the vulgarity that teenagers and even preteens talk about at school.

Lasakon

07-15-2005, 07:07 AM

Can someone remind me why Sex is bad but Graphic Violence is ok?

MosBen

07-15-2005, 07:11 AM

Protection of Constitutional rights can't be voted on, whether it's free speech, right to privacy, or freedom from slavery.

Lasakon: Because we live in a society with its origins in violence and religious Puritanism.

MasterKwan

07-15-2005, 07:23 AM

Just what we need, more laws. More laws that people won't obey, more laws that just cheapen the important ones. I guess when you're a lawyer or politician, your only tools are laws. In my case, I've given up trying to live without violating laws. They're all guidlines now which give me an idea of how far to push things. Speed limits? I just go as fast as I feel safe and can get away with. Every time I work on my car, I'm probably violating some EPA related laws. Spill gas while filling my tractor? Well, shit I need to call in the hazmat team. WTF do I need a nanny to tell me to wear my seat belt? I can't buy a decent toilet anymore because of new EPA laws but, Hotels can get decent ones?

Nobody can live a life where you're not violating some law from time to time. Not here in the US. We're a nation of scofflaws because our government keeps passing more and more laws many of which make no sense. When you have so many laws that a normal person can't keep track of them, can't live withoug violating them, all laws become cheaper.

So, go ahead Hilary, pass more laws I won't obey. I will say, if she does run for president this is enough of an issue for me to not vote for her. I feel for the Democrats.

Racknahm

07-15-2005, 07:35 AM

This is more to ignore actual issues. You know, the issues that actually matter. The next logical step is to say that videogame makers are terrorists.

Furious Wang

07-15-2005, 07:37 AM

This thread is taking a turn for the worse :).

/totally 100% pro-abortion.

Just so you know. It is not "pro-abortion", it is "pro-choice". Pro-abortion makes it sound like you approve of free destruction of fetuses. I'm sure you don't and neither does anyone else. At issue is whether or not a woman (and the unwanted child) should have to suffer for much of their lives over a single mistake or assault. Its a sad thing and something we as a country should do our best to prevent by promoting birth control, abstinence and the economic development of those less fortunate. In a perfect world we wouldn't need abortions. Let's strive towards that.

The issue only seems to be debated from a religious perspective. "Its a human life! It has a soul!" And even that can be argued against. Why would God give a fetus a soul if he knew it was just going to be aborted? If the fetus does have a soul, won't it just go to heaven since it hasn't sinned? What's the problem there?

Nonetheless I have the utmost respect for pro-lifers and their beliefs. I just wish we could pull together to face the problem practically.

As for Clinton, this is just posturing on her part. Trying to appeal to mainstream middle of the road values and what not. I wouldn't expect much to come from all of this other than the free press she's getting. Liebermen's been doing the same thing for years now. Nothing's happened. Some staff aid found the story about the sex mod on gamespot and said "Hey! We can make something out of this!" It will die out in a month or less.

Taco

07-15-2005, 07:45 AM

I covered that Wang. Thanks for the opinion though.

MasterKwan

07-15-2005, 07:50 AM

I'm not a fan of abortion myself. Then again, I'm not a fan of stupid people squirting out kids I end up having to support. I think abortion is the lesser of two evils. Lets see, more warped kids in the world shooting up my kid's highschool or abortion of stupid people's potential kids? Yeah, that how I make that decision.

We have enough people in the US already.

Why a man has ANY say in the abortion debate though is something I always questioned.

riposte101

07-15-2005, 07:53 AM

Just another opportunistic politician.

see colon

07-15-2005, 08:04 AM

abortion is an awesome issue to to debate online because you don't have to worry about being punched in the face for haveing a different view than someone posting next to you. that said, i have several problems with the issue of abortion...

1) it is my opinion that abortion is being used as casual birth controll way too much. this, in my opinion again, removes part of the responsability from intercourse, and life in general. i think people should take responsability for their actions.

2) i hate seeing pictures of aborted bloody fetus (feti? whatever the plural is) when i drive past the clinic, or the doctors house. it's vulgar, i have a young daughter and i don't want her seeing that. i'd rather take her to the zoo and have her see the rhino's humping. beyond that, i can control what she watches on tv, but i can't control her seeing the bloody smears on those posters.

i could go on, but someone would track my ip back to my house and punch me in the face.

Why a man has ANY say in the abortion debate though is something I always questioned
right, fathers shouldn't have any part in their childs lives (or deaths). men are only on the planet to impregnate women.

Then again, I'm not a fan of stupid people squirting out kids I end up having to support.
i'm willing to bet that more wealthy poeple have abortions than the lower class you would end up having to support. in fact, that's why alot of the lower class have children. either because they know the'll get more support, or because they aren't working and have more free time to make babies.

serion

07-15-2005, 08:08 AM

Yes, the murder of another living human being is always so complex. ;)

When a gang-bangin' ball thug messes with my homies, there's nothing complex about it, yo.
/CJ

Yes, I realize that was sarcasm, I couldn't resist tho.

Back on topic, whats the difference between a game being rated 17+ or 18+?
It can't be bought in most stores? Anyone who really wants it badly enough can just download it, and most 17 year olds wouldn't think twice.

This law would discourage kids going and buying games where there's physical evidence that parents could use to know what their kids are playing (money gone, game box, trip to the store, etc) and encourage electronic thieving, with the kids getting the game and the parents being nonen the wiser.

Blue

07-15-2005, 08:12 AM

Our local news just showed part of the press conference where Clinton spoke on this issue (and the news kept playing parts of GTA:SA in the background - the scene where CJ and Smoke [I think that's his name] go into that house with ball bats) and her main complaint that she continued to bring up was that this Coffee program allowed you to a) download free porn and b) that a "7 year old has easy access to this material." If I personally had not heard about this until I read it here and I would then have to hunt it down, find it, and then install it on my PC, then I'm pretty sure a 7 year old isn't going to be able to handle that. Perhaps she's speaking of the prodigy generation of 7 year old GTA players.

It just bothers me that the information is being this twisted in order to try and make either a point or an issue out of this. The general public really doesn't know any better so they look to Clinton to inform them rather than going to go research the information for themselves. You don't want your kid playing something? Don't want your kid watching a certain movie? Check it out first. Learn how to parent so the government doesn't have to do it for you.

In all honesty, is there anything that we (say the Evil Avatar community - despite our inability to get along from post to post, heh) can do to help better educate people on this topic? To maybe even go against what Clinton is trying to say and prove her wrong? Probably not, but it's getting to the point where I'm no longer mildly ammused at the antics of the politicians but I'm am genuinely bothered and upset that our community is being so twisted simply to fit their political ambitions. Bah.

see colon

07-15-2005, 08:12 AM

Back on topic, whats the difference between a game being rated 17+ or 18+?
It can't be bought in most stores? Anyone who really wants it badly enough can just download it, and most 17 year olds wouldn't think twice.
if the GTA series was, from now on, rated AO 18+, i'm pretty sure EB and GS would still carry it. then, from the sales a game like GTA has, they might consider carrying other AO games. with the floodgates open, games rated AO could become more popular and more accessable, creating an environment where adult games are easier for the youths of our nation to aquire or play.

have you ever thought about that, senator clinton? thanks for bringing porno games to my town, you get my vote.

netcraazzy

07-15-2005, 08:14 AM

It seems like pretty much everybody here agrees that this is just political grandstanding at its finest. The more I think about it though the more it appears to me that it makes no difference which way this ends up going.

Let’s say the Politicians on their soap boxes get the rating changed and now all future GTA games have an AO rating. That's only going to make some kids want it more. Some retailers may stop carrying the game but a lot of them will continue to sell it. The game is way too popular for places like EB and Gamestop to just ignore it. Also, An AO rating only raises the minimum age to buy this game by 1 year, and "children" that got the game before most likely will get future games the same way (parents, friends, places that don't enforce the ratings).

So I say bring it on Hillary, label every game since f'ing Tetris AO for all I care it's not like people will stop buying it and then at least they can't go pointing their fingers at the videogame industry every time they need a scapegoat.

Furious Wang

07-15-2005, 08:16 AM

The real problem with the abortion issue is that we aren't allowed to vote on it. The government doesn't allow us to vote on it since they already know the outcome. (Last time I checked the vast majority of voters are anti-abortion.)

If only women were allowed to vote on the issue it would be overwhelmingly upheld. Men aren't the one's getting pregnant.

The government doesn't allow a vote on it because the only way they could would be through a constitutional amendment. That would never make it out of the Senate. If RoevWade was ever overturned then states could pass legislation against it but then that would have to make it past state courts. They could pass state constitutional amendments but those would have to make it past state Senates.

If Roe were overturned you'd only wind up getting a ban on abortion in 5 maybe 6 states (most of them in the south). Well that wouldn't actually stop abortion now would it? People could still drive a few miles to another state and have the procedure done. Border clinics would be set up.

See the issue to the courts was whether or not you can ban in one state a medical procedure that is legal in another and who does that ban actually prevent from having the procedure done? Certainly not those with the means to travel. Only the poorest of the poor are affected.

Anyway, the whole discussion is pointless. Republicans don't want to ban abortion anymore than Democrats. For one, it would rob them of their most potent political talking point. If abortion were outlawed people would go back to worrying about things like the economy and jobs and world peace. There are economic factors to worry about also. Let's say abortion was outlawed nationwide. The main increase in population would come from the lower class. The effect it would have on our already ballooning health care and welfare systems would be disasterous. Millions of babies would be born to those without the means to pay for the medical costs forcing those with insurance to foot the bill through higher premiums and copayments. Millions would be forced to quit their jobs to raise their children on government aid forcing taxpayers to foot the bill through higher taxes. The population would balloon faster than job creation could keep up. Crime rates would increase as would the threat of a marxist revolution. America would start to lose its grip on global economic supremacy

No, the Republicans don't want to get rid of abortion. In a quarter century of Republican rule they've only passed a handful of bills pertaining to abortion (partial birth, parental notification) and those were written specifically to be overturned by the courts (absolutely zero amendments were allowed). Seven of the Nine Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republican presidents and yet only two (Scalia, Thomas) would actually vote to overturn Roe. President Bush's Supreme Court nominee is going to be Alberto Gonzales and he certainly isn't anti-Roe.

If you want to get rid of abortion the Republicans aren't the way to do it. Put your money where your mouth is, start a party dedicated to stopping abortion and spend the time and effort needed to grow it into a viable third option. It won't be quick and it won't be easy but you'll stand a far greater chance then sitting around hoping the GOP will do it.

Taco

07-15-2005, 08:17 AM

I don't think AO games can be displayed with all the others, needs to be in a seperate section. Can someone confirm this? I can't remember if that's in the US or if I'm thinking about another country.

If that's the case, games rated AO will not sell very well, though obviously no matter what happens GTA:SA will sell better because of this.

Furious Wang

07-15-2005, 08:26 AM

right, fathers shouldn't have any part in their childs lives (or deaths). men are only on the planet to impregnate women.

Women getting abortions generally aren't involved with men who would be loving caring supporting fathers. Most wouldn't be fathers at all. Some might not even know who the father actually is.

Abortions amongst the wealthy are practically nil. They have access to birth control (including RU 486 the "day after" drug) and birth prevention operations. Those affected are overwhelmingly poor or early 20s stupid.

There have been studies. There are statistics.

sickfallout

07-15-2005, 08:27 AM

"The disturbing material in 'Grand Theft Auto' and other games like it is stealing the innocence of our children..."

Everytime I see this quote, I start laughing, and I can't help it. It sounds like some type of mystical comment, along the lines of "That camera stole my soul!"

IndependentGMR

07-15-2005, 08:46 AM

Shouldn't they be more concerned about how young people may perceive African Americans after playing GTA. If they have no interaction with black people in real life, and their only knowledge of their life-styles or sub-culture comes from video games and television, then that child is going to form a stereotypical view of blacks. I'd be more concerned about that then some stupid little sex game. After hearing about this mini-game, it seems like it would be much easier for a child to hop onto google, and find real free pornographic material, then it would be to unlock this virtual GTA sex game. Perhaps, they should censor the Internet as well? Haha!

IndependentGMR

07-15-2005, 08:57 AM

Click HERE (http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?id=1949) if you want to see the hot coffee mod in action. If anything, it will show children that it's best to remain fully clothed while making love to a woman.

RMan

07-15-2005, 09:12 AM

Just so you know. It is not "pro-abortion", it is "pro-choice". Pro-abortion makes it sound like you approve of free destruction of fetuses.
No, pro-abortion makes it sound like what it is, pro-choice makes it sound absolutely nothing like what it is, and that is by design. Not that pro-life is a great term (although it does give some idea of what's being talked about), but come on, "pro-choice" is clearly designed so that the people fighting for it can think a little less about what they're fighting for. I don't think I've ever seen so much spin put on an issue in my life (perhaps when fighting for the legalization of drugs people can use the term "pro-happy", perhaps that'd be more insidious).

Bydo_Empire

07-15-2005, 09:32 AM

It should be rated AO, and that has nothing to do with the Hot Coffee mod. Of course, the economics of the GTA series ensures that won't happen. I still maintain the ESRB needs a rating to separate out the Halos from the GTAs, without the retail stigma of AO. Of course, the movie industry doesn't have such a rating, but that's really irrelevant.

see colon

07-15-2005, 10:10 AM

Abortions amongst the wealthy are practically nil. They have access to birth control (including RU 486 the "day after" drug) and birth prevention operations. Those affected are overwhelmingly poor or early 20s stupid.

There have been studies. There are statistics.
you're right, there have been studies. most women who have abortions are white, between the ages of 15 and 24, have at least a high school diploma, and claim to make less than $15,000 a year. yet over 75% of all abortions are unsubsidized. how do you suppose a woman making less than $15,000 a year could afford to have an abortion and pay for it out of pocket?

the income statistic is personal income. a collage student generaly makes less than $15,000 a year, but that doesn't mean they aren't getting help from their family.

if76

07-15-2005, 10:39 AM

The real problem with the abortion issue is that we aren't allowed to vote on it. The government doesn't allow us to vote on it since they already know the outcome. (Last time I checked the vast majority of voters are anti-abortion.)

Yeah sucks that we have this constitution and the supreme court and all. Yes we are a democracy but some guidlines were put in place by the founding fathers to prevent a lot of heated emotional people from making major changes to the principles on which this nation was built.

I'm sure if we put it up to a vote things like sodomy, flag burning, gatherings of unpopular political groups (communists), and maybe even blastphemy would be illegal. If you want to live in a country like that maybe you should move to one of those Arab countries that we probably would have voted to blow up by now.

MosBen

07-15-2005, 11:22 AM

The issue *is* one of choice and control over one's own body, therefore "pro-choice" is an apt term.

Furious Wang

07-15-2005, 11:27 AM

you're right, there have been studies. most women who have abortions are white, between the ages of 15 and 24, have at least a high school diploma, and claim to make less than $15,000 a year. yet over 75% of all abortions are unsubsidized. how do you suppose a woman making less than $15,000 a year could afford to have an abortion and pay for it out of pocket?

the income statistic is personal income. a collage student generaly makes less than $15,000 a year, but that doesn't mean they aren't getting help from their family.

Cost of Abortion

How much does a surgical abortion cost?

* In 2001, the average charge for a surgical abortion at 10 weeks' gestation was $468; but since most abortions in the United States are performed at low-cost clinics, women on average paid $372 for the procedure. [64]

How much does a medical abortion cost?

* In 2001, the average charge for a medical abortion was $487. [65]

Who pays for abortions?

* Some 74% of women pay for abortions with their own money; 13% of abortions are covered by Medicaid, and 13% are billed directly to private insurance. Some women who pay for the procedure themselves may receive insurance reimbursement later. [66]

Does the U.S. government help poor women who need abortions pay for them?

* Congress has barred the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, except when the woman's life would be endangered by a full-term pregnancy, or in cases of rape or incest. However, as of March 2004, 17 states used their own funds to subsidize abortion for poor women. [67]

Unplanned Pregnancy - How Much Does it Cost?:

The Birth:

According to the Health Insurance Association of America, the average bill for doctor fees and hospital charges runs around $6,400 for a normal delivery and roughly $10,600 for a cesarean section. This does not count prenatal doctor visits or tests. This is why insurance is very important, so make sure to do your best to get covered somehow.

Raising Your Child:

According to government estimates, the average middle-income family will spend roughly $10,000 on child-related expenses in the first two years of life ($8,000 for a second child), and some experts suggest that figure may be too low.

You can count on spending at a minimum of $25 a week ($1,250 per year) on diapers, formula, and baby food alone. You will also spend money on items such as furniture, equipment, clothes, childcare if you are returning to work, medical expenses and more.

That does not include costs associated with missed work or any potential complications.

A woman on her own making less than 15,000 a year can easily afford an abortion but would be forced into welfare if she wound up actually bearing the child.

The problem isn't abortion. The problem is unwanted or unmaintainable pregnancies. Increase economic stability. Increase education. Increase availability of contraception. Decrease the need for the easy fix - abortion.

RMan

07-15-2005, 11:34 AM

Yes we are a democracy but some guidlines were put in place by the founding fathers to prevent a lot of heated emotional people from making major changes to the principles on which this nation was built.
I disagree, I think the constitution was designed to allow the greatest level of rule by the people as possible. This is done in the form of a representative government, and should be called a republic, and not a democracy (which is generally thought of as “majority rule”). A democracy implies a stronger level of public participation in government than a republic, and at present it’s hard to say that’s the case since most governmental decisions are made by elected representatives, not a direct mandate by the people. We are now close to the point that a democracy is practical, since our level of technology arguably allows the voting on individual state and federal laws. Regardless, I do not think the framers of the constitution wanted a government that did not trust it’s people, emotionally heated or not, to make decisions about how they were to be governed.

Furious Wang

07-15-2005, 11:53 AM

I disagree, I think the constitution was designed to allow the greatest level of rule by the people as possible. This is done in the form of a representative government, and should be called a republic, and not a democracy (which is generally thought of as “majority rule”). A democracy implies a stronger level of public participation in government than a republic, and at present it’s hard to say that’s the case since most governmental decisions are made by elected representatives, not a direct mandate by the people. We are now close to the point that a democracy is practical, since our level of technology arguably allows the voting on individual state and federal laws. Regardless, I do not think the framers of the constitution wanted a government that did not trust it’s people, emotionally heated or not, to make decisions about how they were to be governed.

Democracy applies to rule by the people either directly or by elected officials. Republic refers more to a federation of smaller governing bodies. We are a republic that practices democracy. However, being a republic means that the rule of the majority must never trample over the rights of the minority. That's why there are 2 senators from Rhode Island and 2 senators from Texas. That's why our President isn't elected by direct popular vote. That's why the Courts can overrule legislation. In the end, politics is a debate over what rights the majority and the minority actually have.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are pretty broad terms that can be interpreted in a number of ways.

RMan

07-15-2005, 12:07 PM

The issue *is* one of choice and control over one's own body, therefore "pro-choice" is an apt term.
Yes, but EVERYTHING you do is a matter of choice, and effects one's body, so why would this term in any way be applicable to abortion. The answer is it’s not, choice is no more related to abortion than it is anything else you do, and clearly according to many Americans it’s not entirely the woman’s choice. So, the term “pro-choice” would be much more applicable to, say, taking up smoking or getting breast implants. In the end, the term is used as a deception, because it’s FAR more palatable than pro-abortion.

see colon

07-15-2005, 12:42 PM

Heretic Machine

07-15-2005, 12:48 PM

You know what Hilary Clinton will be known as in the history books? Bill Clinton's wife.

Furious Wang

07-15-2005, 01:14 PM

Furious Wang,
i'm sure many 20 year old low income single women have $400 laying around just in case they need an abortion next week. seriously, you fail to point out that most pregnancies are subsidised (by government programs or private insurance), even to the point where most women can get paid for the time they are off work because of the pregnancy.

regardless, we are looking at the same numbers and drawing different conclusions. it's obvious we'll never completely agree on the subject, but we do agree on the solution to the problem. personal responsabilty in the use of contraception or abstanance, and economic stability for those who have children.

If you're making 15,000 a year then 400 bucks isn't some astronomical figure. I don't understand how you can think that it is. Find out you're pregnant, save 25 dollars a week, 4 months from now get it done. Credit cards are also out there. Maybe they borrow money from friends. Sell things on Ebay or a flea market. I don't know. But its silly of you to somehow reason that statistics are suspect because someone with a 15 grand yearly income might have a hard time coming up with 400 bucks.

And most people making 15,000 a year don't have medical insurance or the insurance they have is practically nonexistant. And certainly all women are ensured time off from work to have a child but only a very small percentage are guaranteed paid leave. Certainly not most. Its really an issue of how good a job the woman has. There is no government mandate as in the UK or Canada or many European nations.

Basically, if you're a woman under 15k and you get pregnant and you don't have a caring man or family support to help you along you either get an abortion go into heavy debt and are unable to provide sufficiently for the child or you go on the government dole and let society pay for your mess up.

Its no wonder that many women choose option A. They don't like it. I don't like. But for so many there really is no other reasonable choice.

Furious Wang

07-15-2005, 01:23 PM

You know what Hilary Clinton will be known as in the history books? Bill Clinton's wife.

And the 1st female president. There really is no way around it. I'm a huge political junkie. I have looked at all the angles. Nothing short of widespread voter fraud will stop Hillary's massive rampage into the White House come 2008. The Democratic primaries will serve only to choose her running mate. But I think that's already been decided too. I would bet my farm and my neighbor's farm on General Wesley Clarke. He's been making tons of visits on Fox News. I don't even think they realize they're handing the Democrats the 2008 election by giving him so much airtime.

You put a General with a woman in 2008 and every cow in the nation will vote for that ticket without even knowing the pair's names.

Me? I'd rather see Al Sharpton take it. He's amusing. And he's the only person I've ever seen outtalk O'Reilly.

MosBen

07-15-2005, 01:38 PM

There's a pretty big difference between some minor choice, like which candy bar to pick, and whether or not to go through an expensive and difficult, and potentially fatal pregnancy. As the old saying goes, sort of, "her body, her choice".

RMan

07-15-2005, 02:23 PM

So, are you saying that because it's serious it should have a less descriptive title? In that case, something like assisted suicide should get the “pro-choice” title before abortion. Perhaps suicide should get “pro-stuff”, I guess that’d lack sufficient description as to convey the subject matter’s importance.

I can still remember when it was a pro/anti abortion argument and I wish it'd stayed that way, kept people's heads in the game. The spindoctors have made it sound and feel a bit silly, I’m neither against choice, nor am I against life, nor are all but the craziest people in America. Abortion is a tough thing to talk about, and has valid points from both sides, so I don’t think it’s healthy to give it a title that makes you sound like an idiot for fighting against it, and 100% righteous for fighting for it.

H.M._Murdock

07-15-2005, 03:32 PM

Quite the gaming site you have here. No more Hillary Clinton articles please, and this immediately came to an abortion argument? Jesus Christ...

Heretic Machine

07-15-2005, 03:57 PM

I don't think it’s healthy to give it a title that makes you sound like an idiot for fighting against it, and 100% righteous for fighting for it.

Well, that's how it is. Either your for the choice to have an abortion, or you are for making it outlawed. That's the way a lot of things are in this country. The country was founded to ESCAPE majority rule over the unpopular minority, and yet we are moving further and further away from that idea.

In short, this country sucks, and I'll be leaving ASAP. We have become a nation that is ruled by soccer moms and rednecks, because that makes up the majority of our population.

see colon

07-15-2005, 04:34 PM

. Abortion is a tough thing to talk about, and has valid points from both sides, so I don’t think it’s healthy to give it a title that makes you sound like an idiot for fighting against it, and 100% righteous for fighting for it.
abortion is such a complex subject that you can have disagreements like me and mr wang. from what he has written i think we are both generaly "anti-abortion", yet our views on the subject are quite different.

Voodoo

07-15-2005, 04:55 PM

Soylent Green is made of PPEEEEOOOPPPLLEEEE!!!
http://www.emotioneric.com/soylentgreen.jpg

MosBen

07-15-2005, 05:24 PM

Just as only a crazy person is against life, only a crazy person is "pro-abortion". I don't like abortions. It's a not a pretty procedure, nor is it something we should be overjoyed at when it happens. Still, I support the ability of a woman to choose how to treat her body and whether or not to have a medical procedure. It's not the abortion I'm supporting, it's the choice and the bodily independence that I support, so I think it's fair to say that I'm "pro-choice" and not, in fact, "pro-abortion".

mister_slim

07-15-2005, 06:10 PM

Nah, I don't like the term "pro-choice" any more than "pro-life". It is what it is.
I'll stick with 'pro-death' and 'anti-freedom'. At least people have to think about the argument a little, instead of just reacting to the keywords.
The real problem with the abortion issue is that we aren't allowed to vote on it. The government doesn't allow us to vote on it since they already know the outcome. (Last time I checked the vast majority of voters are anti-abortion.)
Yeah, most people are anti-abortion. That doesn't mean they are also anti-freedom, though.
Yes, but EVERYTHING you do is a matter of choice, and effects one's body, so why would this term in any way be applicable to abortion. The answer is it’s not, choice is no more related to abortion than it is anything else you do, and clearly according to many Americans it’s not entirely the woman’s choice. So, the term “pro-choice” would be much more applicable to, say, taking up smoking or getting breast implants. In the end, the term is used as a deception, because it’s FAR more palatable than pro-abortion.
Are we talking pro-killing-babies or pro-the-possibility-of-abortion-in-dire-circumstances though?

RMan

07-15-2005, 06:37 PM

It's not the abortion I'm supporting, it's the choice and the bodily independence that I support, so I think it's fair to say that I'm "pro-choice" and not, in fact, "pro-abortion".
No, it's the choice to have an abortion that you are supporting, so to remove the real meaning from a legal title is clearly deceptive. Let's change it a bit, let's say that I'd launched a marketing campaign before the legalized abortion advocates coined "pro-choice", except I did it with gun control. So now, “pro-choice” relates to my right to choose to own a firearm, and “pro-life” refers to gun control advocates desire to avoid gun deaths. Would this not be just as logical as it’s application to abortion? Of course it is, because the titles give little or no indication as to what they’re actually talking about. These phrases could just as easily be applied to suicide, smoking, or jaywalking; pretty much anything you “choose” that could end a “life”. It is spin, plain and simple, and it wasn’t done because pro-abortion advocates felt people thought they enjoyed abortions, it was to soften the issue and make it easier to swallow, and it shouldn’t be.

Heretic Machine

07-15-2005, 08:03 PM

No, it's the choice to have an abortion that you are supporting, so to remove the real meaning from a legal title is clearly deceptive. Let's change it a bit, let's say that I'd launched a marketing campaign before the legalized abortion advocates coined "pro-choice", except I did it with gun control. So now, “pro-choice” relates to my right to choose to own a firearm, and “pro-life” refers to gun control advocates desire to avoid gun deaths. Would this not be just as logical as it’s application to abortion? Of course it is, because the titles give little or no indication as to what they’re actually talking about. These phrases could just as easily be applied to suicide, smoking, or jaywalking; pretty much anything you “choose” that could end a “life”. It is spin, plain and simple, and it wasn’t done because pro-abortion advocates felt people thought they enjoyed abortions, it was to soften the issue and make it easier to swallow, and it shouldn’t be.

Ya, you're right, it's so deceptive that no body knows what pro-choice means. The millions who support it have no idea what they are supporting, OMFG! We've been flim-falmmed, bamboozled, hood-winked!