Welcome to the Nanny State: Saints Row IV banned in Australia

[Michael]

And herein lies the crunch!
Your rowdy unreasonable paranoid and sanctimonious behaviour stems from the fact that no matter how long, or how hard you scream and shout about snivel liberties or the lack of them, you will not change the reasonable system we already have.

It was already made clear this video game can be patched to replace the content that was removed, it can be ordered on-line, it can be downloaded, and etc...

Oh, and there is no "We". The committee was composed of three people and "They" decided what ADULT Australians can see and hear. I personally find this not only insulting, but immoral. Because, at the end of the day - what you're saying is that you are willing to put a person in prison, a literal rape-cage, for the 'crime' of violating a 'regulation' regarding an aesthetic. If you really cared about the "We", then you'd support a free-market so that the market could determine if this "We" actually exists. For this video game, it means it wouldn't sell well, and the company would move onto different story lines. BUT, if it sold really well - then the "We" has spoken.

 

[Asguard]

It was already made clear this video game can be patched to replace the content that was removed, it can be ordered on-line, it can be downloaded, and etc...

Oh, and there is no "We". The committee was composed of three people and "They" decided what ADULT Australians can see and hear. I personally find this not only insulting, but immoral. Because, at the end of the day - what you're saying is that you are willing to put a person in prison, a literal rape-cage, for the 'crime' of violating a 'regulation' regarding an aesthetic. If you really cared about the "We", then you'd support a free-market so that the market could determine if this "We" actually exists. For this video game, it means it wouldn't sell well, and the company would move onto different story lines. BUT, if it sold really well - then the "We" has spoken.

And this just shows how little you know. 3 people didn't decide it, 809 elected representatives did. That's because the legislation for the ratings is passed by every state and territory AND the federal government because ratings are a state power which was referred to the federal government to ensure a nationally consistent approach. The decision was no more about 3 people than a court case is about 1 judge, its about the legislation.

 

[Michael]

And this just shows how little you know. 3 people didn't decide it, 809 elected representatives did. That's because the legislation for the ratings is passed by every state and territory AND the federal government because ratings are a state power which was referred to the federal government to ensure a nationally consistent approach. The decision was no more about 3 people than a court case is about 1 judge, its about the legislation.

Having 809 people isn't any different than 3 people in regards to my argument. Although, it should be noted it actually was 3 people who made the actual decision.

A Representative Government is elected to PROTECT civil liberties - not eliminated them through regulation. Worse still - this is a regulation on aesthetics.

 

[Balerion]

It's unfortunate that Michael has hijacked his own thread, rather than letting a thoughtful discussion on the subject happen without his insanity poisoning the well. I'd love to have a crack at James' silly inference about video games causing rape in the real world, for example.

 

[Balerion]

look i'm a gamer. hell i own saints row the third( and enjoy wearing the gimp suit beating hookers with the penetrator) don't really have a problem with this ban saints row like postal before it is pushing boundries if other think they went to far its cool for them to ban it. again saying this as a gamer who is generally not for banning things but their are limits.

And you're okay with someone deciding for you what the line is?

 

[paddoboy]

Oh, and there is no "We". The committee was composed of three people and "They" decided what ADULT Australians can see and hear. I personally find this not only insulting, but immoral. Because, at the end of the day - what you're saying is that you are willing to put a person in prison, a literal rape-cage, for the 'crime' of violating a 'regulation' regarding an aesthetic. If you really cared about the "We", then you'd support a free-market so that the market could determine if this "We" actually exists. For this video game, it means it wouldn't sell well, and the company would move onto different story lines. BUT, if it sold really well - then the "We" has spoken.

You can say it was only three people till the cows come home...That doesn't make an obvious lie the truth.
Again, the we is the majority of people that elect the government....Unlike you, I'm one of that we.

I abide by the will of the people in electing that government, whether it got my vote or not.
In this case I wholly support the conditions imposed on the video in question.

This is not about civil liberties or the lack thereof.
It's about the snivel liberties as detailed by some extremist with an obvious agenda.
Go peddle it somewhere else.



PS: It's rather pertinent to the subject in question, that I have seen nothing on Australian news broadcasts, read nothing in any newspapers, seen no protest anywhere in the streets, or had any friend or relative complain to me about Australians losing their liberties due to this matter....Just your ranting and raving through this thread.

 

[Asguard]

You can say it was only three people till the cows come home...That doesn't make an obvious lie the truth.
Again, the we is the majority of people that elect the government....Unlike you, I'm one of that we.

I abide by the will of the people in electing that government, whether it got my vote or not.
In this case I wholly support the conditions imposed on the video in question.

This is not about civil liberties or the lack thereof.
It's about the snivel liberties as detailed by some extremist with an obvious agenda.
Go peddle it somewhere else.



PS: It's rather pertinent to the subject in question, that I have seen nothing on Australian news broadcasts, read nothing in any newspapers, seen no protest anywhere in the streets, or had any friend or relative complain to me about Australians losing their liberties due to this matter....Just your ranting and raving through this thread.

well there was one post on the sex parties facebook page but even on there the numbers actually opposing the sex parties open slather approach was about 50% and I did see 2 overseas articles about it

 

[paddoboy]

CMAJ: Physical punishment of children: lessons from 20 years of research

Conclusions: Spanking lowers IQ, fosters aggression and increase episodes of depression.

Murray Straus, Professor of Sociology: The research found that the stress of corporal punishment shows up as an increase in post-traumatic stress symptoms such as being fearful that terrible things are about to happen and being easily startled. These symptoms are associated with lower IQ. How often parents spanked made a difference. The more spanking, the slower the development of the child’s mental ability. But even small amounts of spanking made a difference. IQs of children ages 2 to 4 who were not spanked were 5 points higher four years later than the IQs of those who were spanked. The IQs of children ages 5 to 9 years old who were not spanked were 2.8 points higher four years later than the IQs of children the same age who were spanked.


Children are universalizing machines. IF you tell a child 'this is a dog' they will see another animal, like a kangaroo, and say 'dog'. It's natural. It's how human's evolved to learn - take short cuts. One lesson a children would learn from spanking, is that in order to resolve a dispute, bigger people are allowed to hit smaller weaker people. Then they'd universalize this to other things, like big 'countries' are allowed to attack 'smaller' countries.

It should also be noted, many children who were spanked on a regular basis, have little or no memories before the age of 8. I was never spanked. My earliest memories are from age 3.5 and I have many memories at age 4 and on wards. When children, actually adults as well, are hit, this activates their amygdala - which is strongly connected to the forebrain and hippocampus. Activation often heightens memories of the event, or at least that an event happened, but distorts any higher order thinking that may have taken place. This means any so-called 'moral' lessons told to the child following the physical punishment, would be distorted. This is just a simple fact of neurochemistry. Memories are best formed in a calm well rested manner when good numbers of coincidence action potentials can occur in the hippocampus (temporary short term memory) - which is absolutely required to form a structured long term memory. Thus, a better approach to 'learning' would be to calmly ask the child to explain what had happened. Not why. Not who. But to ask them to describe 'what' had occurred. From there a logical conversation at the child's level can begin to take place.

I see that as probably just some new age philosophical clap trap.
Oh, and despite the well deserved corporal punishment dished out in my direction, both at home and at school....I have memories of my first day in Kindergarten at the age of 4 years, I have memories of my new born baby sister being presented to me when I was 5 years old, I have memories of around the same age of peering out my front window when it was pouring rain, counting the numbers of cars that went by with white-wall tyres, I have plenty of memories of songs in the early fifties when I was 7, 8, and 9 years, songs like "Tell me a Story [Frankie Lane and Jimmy Boyd] Not too bad for someone that had his arse lathered on the odd occasion Er?

 

[pjdude1219]

And you're okay with someone deciding for you what the line is?

society as a whole decides where the line is. just because I'm ok with something doesn't mean everyone else is

 

[venomatic]

Not a fan of SR4, but I do feel sorry for the Aussie gamers

 

[Michael]

I see that as probably just some new age philosophical clap trap.

If by clap-trap you mean correlation, than that is true. It's not possible to designate one group of children to be hit and anther not to be hit and maintain everything else the same - and then measure.

But, being spanked IS correlated with a lower IQ, an increased aggression and increase episodes of depression. This makes sense from a neuroanatomical perspective. Spanking causes fear and fear is related to aggression and depression. The 'fear' area of the brain is wired into the forebrain. The more induced fear - the stronger those connections.

This doesn't mean that every child who is hit is a depressed, aggressive, imbecile. It means there's a statistical correlation. There's many other aspects of society that may induce these outcomes. Maybe children who are placed in daycare from 6 weeks, will be found to have some unfavorable psychological outcomes? A recent study suggested as much. I suppose we'll know in 15-18 years.

 

[Balerion]

society as a whole decides where the line is. just because I'm ok with something doesn't mean everyone else is

Society doesn't make laws; lawmakers do. And I asked if you were okay with someone deciding what the line is for you.

 

[Asguard]

Society doesn't make laws; lawmakers do. And I asked if you were okay with someone deciding what the line is for you.

yes, that's why we live in a society. EVERY law is a "line", unless you are an anarchist like Michael (in which case try living in Sudan) we elect our representatives to make "lines" for society and to provide services

 

[Balerion]

yes, that's why we live in a society. EVERY law is a "line", unless you are an anarchist like Michael (in which case try living in Sudan) we elect our representatives to make "lines" for society and to provide services

Not every law is moral, and most laws don't take morality into consideration. Theft and murder, for example, are illegal because they impinge on another person's rights, not because God said not to do it, or because they go against any personal code. And there are plenty of laws on the books (I'm speaking of the US, but I'm sure the same is true in Australia) that are patently immoral by most people's measures.

So again, I ask if you are okay (this was originally directed at pjude, but you'll suffice) with your lawmakers deciding what is moral and what is not. And as a follow-up, why should your morality extend to me? Why should I be beholden to your perception of right and wrong?

 

[Asguard]

Not every law is moral, and most laws don't take morality into consideration. Theft and murder, for example, are illegal because they impinge on another person's rights, not because God said not to do it, or because they go against any personal code. And there are plenty of laws on the books (I'm speaking of the US, but I'm sure the same is true in Australia) that are patently immoral by most people's measures.

So again, I ask if you are okay (this was originally directed at pjude, but you'll suffice) with your lawmakers deciding what is moral and what is not. And as a follow-up, why should your morality extend to me? Why should I be beholden to your perception of right and wrong?

Once again, yes I am quite comfortable with pollies doing there job and providing services and passing laws. ESPECIALLY when those laws where the platform they were elected on. Seriously go and read the public consultation for the change in the Acts, this wasn't a move from the fundamentalist Christians, quite the opposite.

 

[Balerion]

Once again, yes I am quite comfortable with pollies doing there job and providing services and passing laws. ESPECIALLY when those laws where the platform they were elected on. Seriously go and read the public consultation for the change in the Acts, this wasn't a move from the fundamentalist Christians, quite the opposite.

That isn't what I asked you. I asked if you're comfortable with lawmakers deciding what you can and cannot watch, play, or listen to. Why can't you give me a straight answer?

 

[paddoboy]

That isn't what I asked you. I asked if you're comfortable with lawmakers deciding what you can and cannot watch, play, or listen to. Why can't you give me a straight answer?

And how efficient do you think governments would be if they had to come back and ask the general populace if this or if that should or should not be allowed?
Or if they should give any movie producer or video maker carte blanche on what he or she could sell?
As Asguard has said, that's all part and parcel of what we elect governments for. And if they chose to ban or regulate something the majority do not agree with, well they need to be wary of the next elections, don't they?
And if by chance they do something really against the vast majority of the electorate, we also have other means to get reasonable satisfaction before the election.

We have in Australia the Liberal Opposition party who at this stage, looks like romping in our Federal election in 3 weeks time.
But even though in principal they are against our current Medicare scheme which was established by a Labor government in 1973, there is no way on this Earth they would attempt to dismantle it.
There would be [as they well know] mass protests on a scale that has never been seen in this country since the Vietnam protests.

 

[Michael]

And how efficient do you think governments would be if they had to come back and ask the general populace if this or if that should or should not be allowed?
Or if they should give any movie producer or video maker carte blanche on what he or she could sell?
As Asguard has said, that's all part and parcel of what we elect governments for. And if they chose to ban or regulate something the majority do not agree with, well they need to be wary of the next elections, don't they?
And if by chance they do something really against the vast majority of the electorate, we also have other means to get reasonable satisfaction before the election.

No, they don't need to be wary.

Sugar Tariffs is the classic example. A few cane sugar families have a near monopoly on cane sugar and work hand-in-glove with government to prevent importation of sugar. This costs each American around $15 or so per person per year. Which isn't enough of an incentive to break this particular monopoly. So those families rake in a few billion a year extra. Thus, companies have shifted to HFCS (even in AU) - which could explain the differences in diabetes between the USA and AU (which used to mainly use sugar cane but is now using HFCS) Diabetes is now on the increase in AU - where you're much more likely to end up having your foot amputated. The fact is, per individual the cost is too low to do anything per item.

So, the evidence suggests you are completely wrong.

Most people (99.999999999999%) will never make the connection with having their foot amputated off in Australia with sugar cane families in the USA. It's just too complex and the system too convoluted (see: the entire Banking industry).


When added all up, all these regulations - across the entire spectrum (there is nothing left in the market that is not regulated) and we have a decreasing standard of living and an estimated loss of $40 TRILLION dollars per year in the USA alone. I imagine, all those problems people are generally worried about, could be solves with that extra dough PER YEAR. We'd probably have colonies on Mars by now. And I'm positive most, if not all, diseases would have been nearly eradicated.




Banning one game really isn't the point, the point is what we lose when we resort to violating real civil liberties in the name of an illusionary 'collective'. Maintaining your illusions are costing you, your children's and your grandchildren's future prosperity.

 

[paddoboy]

No, they don't need to be wary.



So, the evidence suggests you are completely wrong.


Banning one game really isn't the point, the point is what we lose when we resort to violating real civil liberties in the name of an illusionary 'collective'. Maintaining your illusions are costing you, your children's and your grandchildren's future prosperity.

Yes they bloody well do, No I'm bloody well not, and that's a whole heap of crap!

But keep slugging away....

 

[James R]

Michael,

Do you have some good evidence of this being a "problem"?

Maybe "problem" was the wrong word. But it's a difference that makes your film analogy suspect.

The fact is, as violent video games have become more accessible, this is correlated with a less violent society.

Yes, and the decline in the number of pirates that exist is correlated with an increase in the mean temperature of the planet.

Society is much less violent in 2010 compared with 1970 - as an example. Violence is reduced as society become more prosperous. Which is rather ironic, given you're making an argument that societies should have less civil freedoms - which is the very definition of decreased prosperity.

I doubt whether it's about prosperity. One possibility is that violence decreases as society becomes more equal. I have a book sitting on my shelf on this very topic, waiting to be read, so I may have to get back to you with a more educated opinion later.

As to my argument that societies should have fewer civil freedoms, I can't recall putting that. I thought it was you who was attempting to make an argument here.

This is incorrect. It's up to THREE bureaucrats to decide what THEY want Australian society to be.

Which three?

IF it were a question of what kind of society Australians want, then it's be LEFT UP TO AUSTRALIANS TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES. But you don't want that do you? It sort of says something about your view on society itself. Interesting that.

Australians elect a government. The government appoints people to the Classification Board etc. I guess we could imagine a direct-vote system rather than representative democracy. I believe there was even a Senate ticket for something like that in the most recent Federal election. Would I want government policy determined by the equivalent of the number of Facebook "likes"? I'm not sure. Probably not. Call it interesting if you like.

I know this is a bit difficult to understand being two sentences and all:

I'm the one arguing for YOUR Civil Rights.
You're the one arguing AGAINST your Civil Rights.

Simple enough?

You're arguing that I should buy into your neoliberal American notion that the individual should always trumps the collective, and/or that I ought to be more libertarian than I am. I disagree with you. Simple enough?

There is no 'collective'. While it may help you to think in terms of 'society' or 'Australia' or whatever - at the end of the day, this is a semantic shortcut. What's aesthetically 'good' for one person may or may not be the same for the next. Each person will have their own preferences. So long as they do not harm other people - then it's really none of yours or another else's business.

There's the rub, then. What we need to establish is what kinds of things are likely to lead to hard to other people, and what kinds of things won't. Your claim is that playing this video game that encourages the use of a rape gun won't have any negative effects on anybody - or something like that. I think it might. So, where to from here?

So, what IS the type of society "I" want versus "Australians" (of which I am one - as I'm also a part of "society").

Well, I'd like a society with maximum Civil Liberties based on the non-aggression principle, with sound money, Law and protection of private property - beginning with one's own body.

That sounds like rampant individualism to me.

I'd like a society where children are not hit as a form of "discipline".

Ok. So we agree on one thing, at least.

I'd like a society where people can move and live anywhere on the Earth they're welcome to.

Isn't that already the case? Or am I missing something?

I'd like a society where we're not in a 12 year forgotten War, where single individuals can unilaterally use drones to kill 10-12 women and children while attempting to kill a "Target". To me, any society who looks the other way while this is happening, is a very very sick society. Probably one that uses physical punishment as a means to 'Teach' children to be 'Good Patriotic Citizens' and to think of themselves in terms of 'Citizen'.

Society of any type depends on people thinking of themselves as citizens. The alternative is anarchy. As to killing kids with drones and all that ... well, I'm against it.

I'd like to live in a society where children are cared for and raised by their parents - not dumped off at the age of 6 weeks in an infant supervision center.

Are you going to enforce that? Wouldn't that clash with your libertarian values that say let parents do what they want? They should be allowed to decide how best to raise their own kids, shouldn't they? According to you? Are you advocating Nannying the parents?

I'd like a society were people living in said society can communicate without their government spying on them.

Again, giving up some privacy necessarily goes along with choosing to live harmonious with other people.

But, we don't live in that sort of society - and, we are not going to live in that society for many many generations; maybe never.

Not when some of the things you suggest are anathema to having something called "society" in the first place.

As I've said in the past, and I'll say again, the ONLY thing anyone can do is raise their children peacefully and to think logically. Hopefully they'll then be able to see past semantic bs like "for the Glory of Australian Society", "The Glory of the Gods", "For Uncle Sam" and other such nonsense. Many people have died believing such childish fairy tales.

So you want to abolish nations and patriotism and all that. Ok. And replace it with what? How will your one-world society function? Government by majority Facebook likes?

Your Nanny is murdering woman and children in other countries, spying on 'its' people, tossing some of 'its' people in rape-cages for consuming an herb, sells 30 year bonds on your children, inflating away your savings, taxing your labor - BUT, it will pay you some 'labor tax credits' to 'help' you put your 6 week old infant into a day supervision factory so you can get back to work making those mortgage payments.

Yes, your "ideal" society - indeed.

Be careful you don't put people into ready-made buckets, Michael. Your own declared values say we're all individuals with a range of opinions on different topics. Yet you seem to want to pigeon-hole people. Isn't that a contradiction?


Balerion:

I'd love to have a crack at James' silly inference about video games causing rape in the real world, for example.

I don't think I inferred anything as strong as causation. But crack away if you like. We'll see how it goes.