But they are customers. Of the store that made the decision. That was the original context that you both seem to have missed.Signa said:
Target Australia will no longer stock GTA5
- Thread starter Here Comes Tomorrow
- Start date
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 I'm just naive, but I don't think these petitioners are going to be the type to stick to their promises and stop shopping at Target because there is one game in the video game aisle they don't like. I think this was a mistake from a financial perspective, and as a sociopolitical standpoint as well.Zachary Amaranth said:
The "violence against man" arguments were shouted down because there isn't a single proof that it causes real life violence. In fact, there is plenty of proof stating otherwise.Zachary Amaranth said:
Now, that statement was in general, not just for males, which means that video games violence against women does not encourage violence against real women in real life.
And I didn't play the latest 2 GTA games but I always wanted male hooker in San Andreas and Vice City. Too bad I won't get them any time soon as it seems.
Thought I don't understand what point you're trying to make. 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. Why are you bringing up sex? Unless you want to tell me that you can kill them by having sex.
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.Zachary Amaranth said:
Now, don't get me wrong, customer have the right to complain, privet companies have the right to listen to them and sell/don't sell whatever they want. 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.
PS, I 'm just using Muslims as an example because we aren't allowed to eat pork and drink alcohol. I didn't mean to offend anyone.
Then we agree. I don't personally think the video game violence has any correlation to actual violence (8 Years, still needing to say that, really people?).Res Plus said:
So, yeah, I think Target has been mislead, but, I think they're allowed to make decisions I don't agree with. I think ultimately, if people have an issue with it, they should show their disagreement to Target, email them and such.
Essentially, I believe that the best weapon to counter ignorance is information.
Much the same as you would hire a female prostitute, one would imagine. Exchange money (or valuable barter goods) for sexual services.Zachary Amaranth said:
Mods. I had the prostitutes in GTASA modded to be nuns... because I have severe mental issues.BiH-Kira said:
This is something I never understood, what is so wrong with depicting violence against women..... in relation to the ability to depict violence against men. For some reason an uproar gets raised when a woman in a video game is shown being killed, but no one minds that to get to that scene 100's of men were butchered in generally more horrible/creative ways.lapan said:
Maybe they should give women in GTA games god mode like the children in skyrim and if you happen to be driving down the sidewalk and hit one your car explodes and she struts off like a pimp, unharmed.
I've played GTA5 and didn't notice any sense of violence against women that wasn't player driven or outside of norm for the narratives for all characters.
Hell the closest game I've seen to what is being suggested is the latest Tomb raider and that falls more to murder fetish than just violence against women.
I prefer fire. In lab testing people have been consistently shown to be significantly more susceptible to fire than to information.The Lunatic said:
To be fair to the Greens, they didn't actually say that. Larissa Waters endorsed a movement that encourages parents to let their kids play with whatever toys they want, and there was a throwaway line in there that forcing kids to grow up thinking that only boys can play with things like trucks and girls can play with dolls and prams feeds into existing problems of the gender gap and domestic violence. They didn't say it caused it, they said it could exacerbate it.ThreeName said:
The Daily Telegraph were the ones who suggested they made a direct link between toy guns and domestic violence with that picture. You should never believe ANYTHING written by The Daily Telegraph.
Why is this an issue now? I worked at a walmart that took copies of GTA SA off the shelf after complaints. I spoke with someone who said all copies of Catherine were boxed up and sent back. So now that one store did it, people are pissy? This happens, it's not new. It's been happening since I started in retail, over 10 years ago. Calm down people.
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?Signa said:
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.BiH-Kira said:
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.
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.
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.
Well played, Rhombus.RhombusHatesYou said:
Thou dost know what I like about my madness? The coherency. For example, I hate EA and Uplay. Thus far I do not have more than 3 games that use Uplay and NO EA games. Private companies should serve the customers regardless of the ideology. There happy my blaspheming brother? Now please stop second-guessing the voices inside my head. They get very cross when people second-guess them.Res Plus said:
This must be the new kind of entitlement. It's not only about having what you want but also ensuring others don't have what you don't like. I'll be off making petitions to all stores selling apple products because i don't like Apple. Entitlement: Olympic Platina.Signa said:
I hope you're not calling me entitled. I'm not sure what I said to make you think that.generals3 said:
I don't know. But that brings me back to the point you snipped. It's a bad move from at least a sociopolitical standpoint. If you want to debate on the financial point, go ahead, but neither you or I actually have any facts to back anything up.Zachary Amaranth said:
The difference being that my position doesn't require any facts. My position is that you lack the facts to make your determination, therefore the only "fact" I need is that you lack facts. This is a point we agree on.Signa said:
As for sociopolitical, we do not agree. But then, that wasn't the claim I was addressing and I really don't care.
How dare you have a consistent opinion that I can't now mischaracterise you with?Haerthan said:
It's especially funny that several of the people who are against this are for a certain other consumer movement. Perhaps it's projection?
Also, do the voices in your head sing in tune?