Does "Muslim Massacre" game show a need for Internet regulation?

[spacer]

No, the MM game does not show a need for internet regulation. It shows a need for people to stop being such whiney babies.

[Catharsis]

Child porn is illegal, being a racist is not.

So...what if they were both legal? What then?

This is where not adhering to an absolute standard leads.

[Kushan]

So...what if they were both legal? What then?

This is where not adhering to an absolute standard leads.

It's an interesting argument, in fact one could say that we have "double standards" when it comes to freedom of speech. However, I think what most people forget is that "freedom" doesn't necessarily just apply to you, the rights that give YOU freedom also give freedom to everyone else. That's why racism is legal, because say what you want about someone, they can say it right back to you. Discrimination is a different matter entirely, that is illegal because it takes away freedom from someone else.

On the same note, child porn takes away from the freedom of the child. Even if the child willingly wants to do it, it's still illegal because they're too young to know different. Yes, it's true that our children have less "rights" than everyone else, but this is for their own protection until they're old enough to make that decision themselves.

[nonick]

The game is on torrents. around 4mb.. easy to find.

Its not bad (as a game). I think the issue here lies within the game's title and intention of its creator not because its mass killing of X or Y or Z of people - Just look at Postal, same basics..

I didn't feel like I am hating them when I tried it.. just a mindless shooting kill em all game..

[Catharsis]

child porn takes away from the freedom of the child. Even if the child willingly wants to do it, it's still illegal because they're too young to know different.

But this is still a fluctuating morality. That would still be based on merely a person's (or persons') standards. What if "everyone" said it's OK, even if a child IS involved?

In other words, yes, a morality based on the popular norm wouldn't not only produce double standards, but a myriad of "standards", which, of course, by definition, means that it is NOT standard at all. It's whatever one feels like. This is all man can come to.....on his own.

[lalalawawawa]

No, the MM game does not show a need for internet regulation. It shows a need for people to stop being such whiney babies.

You said it just right. (don't mean disrespect, but) Some people don't give a **** about god and such things (including me). So no, the Internet does not need to be regulated.

And even if it was, by who? No one owns it so no one can regulate it. (enough with my rant. :) )

Now, people have right to build their own values/moral/ethics. Meaning no one can tell them what is right and what wrong.

[Kushan]

But this is still a fluctuating morality. That would still be based on merely a person's (or persons') standards. What if "everyone" said it's OK, even if a child IS involved?

In other words, yes, a morality based on the popular norm wouldn't not only produce double standards, but a myriad of "standards", which, of course, by definition, means that it is NOT standard at all. It's whatever one feels like. This is all man can come to.....on his own.

If EVERYONE said it was ok, then it WOULD be ok. Morals aren't black and white and something you can logically dictate, morals are an opinionated, subjective thing that differs from person to person.

When it comes down to it, all we can do is try to protect everyone from everyone else, so the freedoms you give one person do not interfere with the freedoms of another. "Freedom" should be the same for everyone.

That's why you have to expect things like this to happen, if you give everyone the freedom to do it, SOMEONE will do it for whatever reason. It's not nice, it's not ideal, but for you to have that same right, you just have to accept that it will happen.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

I can't believe that this thread is still going on. :woot:

[azz0r_wugg]

You can police the internet and neither should anyone.

If you begin, then before you know it we'll be having all sorts of censorship we'd complain more about than this site.

[zape]

The game is on torrents. around 4mb.. easy to find.

Its not bad (as a game). I think the issue here lies within the game's title and intention of its creator not because its mass killing of X or Y or Z of people - Just look at Postal, same basics..

I didn't feel like I am hating them when I tried it.. just a mindless shooting kill em all game..

The game on torrents is a beta version.

OT: Torrents arent illegal so I think a link to a .torrent file here would be ok.

On a side topic, doesnt anyone think this is a publicity stunt to promote the dev/company/etc?

Remember:

ANY publicity is GOOD publicity.

[Catharsis]

If EVERYONE said it was ok, then it WOULD be ok. Morals aren't black and white and something you can logically dictate, morals are an opinionated, subjective thing that differs from person to person.

When it comes down to it, all we can do is try to protect everyone from everyone else, so the freedoms you give one person do not interfere with the freedoms of another. "Freedom" should be the same for everyone.

That's why you have to expect things like this to happen, if you give everyone the freedom to do it, SOMEONE will do it for whatever reason. It's not nice, it's not ideal, but for you to have that same right, you just have to accept that it will happen.

If what you say is true, then "nice", "ideal", "protect", "freedom", and everything else you said have no ultimate meaning at all. What are you basing those things on? Then what is freedom? What is "nice"? What is "ideal"? How can you say it's not ideal, if "ideal" is all relative anyway?

If what you say is true, then there is no point in you being passionate about arguing for it, for it means nothing at all.

Gotta go for now.

[Mando]

<br />Sadly a lot of people have used the term 'freedom' to mean that we have the right to disrespect each other, but why?<br /><br />It's all about respect at the end of the day.<br /><br />I see so many games where a Mosque is used as a 'scene' for shooting games, but when a Church was used in that other video game, Sony were forced to stop it.<br /><br />We don't live in a fair world but I'm very glad to see that there are a lot of neowinians who have shown that they understand that wrong is wrong.<br />

I agree with what your saying apart from the church and Sony, they were lambasted for using the interior of the church without permission, theres a slight difference matey ;)

tbh I dont see the difference between the "muslim" angle and every other shooter where we are killing "terrorists" or "nazis" or any other "baddie" (and im no way saying muslims are bad, far from it tbh)

Just because some extremists want to fight in what they truly believe in doesnt mean everyone who are followers of the muslim faith are the same, thats a generalisation and wrong! Thats like saying in 1939-1944 all German citizens were genocidal maniacs and Neo-nazis......(which is all nonsense)

Whats so different between these "freedom fighters" and our UK Irish "Terrorists"/"freedom" (delete as applicable) fighters in the past? (oh yes thats right they were funded by NORAD in the USA and other countries) it all depends on what side of the fence you are on.

the creators have no shame, exploiting a worlds misconception of a peaceful race to benefit from, would it be just as acceptable to have a concentration camp type game where all you had to do was kill Jewish prisoners, or American POWs in Vietnam or try to blow up UK politicians, school children and soldiers in the UK and Northern Ireland. (you can bet your ass there would be sooo much anger over both games, they would be pulled in a matter of hours)

If nothing else the web-game resorts to using racism to power the gameplay, bad show! (probably all it has going for it being "web-based") you know a pointless little flash game to entertain you for ooooh 5 minutes.

I disagree however with Internet regulation calls by anybody, Id like to think most developers and internetters use self-regulation with pride in what they do and release to the public via the web.

Edited September 16, 2008 by Mando

[Kushan]

If what you say is true, then "nice", "ideal", "protect", "freedom", and everything else you said have no ultimate meaning at all. What are you basing those things on? Then what is freedom? What is "nice"? What is "ideal"? How can you say it's not ideal, if "ideal" is all relative anyway?

If what you say is true, then there is no point in you being passionate about arguing for it, for it means nothing at all.

Gotta go for now.

If morals are subjective, then why shouldn't I use subjective terms like "nice" and "ideal" to describe the situation?

But if you really must know, I can say something is not "ideal" because it's going to upset some people, but sadly it's upsetting them for the greater good (the greater good being that freedom is protected, not that they're upset).

[Catharsis]

If morals are subjective, then why shouldn't I use subjective terms like "nice" and "ideal" to describe the situation?

But if you really must know, I can say something is not "ideal" because it's going to upset some people, but sadly it's upsetting them for the greater good (the greater good being that freedom is protected, not that they're upset).

For the record, I do not believe that morals are subjective. I was arguing from the (impossible) viewpoint that they were relative.

Again, though, if people make up their own meanings and morality, the "freedom" you're protecting -- what is it exactly? It just means something to you. Why should any of us care? It's just your own definition.

I'm also not sure what you mean by, "I can say something is not "ideal" because it's going to upset some people" (emphasis added by me). I'm sure you meant something else, and that you're not just saying you like to upset people. That whole paragraph doesn't really make grammatical sense. Sorry. It didn't actually answer the question of how you can call something "ideal" -- it simply said that if you do, it upsets people. I know that; what I don't know is what is "ideal" to you. And if it's relative anyway, you can't say it's ideal to everyone else. Do you see how relativism just goes around in a circle?

Relativism isolates everyone from each other. "You have your rules and I have mine." That very statement is isolationist. It is a clever way to avoid admission and confession of being wrong. I've used it myself (wrongly) in small ways, but it never holds water.

[Kushan]

For the record, I do not believe that morals are subjective. I was arguing from the (impossible) viewpoint that they were relative.

Again, though, if people make up their own meanings and morality, the "freedom" you're protecting -- what is it exactly? It just means something to you. Why should any of us care? It's just your own definition.

I'm also not sure what you mean by, "I can say something is not "ideal" because it's going to upset some people" (emphasis added by me). I'm sure you meant something else, and that you're not just saying you like to upset people. That whole paragraph doesn't really make grammatical sense. Sorry. It didn't actually answer the question of how you can call something "ideal" -- it simply said that if you do, it upsets people. I know that; what I don't know is what is "ideal" to you. And if it's relative anyway, you can't say it's ideal to everyone else. Do you see how relativism just goes around in a circle?

Relativism isolates everyone from each other. "You have your rules and I have mine." That very statement is isolationist. It is a clever way to avoid admission and confession of being wrong. I've used it myself (wrongly) in small ways, but it never holds water.

I'm going to try to keep this short -

The freedom I'm referring to is the freedom of everyone else. I.E. Your own freedoms should not impact on the freedoms of someone else, that's where the line of what's right and wrong should be drawn.. So to use an example, saying "I hate black people!" is a right anyone has, its allowed because it doesn't actually harm or affect anyone, it's just your opinion, but actively going out and harassing a black person would be crossing the line because you're impeeding on that person's freedom.

I don't quite know why you wrote a 6-page paragraph that can be summed up as "I don't get what you're saying", but allow me to clarify: When I said it was not ideal, I meant that it wasn't perfect because someone got (or could potentially get) upset by it. If it was ideal, nobody would be affected by it. As far as I can tell, the wording of my sentence is correct and perhaps you simply read it wrong.

I don't get why you're pointing out the blindingly obvious - that everyone has different opinions, that's the whole purpose of the debate in this thread - everyone DOES have different opinions and it's why we rely on democracy to try to get some mutual ground that benefits as many people as possible (Note: It doesn't necessarily benefit everyone, which is partially the point I'm trying to make here, but also the starting grounds for a much larger debate that doesn't really belong here). Morals aren't black and white, they're not a set of rules that everyone agrees on and strives to live by, we all have our own morals. For many of us, certain morals we can all agree on (Such as paedophilia == bad), but then you get to certain areas like this and the debate arises. Is hate speech ok? Certainly not. But should we allow it or should we shut things like this down and risk giving up what freedoms we have left?

[gigapixels Veteran]

The freedom I'm referring to is the freedom of everyone else. I.E. Your own freedoms should not impact on the freedoms of someone else, that's where the line of what's right and wrong should be drawn.. So to use an example, saying "I hate black people!" is a right anyone has, its allowed because it doesn't actually harm or affect anyone, it's just your opinion, but actively going out and harassing a black person would be crossing the line because you're impeeding on that person's freedom.

That's what I believe as well. Very well said (Y)

[Crompee]

I dont get things like this..

Most FPS's are based on WW2, which is essetially "German Genocide". Then you could argue that those people you are killing in the game are german residence's parents/grandparents/cousins/brothers/etc.

The game doesnt mean anything, infact if this wasnt posted in the news.. only acouple of thousand would of played it and most would of never given it a second thought. While with this Censorship, millions of people worldwide now know of the game..

[azz0r_wugg]

I dont get things like this..

Most FPS's are based on WW2, which is essetially "German Genocide". Then you could argue that those people you are killing in the game are german residence's parents/grandparents/cousins/brothers/etc.

The game doesnt mean anything, infact if this wasnt posted in the news.. only acouple of thousand would of played it and most would of never given it a second thought. While with this Censorship, millions of people worldwide now know of the game..

You HAVE to be kidding.

How many millions of Jewish people have the Muslims killed again?

[MaJoR]

I recall a news story about a video game for "recruiting Jihadist". The article I read was very biased, but it said that several islamic countries were funding it. According to the article, it was a full length game about a boy becoming a jihadist, killing civilian and militant jews, americans, and finally a large scale suicide bombing. I can't find any confirmation on that story *shrug*

Anyway, the net should not be censored. I am not even sure you can if you wanted to, but even then there is no point. So there are games in which one kills innocent people, targetting an "unfavorable" culture with hate likely being involved. So what? People are going to hate each other, and they will want, make, play things to express it. If it isn't through the net, they'll find some other way. Society should only intervene when they commit a crime. Hatred, while dumb, isn't a crime and would be impossible to regulate. Instead of bothering everyone by trying (and failing) to control the net, if you really want to fix the issue, try to educate people and get that hatred out of them. No one can stop all hatred in the world, but every little bit helps.

[betasp]

This game is really offending. I can't understand how some members here see that the game shouldn't be censored.

Some are talking about freedom, as if freedom was meant to be absolute.

We have an arabic proverb which says "My freedom ends when others' freedom starts" ! Otherwise, why not kill people for no reason, just for fun, just because "we are free" ? Are we really free to insult others, to offends theirs beliefs etc...??

We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.

~John F. Kennedy

The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech.

~Justice Anthony Kennedy (1936 - )

[Zer0_II]

Freedom of Speech is to promote your thoughts and voice your opinions in any manner you like as long as it does not voilate the rights of others.

Hate jews? Great. Keep it to yourself.

Blacks suck? Awesome. Keep it to yourself.

Gays on your nerves? Teriffic. Keep it to yourself.

This is known as hate speech as im sure you all are aware of. You can talk about anything that you like, government, politics, finance, family , but the moment you start deviating to the intent of harm (whether it be verbally or physically) you are causing a problem in society. Hate will only be responded with more hate, and this will create a negative atmosphere for everyone. This is exactly why these laws were created. Keep your hate inwards and your positives outwards and society would be a much cleaner place.

Remember, Freedom of Speech is a privledge not a blank check for you to abuse. It has its limitations and its not "full freedom of speech or no freedom of speech".

Freedom of speech is a right not a priviledge. A privilege can be revoked in some cases. In modern democracies, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from birth.

[39 Thieves]

Would anyone honestly care if some Muslims were offended over this, had they not developed a penchant for blowing things up related to subjects that offend their delicate sensibilities? Or for that matter, would this game even exist if not for that little tendency?

[Kushan]

Would anyone honestly care if some Muslims were offended over this, had they not developed a penchant for blowing things up related to subjects that offend their delicate sensibilities? Or for that matter, would this game even exist if not for that little tendency?

There are approximately between 1 and 1.8billion Muslims in the world today. A small minority take things to the extreme and you think the entire religion is the same? Have an ignorance cookie, you truly deserve it.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Maybe this Game would do better if it were named "Liberal Massacre"! :p

[Zlain]

I dont get things like this..

Most FPS's are based on WW2, which is essetially "German Genocide". Then you could argue that those people you are killing in the game are german residence's parents/grandparents/cousins/brothers/etc.

The game doesnt mean anything, infact if this wasnt posted in the news.. only acouple of thousand would of played it and most would of never given it a second thought. While with this Censorship, millions of people worldwide now know of the game..

Yup, once again the media have made the situation worse. Having said that, it still doesn't answer the question of whether the game should have been made in the first place. Is it not fair to say if you think you will find a game offensive then don't play it? That way how can you be offended by it?