Target Australia will no longer stock GTA5

[Obama's Dad 420]

good it is a sexist video game.

 

[WhiteNachos]

We're not talking about the government, we were never talking about the government but instead talking about private citizens. Stop trying to derail the conversation.

Says the guy trying to bring abortion into it.

I feel we are arguing in circles.

a) Tell me, is the following an accuration summary of the situation at hand?

"A group of people did not like the content of GTA5 and appealed to a retailer of the game to discontinue selling it. The retailer agreed to do so."

b) Could you define "censorship" to me in your own words?

c) Can you explain how your definition of censorship fits the situation described.

We are arguing in circles. Basically my definition of censorship (aside from government censorship and beeping/blurring stuff out) is just trying to prevent people from accessing certain materials (not counting material that is owned by you, or keeping your kids out of stuff).

It sounded like you were asking me if "Dear Rockstar, would you please not have hookers in the next GTA" was also censorship, which I don't think it is. If you think it is, then OK I think we've argued about it enough to realize we're not getting anywhere.

 

[the7k]

Heh, wow. I went through GTAV on the PS3, beginning to end, and don't ever remember picking up a prostitute. Did they make it more of a requirement in the PS4/XB1 versions?

This whole thing is completely idiotic regardless, even if prostitution is a requirement. The game has a rating, and the rating is highly descriptive. No one is getting tricked into buying this thing.

That Target ad with GTAV on the same page as a bunch of children's toys was more worthy of throwing a hissy fit over than being allowed to do one thing in a game that, frankly, is no where near as bad as at least a half dozen other things you can do in the game. I'm honestly shocked that an optional part of the game is getting more flack than a flat-out required torture scene - not that I would support pulling a game over that torture scene either, though.

If GTAV were a movie, TV show or book instead of a game, none of this shit would be happening right now, and you all know it.

 

[kingthrall]

Just throwing my peace-meal comment out there; GTA in general sucked after gta2. Waste of money if you asked me, so they can take of shelves or whatever has no appeal to me anyway. If they start taking Witcher 3 or something like that off due to nudity ect, yeh then Ill be grabbing torches and pitchforks.

 

[Madkipz]

No doubt Target sells other 18+ rated material like Game of Thrones.

Them removing GTA is discrimination against video games /art/, and if it's based on that petition then it's also based on false information.

It is inherently anti consumer because Target is not a guardian of morality. They are a business, and should act like it.

 

[NiPah]

Just throwing my peace-meal comment out there; GTA in general sucked after gta2. Waste of money if you asked me, so they can take of shelves or whatever has no appeal to me anyway. If they start taking Witcher 3 or something like that off due to nudity ect, yeh then Ill be grabbing torches and pitchforks.

Different stokes I guess, honestly the medieval fantasy Witcher/Souls/Dragon Ages games could all disappear and I wouldn't shed a tear, but since I know other people actually like them I'd be a little sad to see them gone.

 

[Something Amyss]

You're not even trying to argue, I think you're trying to piss me off by calling me a liar or irrelevant.

If you're getting pissed off, maybe you should try having a better argument than "neither of us have facts."

Again, that's not how logic works. My claim was that you didn't have evidence, a point on which we agree. That makes me right by the facts, not because facts are irrelevant.

 

[FluffCo]

http://imgur.com/hUqScWY

Hey everyone, I made this graph trying to figure out why you would want to ban a game from a store. The only argument i can come up with that holds any water is that its not appropriate for family shopping, but that's massively hypocritical if you're selling old dvds of Seven or Nightmare on elm street.

Target is well within its right to remove an item from stock at the behest of its customers, its customers just don't really have a valid argument.

Tell me what you think of the chart, and if there are any other arguments that could be added to it! c:

 

[Something Amyss]

You think the vagwolves are bad, you haven't seen the clitsharks. And the goddamn areobats. They take down their share of planes and boats.

It's too late for us. Save yourself.

Man, the stories about Australia were right!

 

[Signa]

You're not even trying to argue, I think you're trying to piss me off by calling me a liar or irrelevant.

If you're getting pissed off, maybe you should try having a better argument than "neither of us have facts."

Again, that's not how logic works. My claim was that you didn't have evidence, a point on which we agree. That makes me right by the facts, not because facts are irrelevant.

Again, that's not how discussion works. My claim was that you didn't have evidence, a point on which we agree. That makes me right by the facts, not because facts are irrelevant.

 

[Something Amyss]

My claim was that you didn't have evidence, a point on which we agree.

See, I don't get why you'd accuse e of trying to piss you off by saying you were lying, then make a statement that's completely false. My evidence is that you've admitted you don't have evidence. This is the only thing I need for my claim, as I wasn't making any other affirmative claims. You were the one suggesting they didn't do the research, so when you said you didn't have an evidence, you confirmed my argument.

If I'm wrong, if you do have evidence, then you were being dishonest when you said you didn't know. Either way, you were dishonest at some point, so I'm not sure that helps you or why you think calling you on dishonesty (which you had to misrepresent to get there) is an attempt to piss you off.

Edit: Also, the simplest solution would be for you to be honest.

To repeat:

I did not take the position that they did do their homework, only that it's ridiculous to assume they didn't without evidence.

I also added that they collect data. This is the only other affirmative stance I have taken. Is this the one you're demanding evidence for? The use of PoS systems in large retailers? I don't think so, but otherwise, you're dishonestly saying I don't have evidence for something I'm not saying.

 

[Signa]

My claim was that you didn't have evidence, a point on which we agree.

See, I don't get why you'd accuse e of trying to piss you off by saying you were lying, then make a statement that's completely false. My evidence is that you've admitted you don't have evidence. This is the only thing I need for my claim, as I wasn't making any other affirmative claims. You were the one suggesting they didn't do the research, so when you said you didn't have an evidence, you confirmed my argument.

If I'm wrong, if you do have evidence, then you were being dishonest when you said you didn't know. Either way, you were dishonest at some point, so I'm not sure that helps you or why you think calling you on dishonesty (which you had to misrepresent to get there) is an attempt to piss you off.

Edit: Also, the simplest solution would be for you to be honest.

To repeat:

I did not take the position that they did do their homework, only that it's ridiculous to assume they didn't without evidence.

I also added that they collect data. This is the only other affirmative stance I have taken. Is this the one you're demanding evidence for? The use of PoS systems in large retailers? I don't think so, but otherwise, you're dishonestly saying I don't have evidence for something I'm not saying.

See, I don't get why you'd accuse me of lying by saying you were truthful, then make a statement that's completely dumb. My evidence is that you've admitted you don't have evidence. This is the only thing I need for my claim, as I wasn't making any other affirmative claims. You were the one suggesting they didn't do the research, so when you said you didn't have an evidence, you confirmed my argument.

 

[Something Amyss]

My evidence is that you've admitted you don't have evidence. This is the only thing I need for my claim, as I wasn't making any other affirmative claims. You were the one suggesting they didn't do the research, so when you said you didn't have an evidence, you confirmed my argument.

You know, if you don't have a real argument, you could just not reply. Or be honest and say you were wrong to make those claims.

 

[Signa]

My evidence is that you've admitted you don't have evidence. This is the only thing I need for my claim, as I wasn't making any other affirmative claims. You were the one suggesting they didn't do the research, so when you said you didn't have an evidence, you confirmed my argument.

You know, if you don't have a real argument, you could just not reply. Or be honest and say you were wrong to make those claims.

You know, if you don't have to add to the discussion, you could just not reply. Or be honest and say you were wrong not talk about the elephants in the room.

 

[Something Amyss]

Or be honest and say you were wrong not talk about the elephants in the room.

I thought the elephant in the room was that you misrepresented me and then accused me of trying to piss you off.

 

[Signa]

Or be honest and say you were wrong not talk about the elephants in the room.

I thought the elephant in the room was that you misrepresented me and then accused me of trying to piss you off.

Quite frankly, I don't know anymore. Just watch Total Biscut on the issue and you have my point of view on this whole thing. I don't think there was anything he said in his video that I disagreed with.

Just stop quoting me unless you having something interesting to say. I'm getting bored of this.

 

[Something Amyss]

Just stop quoting me unless you having something interesting to say. I'm getting bored of this.

You could have simply not replied.

And quite frankly, if you need to tell me to watch someone else's videos to find your opinions, I don't care what you think. That goes doubly for TB, who I wouldn't watch anyway. But you misrepresented the situation and me, which is the only reason this went on as long as it did. If you don't like that, then simply don't do it. It's that easy.

 

[Signa]

Just stop quoting me unless you having something interesting to say. I'm getting bored of this.

You could have simply not replied.

And quite frankly, if you need to tell me to watch someone else's videos to find your opinions, I don't care what you think. That goes doubly for TB, who I wouldn't watch anyway. But you misrepresented the situation and me, which is the only reason this went on as long as it did. If you don't like that, then simply don't do it. It's that easy.

But I feel obligated to respond.

Alright, you win. I lied, I know that everything I said was false and you caught me. Good job. I hope you are happy with yourself.

 

[crypticracer]

Don't have time to read the whole thread at the moment. Ill try to get it tomorrow.

This is a problem. I have nothing against petitions, or even stores not stocking certain things. But the immediate problem I see is that the petition is full of straight up lies and falsehoods. It's seems like no one who wrote or signed it, actually played any of the game. It appears they didn't even do a modicum of research on it.

The idea that such a petition could get 50,000 signatures is sickening enough, but the fact that it was ligitimised by Target and Kmart actually listening to it.

There are many disagreable things someone could take umberage with in GTA5, things I could see them writing a petition about, but simply copying a blatant lie from a Fox News soundbite is unacceptable.