HawkShack.com

I'm generally pretty liberal when it comes to freedom of speech, but this video game ought to banned and any proceeds already derived donated to a relief fund for victims:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/tal ... 650588002/

You've got to be kidding. What special kind of a-hole codes something like this? Jesus.

This is one of the reasons why capitalism requires regulation. Without it people will make money any way they can.

Whenever I explain capitalism to people, I ask them a simple question, "Does capitalism care if you live in a cardboard box?" Then I explain the market is unconcerned with the living standards of a person, they only care about the supply-demand curve. If cardboard boxes as houses are in demand, then someone will sell them and make money. The advantage of capitalism is that someone will work to make a better cardboard box cheaper if they can for those that can afford it, while continuing to sell the cheap cardboard boxes to those that can't. Capitalism is unconcerned with quality of life and improvements in said quality of life are a byproduct of competition, not a moral idea of what a good life is for a person.

That's why we need people that step in and say, "Hey. We think there needs to be a minimum standard of living." This regulation based on morality gives the capitalist a framework upon which to build, better focusing their competitive juices on building upon a framework that keeps the bottom of society from living in cardboard boxes.

It's the same thing with certain moral activities. If something is morally repugnant to the point where society must intervene such as in this case a game that allows the murder of children, then we must regulate it out. Otherwise we get crap like this or worse like child brothels or human hunting reserves. People like to think humans wouldn't be that evil, but yes, with seven billion of us there are humans that evil out there. They must be watched and regulated.

This is one of the reasons why capitalism requires regulation. Without it people will make money any way they can.

I don't disagree that regulation is required in carefully applied amounts, but I bet this sht-show will be a perfect example of the free market working as it should ($20 says the game tanks).

Your knee-jerk instinct to "regulate" a tasteless video game is remarkable.

Whenever I explain capitalism to people, I ask them a simple question, "Does capitalism care if you live in a cardboard box?"

Of course it doesn't- economic systems don't "care" about such things.

The point is that capitalism/"the free market" has done more to lift more people out of poverty than any other economic system in history, and it's not close.

Yes, some will end up "living in cardboard boxes", but that's true of literally every economic system ever devised, and that ever will be devised.

burrrton wrote:I don't disagree that regulation is required in carefully applied amounts, but I bet this sht-show will be a perfect example of the free market working as it should ($20 says the game tanks).

Your knee-jerk instinct to "regulate" a tasteless video game is remarkable.

Games where you kill kids as an objective don't need to be on the market. Sorry, we won't agree on this. If it sells even one copy, it shouldn't be on the market.

Of course it doesn't- economic systems don't "care" about such things.

The point is that capitalism/"the free market" has done more to lift more people out of poverty than any other economic system in history, and it's not close.

Yes, some will end up "living in cardboard boxes", but that's true of literally every economic system ever devised, and that ever will be devised.

And where is the disagreement? I'm of the same mind as Churchill on capitalism. For all its flaws, capitalism is still the far superior system to any other. Why do you even continue act like you have something to argue against? You don't.

I love capitalism. But I know it needs to be regulated and monitored closely like any other system used by humans. Humans cause problems with every single system. Any time humans are involved, things should be watched or they might do something extremely bad for us as a whole.

I believe socio-capitalism is the best system, which is what every developed economy including the United States uses. We mix socialism and capitalism to form a society worth living in using a tax-based system. It's a huge balancing act and always will be. If the capitalists remove too many social safety nets and let too many people fall into poverty, then they will suffer badly and cause a very divided, poverty stricken society. If the socialists take too much from the capitalists ruining business growth, innovation, and incentive to create wealth, then we live in a very impoverished, divided, poverty stricken society.

And we definitely don't want capitalism to cause another trans-atlantic slave trade or socialism to cause another Nazi Germany or Stalinist purging. Humans can be very evil. If you're not watching, they can spread. Best to get rid of them before they start.

If it sells even one copy, it shouldn't be on the market.

If you're in favor of a free system, you take a chance on getting at least one copy from every dork that produces crap like that, and you know that the free market will make producing such things a ticket to the cardboard box you seem so worried about (abhorrent content isn't lucrative in a free market).

Just say thank you and quit fretting that people like that will end up there instead of subsidized in a nice home by your taxes.

I believe socio-capitalism is the best system, which is what every developed economy including the United States uses. We mix socialism and capitalism to form a society worth living in using a tax-based system. It's a huge balancing act and always will be.

We probably agree. The problem is people assume the presence of "socio-" at the beginning means they can lay claim to any and all levels of your productive output, rather than only that which is required for the essential functions of government.

Actually the unregulated free market worked pretty well, at least in this one case. After a huge nation wide outrage, the company that owns the online gaming store where the video was scheduled to release the active shooter game pulled it and banned the game's developer from selling products from their platform, describing the developer as "a troll with a history of customer abuse, publishing copyrighted materials, and user review manipulation." It makes you wonder how they ever jumped in bed with this developer in the first place.

The video game business seems really strange to me:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/activ ... ar-AAy1SQj

Actually the unregulated free market worked pretty well

Surprise!

burrrton wrote:Surprise!

The problem is that it only worked because of all the publicity given to it. There's laws prohibiting criminals from making a profit off their crime by publishing their account of it, there ought to be a way to outlaw something like this.

The problem is that it only worked because of all the publicity given to it.

Well, yeah- for the free market to affect something, it has to be aware of it, and if nobody is aware of it, there's not really a problem.

There's laws prohibiting criminals from making a profit off their crime by publishing their account of it, there ought to be a way to outlaw something like this.

What are you going to outlaw? Tastelessness?

burrrton wrote:We probably agree. The problem is people assume the presence of "socio-" at the beginning means they can lay claim to any and all levels of your productive output, rather than only that which is required for the essential functions of government.

There is where we are probably more in line. It's crossing over a little too far to the socialist side at the moment with people using their vote to take money from those they view as the "evil" rich, while being hypocrites watching movies on their cell phones, Tweeting, enjoying the most advanced medicine in the world, eating at their favorite fast food places, and the like while not acknowledging where these things come from. Pretty annoying to listen to some of this talk from Americans who should know better. Then again our education system does not do a good enough job educating our people on economics. It's a long time coming that economic education should be a huge part of our 12k education system.

RiverDog wrote:Actually the unregulated free market worked pretty well, at least in this one case. After a huge nation wide outrage, the company that owns the online gaming store where the video was scheduled to release the active shooter game pulled it and banned the game's developer from selling products from their platform, describing the developer as "a troll with a history of customer abuse, publishing copyrighted materials, and user review manipulation." It makes you wonder how they ever jumped in bed with this developer in the first place.

The video game business seems really strange to me:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/activ ... ar-AAy1SQj

We'll see. If this guy sells this game on some unregulated delivery system, makes money, and even one kid is influenced by this game to go on a school shooting rampage, I'll call it a failure. Like I said, a game where the objective is killing kids in a school or any other area need not be on the market. Same as you don't sell child porn. Just make it illegal and screw the scum that have some strange desire to partake of this activity even in an imaginary realm.

burrrton wrote:Well, yeah- for the free market to affect something, it has to be aware of it, and if nobody is aware of it, there's not really a problem.

What do you mean by aware? Just generally aware or do you mean possibly aware as in not done on the black market? I'm not sure how much you delve into free market activities, but there are some weird things out there that people making money selling.

What are you going to outlaw? Tastelessness?

Games where the killing of children is a primary objective? I'd be very ok outlawing that. It would get my vote. Push that to the black market and track the psychopaths that purchase such things.

Games where the killing of children is a primary objective? I'd be very ok outlawing that.

On what grounds? Again, tastelessness isn't illegal. Doing such a thing would redefine the term "slippery slope".

Just let it quietly die off like horrible things tend to do in a free society.

Push that to the black market and track the psychopaths that purchase such things.

I wouldn't have a problem with the purchase of this game being a red flag to the authorities (kinda like googling bomb-making plans, maybe?).

burrrton wrote:What are you going to outlaw? Tastelessness?

If they can outlaw a criminal from making money by writing a book on how he killed his victims, they can outlaw something like this.

I'm with ASF on this one. I don't see it as being that substansially different than child pornography.

RiverDog wrote: I don't see it as being that substansially different than child pornography.

Agreed. Some things are a danger to society and simply cannot be tolerated in the name of free speech or freedom of expression. This is one of those things.

I'm with ASF on this one. I don't see it as being that substansially different than child pornography.

Child pornography is a *crime*, and involves real people- what, specifically, would you charge the game-maker with, or what, specifically, would you propose making a crime here? Pretending to kill video characters 17 yoa and under?

Some things are a danger to society and simply cannot be tolerated in the name of free speech or freedom of expression. This is one of those things.

I of course see the point you guys are trying to make, and we're all horrified by the recent shootings, but I think you're all taking lightly the monumental leap you're proposing.

I don't think I'm underestimating the gravity of my position at all and I disagree that the involvement of live human beings is the line between criminality and freedom of expression; A video game scoring points for every baby raped world be on the same level as this one scoring for killing schoolchildren would it not?

Would you be arguing that as protected under the First Amendment?

I don't think I'm underestimating the gravity of my position at all and I disagree that the involvement of live human beings is the line between criminality and freedom of expression;

My point there was that there is a crime being committed- there is direct harm done to real people. I'll ask again: what crime do you want to charge this game-maker with (existing or what you'd propose) that doesn't boil down to "tastelessness"?

A video game scoring points for every baby raped world be on the same level as this one scoring for killing schoolchildren would it not?

You bet it would.

Would you be arguing that as protected under the First Amendment?

In a *video game*?? Of course I would! They wouldn't be actual babies being raped, etc. That a reasonable person like you *wouldn't* (at least after careful consideration) consider that protected speech is frankly a little frightening.

[edit]

Honest question: would you like to see Kathy Griffin locked up for what she did (the fake severed Trump head thing)?

Well it seems we disagree.

c_hawkbob wrote:Well it seems we disagree.

Fair enough.

I'm honestly curious now, though:

1. If you're lawmaker for a day, what law do you enact that would criminalize this?

2. Was what Kathy Griffin did a criminal act (or should it be prosecuted as such in a perfect world)?

burrrton wrote:1. If you're lawmaker for a day, what law do you enact that would criminalize this?

I honestly don't know how they'd word it, but if there's anything pols know how to do, it's create laws. Ban content that simulates criminal acts I suppose would be a good starting point. They would obviously have to handle video games differently than movies or television. If there's a will, there's a way.

2. Was what Kathy Griffin did a criminal act (or should it be prosecuted as such in a perfect world)?

Who's Kathy Griffin?

I honestly don't know how they'd word it

Neither do I, nor do I suspect Bob et al does.

That's kinda the question, though, since 'wording it' is what lawmakers have to do. "I really don't know what they'd say was illegal" isn't an answer, and only reinforces my point.

Take your time and tell me what you'd make illegal.

At what point does one have to ask, why is Burton fighting so hard to see the logic behind banning such FILTH unless HE WANTS TO PURCHASE/PLAY the game himself???

There is no "freedom of speech" when it comes to FILTH!

burrrton wrote:Take your time and tell me what you'd make illegal.

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how I'd word it.

They figured out how to ban texting on a cell phone while driving even though there were other distractions that caused accidents, so I would think that they'd be able to figure out how to word a law banning something such as the active shooter video.

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how I'd word it.

I'm not asking for the legalese.

They figured out how to ban texting on a cell phone while driving even though there were other distractions that caused accidents, so I would think that they'd be able to figure out how to word a law banning something such as the active shooter video.

Texting while driving is a real person presenting a real danger to other real people. I wouldn't.