Signa said:
That is true, but I would have expected Target to have done its homework on this one. How many potential customers of GTA V are they losing for the possibility that these petitioners are going to completely stop shopping at their store because GTA is in it.
Maybe they did do their homework. Maybe the number of people who actually buy the games at Target are insigificant. Why would we assume otherwise without evidence?
BiH-Kira said:
The "violence against man" arguments were shouted down because there isn't a single proof that it causes real life violence.
That's nice, but completely irrelevant to the notion proposed that this complaint is ignored. It isn't. You're admitting it was brought up. I am correct.
Is killing them after sex somehow worse than killing them without sex? And I don't see why you're moving the goal post. He said you can kill female NPC's the same way you can kill male NPC's.
Except it's not the same if you can't solicit them for sex and then kill them. It's not moving the goalposts. In fact, it's one of the causal reasons for the petition.
I wonder if you would say the same if a few Muslims made a petition about pork and alcohol being offensive to them and Target decided to remove all pork and alcohol related products for everyone rather than just telling them not to buy it.
Oddly enough, it was the opposite that happened around here. An organised push to get Halal foods out of local stores. But either way, my stance is the same. They have the right to complain, protest, etc. Companies have the right to listen and make their choices (whether affirmative or not). That doesn't mean that I endorse these decisions, but that's also irrelevant here.
Oddly enough, I've been remarkably consistent on this point on here. I've supported groups counter to my own interest in their right to protest.
But I honestly doubt that the there are more people who are strictly against GTA than those who are indifferent or for it. Feels like Target didn't do their homework.
Except it's not the antis against the pros and indifferent votes. It's the antis against the pros and within their specific customer base, this may be sufficient. Nothing here strains credulity when you look at it pragmatically. It may "feel" wrong, but I don't really care how it feels. You guys have both dismissed the notion out of hand that they may have actually done their research and thought "oh shit, this could actually be more damaging than beneficial to our bottom line." Maybe they didn't, but there's no evidence of that. Maybe the Target market in Australia is super big on GTA and a corporation that is about the bottom line really didn't do their homework[footnote]I seriously doubt this to be the case. Target, like Wal-Mart, uses a form of Point of Sale tracking and likely have access to this information real easy-like.[/footnote]. The best way to demonstrate this would be for the people who want the game to put on a similar display, which, given the response petition, they would rather go for a "take that" than an actual demonstration.
And that's fine, too. They can get into a slapfight like the Christians and Muslims did around here, they can themselves threaten to boycott, or they can do nothing but whine.
RhombusHatesYou said:
Much the same as you would hire a female prostitute, one would imagine. Exchange money (or valuable barter goods) for sexual services.
Well played, Rhombus.