Media Hatred

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree, keep it open. I like to know who the psychopaths are who think this looks "badass". Now I know who never to sell anything with my home adress on it. :lol


correction "wannabe" psychopaths :wave
 
This is it, right there. You don't like or agree with something, so you want it gone, deleted, etc. All of you are arguing against something I'm not even doing. You keep claiming I like this game, when I've made it very clear, that I am arguing for free speech. This means allowing something to exist when is not breaking any laws. You can keep claiming I love this game, but that is a lie, and not what I've been doing.

Why don't you just close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and make some childish sound, since you can't have a reasonable debate.



Again, I'm not supporting the game. I support free speech and your question is a hypothetical straw man.

I don't care if you think it's a straw man argument or not. Why don't you just answer the question? You don't think anything should be censored? Does this translate into real life scenarios or just media?
 
Last edited:
I'm new to this game and trailer, but is there 100% proof that this game is ONLY just about this?
Of course the trailer wants to shock and all that. But has it be confirmed there is no story here, just mindless killing?
What if there is actual reason or story here? Is he in hell, alternate reality? Do we know for sure?

I played Hotline Miami as well and in that game was killing every single person in the game no matter what.
 
I don't care if you think it's a straw man argument or not. Why don't you just answer the question? You don't think anything should be censored? Does this translate into real life scenarios or just media?

Again, you guys keep trying to put words in my mouth. I NEVER said "I don't think anything should be censored". I have prefaced arguments with - "unless it's against the law, then it should be allowed" as it applies in this context. Just so you know, if it isn't against the law, it is 100% legal and that translates into anything. To be clear, and so someone doesn't misquote me later, I am for what is legal. I am not in favor of what is illegal.

I love how my entire argument is based on freedom of speech, and what is legal. People here keep replying with the emotional responses, creating strawmen, red herring, asking hypotheticals, twisting what I've said, etc., not what is legal and covered by law. I will side with the law.
 
Again, you guys keep trying to put words in my mouth. I NEVER said "I don't think anything should be censored". I have prefaced arguments with - "unless it's against the law, then it should be allowed" as it applies in this context. Just so you know, if it isn't against the law, it is 100% legal and that translates into anything. To be clear, and so someone doesn't misquote me later, I am for what is legal. I am not in favor of what is illegal.

I love how my entire argument is based on freedom of speech, and what is legal. People here keep replying with the emotional responses, creating strawmen, red herring, asking hypotheticals, twisting what I've said, etc., not what is legal and covered by law. I will side with the law.

acvsi1.jpg
 
Again, you guys keep trying to put words in my mouth. I NEVER said "I don't think anything should be censored". I have prefaced arguments with - "unless it's against the law, then it should be allowed" as it applies in this context. Just so you know, if it isn't against the law, it is 100% legal and that translates into anything. To be clear, and so someone doesn't misquote me later, I am for what is legal. I am not in favor of what is illegal.

I love how my entire argument is based on freedom of speech, and what is legal. People here keep replying with the emotional responses, creating strawmen, red herring, asking hypotheticals, twisting what I've said, etc., not what is legal and covered by law. I will side with the law.

Well if you're for anything that is legal then you would be ok with a game which had the player going into a school and shooting his or her classmates. You answered my question then, thanks.
 
Well if you're for anything that is legal then you would be ok with a game which had the player going into a school and shooting his or her classmates. You answered my question then, thanks.

See this is why I wasn't going to respond to a straw-man hypothetical.
1 - There isn't such a game so I haven't supported anything
2 - I haven't supported the Hatred game either, just its right to exist under LAW
3 - You guys can't come up with any argument that would win in any court room, so you have to create a bunch of b.s.

straw man
noun
noun: strawman

  • a person compared to a straw image; a sham.

    • a sham argument set up to be defeated.







 
See this is why I wasn't going to respond to a straw-man hypothetical.
1 - There isn't such a game so I haven't supported anything
2 - I haven't supported the Hatred game either, just its right to exist under LAW
3 - You guys can't come up with any argument that would win in any court room, so you have to create a bunch of b.s.

straw man
noun
noun: strawman

  • a person compared to a straw image; a sham.

    • a sham argument set up to be defeated.







I'm just stating the facts that you posted. It doesn't matter that their isn't a school shooting game yet. Just that you would support the legality issue of one being made. It's not such a stretch going from a game that's only mission is to kill innocent people to one where you go on a school shooting rampage
 
See this is why I wasn't going to respond to a straw-man hypothetical.
1 - There isn't such a game so I haven't supported anything
2 - I haven't supported the Hatred game either, just its right to exist under LAW
3 - You guys can't come up with any argument that would win in any court room, so you have to create a bunch of b.s.

straw man
noun
noun: strawman

  • a person compared to a straw image; a sham.

    • a sham argument set up to be defeated.








While i dont want to step between you and hoods debate. I will say the whole " legal " issue isnt something you can use as defence when the people involved in the discussion can come from a country with a complete different set of Laws. Like for instance, i live in the UK and theres games that had to be altered or flat out not released before they came here due to certain graphic content, or story. Theres some survival horror games we didnt get, and some monsters such as in silent hill were altered.

So a strict law argument might be why there may not be a clear cut right an wrong in a debate. Maybe you guys are in the same country but i know it does change my view depending on our laws here.
 
While i dont want to step between you and hoods debate. I will say the whole " legal " issue isnt something you can use as defence when the people involved in the discussion can come from a country with a complete different set of Laws. Like for instance, i live in the UK and theres games that had to be altered or flat out not released before they came here due to certain graphic content, or story. Theres some survival horror games we didnt get, and some monsters such as in silent hill were altered.

So a strict law argument might be why there may not be a clear cut right an wrong in a debate

I agree, but since I live in America, I am only speaking from that perspective, not world-wide.
If this isn't legal in other countries, I can't debate that, for obvious reasons.
 
Nope. The people defending it are in no way intellectual or making a good argument for it. Comparing to Call of Duty or simply saying mass murders will happen anyway so who cares, just shows how misguided you guys are.

Tell me this. What is there to gain from this game? What does this stimulate inside you emotionally? Alien : Isolation is a violent game out now that is highly successful and getting none of this backlash, it instills a sense of fear and dread. Call of Duty invokes a sense of over the top action movie heroism. What does this game do for you?

To tell you the truth I wouldn't buy this game or COD. But my objection is that it is not a worthwhile piece of entertainment, the same way Keeping up with the Kardashians is not a worthwhile piece of entertainment. I'm not completely oblivious. I can see the violence is over the top and sadistic. However my main point is that your indignation seems misplaced. People here are upset at this violent video game, but shouldn't you guys be more upset that there are rifles, pistols, and other death machines laying around like free candy in this country? I'm assuming you guys are from the USA.

A mentally disturbed person is a threat to civilized society. But what is a bigger deal? A disturbed person walking around with a backpack of violent movies and video games, or a disturbed person walking around with a backpack of pistols, rifles, and extended magazines? The NRA wants you to believe that a backpack of violent video games is more dangerous than a backpack of pistols and guns.
 
To tell you the truth I wouldn't buy this game or COD. But my objection is that it is not a worthwhile piece of entertainment, the same way Keeping up with the Kardashians is not a worthwhile piece of entertainment. I'm not completely oblivious. I can see the violence is over the top and sadistic. However my main point is that your indignation seems misplaced. People here are upset at this violent video game, but shouldn't you guys be more upset that there are rifles, pistols, and other death machines laying around like free candy in this country? I'm assuming you guys are from the USA.

A mentally disturbed person is a threat to civilized society. But what is a bigger deal? A disturbed person walking around with a backpack of violent movies and video games, or a disturbed person walking around with a backpack of pistols, rifles, and extended magazines? The NRA wants you to believe that a backpack of violent video games is more dangerous than a backpack of pistols and guns.

It is not the rifle or handgun that is killing people, it is the psycho behind the trigger. Let's say guns are banned. Take that same psycho and he plays GTA for hours on end. What do you think his weapon of choice will be?

It's just like the old proverb about teaching a man to fish. You can't eliminate everything a psycho may use to hurt someone, you treat the problem. That may be as simple as medical help or prescription drugs all the way to hospitalization and in extreme cases death.
 
Personally I don't care if the the game gets published or if there is an audience for it, so I have no wish to suppress anyone's "freedom". Definitely my opinion of someone that wanted to invest their time into playing this would be very low, though. IMO, you do need to be a little off or stupid to want to spend your time playing a game like this. If that makes me judgemental, great.
 
The game looks like cliche trash. Can't wait to don my trench coat and chug some mountain dew :rotfl
 
Well, maybe this will satisfy the urges of the weirdos that kill animals.
 
This is it, right there. You don't like or agree with something, so you want it gone, deleted, etc. All of you are arguing against something I'm not even doing. You keep claiming I like this game, when I've made it very clear, that I am arguing for free speech. This means allowing something to exist when is not breaking any laws. You can keep claiming I love this game, but that is a lie, and not what I've been doing.

Why don't you just close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and make some childish sound, since you can't have a reasonable debate.

When did I do that? You're acting as if someone punched your baby or something. Are you really supporting this rubbish, or just your right to whine and throw a tantrum on a public forum?
 
The guy above is pointless to respond to as he adds nothing to the discussion. It's ironic because when I first signed up here, just over a year ago, he was instantly rude to me for no reason at all. He was added to my ignore list on my first day here.


I need to add on to this -
Well, maybe this will satisfy the urges of the weirdos that kill animals.

Since some like hypotheticals, if I were to, hypothetically, play this game, then I would be some sad, pathetic, sick, misguided, twisted blight on humanity who gets off torturing animals.

About me, as it adds context and shows how flawed the logic is from some of you.

I am a well-adjusted, responsible, contributing member of society who helps anyway possible, when I can. I have no delusions of grandeur, I'm not a misanthrope, and I always want the good people to be more plentiful than the bad. Further more, one time I was caught in a shoot-out in the parking lot of a mall. At risk to myself, I dodged behind cars until I was able to get to the most seriously injured victim. He had been shot through the neck and chest, and was "thorwing up" parts of his internal organs. I tried to patch him up with my shirt, etc. and keep him calm, but he died. My hands and arms were stained with his blood for almost two weeks. I couldn't get the blood out, no matter what I tried.

People also have causes which they donate to, mine just happens to be animals. I donate thousand of dollars a year to help animals. I will stop what I'm doing to rescue an animal, it doesn't matter what it is. I even pick up road kill and bury it. If there's an animal emergency I always donate food or money. I find home for pets people no longer want and rescue strays.

So the point is, everything you attribute to people who might play these games, is incorrect, or at least on my part, even though I haven't played it. I tend to think the overwhelming majority are normal people, who see a game for what it is, and that's as far as it will ever go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top