Or against "most games involving killing, you're up against equally armed opponents motivated to kill you", such as games that encourage you to go "safari" and kill endangered species (Calabera, etc). How about, /, /killing.html.Īnd, since the game being discussed does not seem to utilize guns, how about killing games that involve cars, plane, trains, boats. Chinese morals are so much better because their economy is better, Tom: As for games that allow you to hunt and kill people. Obviously, Nepal and Tibet need to have the strong support of their largest neighbor. A government must ensure that everyone is morally upright and that unworthy elements are against the law and properly imprisioned, no?Ĥ.
![rapelay game running slow rapelay game running slow](https://gamefabrique.com/screenshots2/pc/rapelay-17.big.jpg)
Iran "censorship" and "social injustice". The Taliban's kind influence on the country was completely justified as it brought true moral uprightness to the land after all, they ensured GTA was banned there, right?ģ. Without Bush/Blair, Iraq would be a lawless land of bloodshed and paramilitary conflict. US and UK involvement are making the difference between terror in the streets and the quiet peace they enjoy today. If you feel that this is *in any way* justified, then you must stop complaining about:ġ.
RAPELAY GAME RUNNING SLOW SERIES
Who are these organizations that can influence overseas companies more profoundly than national governments? A series of searches finds this story everywhere in gaming culture sites, but it all seems to just echo back and forth with no new information about who these powerful groups are that finally laid down the hammer. "civil right campaigners", "women's groups", "protest campaigns". Why it is in Reg Hardware? (b) This may be construed as a rant please accept it with the satire and venom with which it was intended. This is a purely social and policital-economic article. (a) This is not a hardware article nor review of hardware equipment/device. a female point of view would provide excellent balance. Thirdly, it is interesting that those comments above with names supplied are made exclusively by males. but if the question is "is it wrong to pretend to sexually assault a person who exists only in the imagination?", i would submit that the culture posing the question should look at itself very deeply first, before passing judgement on the other, particularly when those under review belong to a culture not only much older, but also very different from their own. yes, this sort of material may well attract a certain type of person. this should be especially true when the subject matter is nothing more than a product of the imagination. these both seem unthinkable to us now but fashion, culture and morality are merely different faces of the same coin - we should not be so ready to judge others by our own fleeting standards.Īlthough deep down humans may share an innate sense of 'good', one must remember that what seems culturally abhorrent to one group may not be seen to be so to another and for a group from outside one culture to preach tolerance on one hand, whilst attempting to enforce conformism with the other should make us wary of such peoples' motives.
![rapelay game running slow rapelay game running slow](https://www.gameslikee.com/data/games/21977/89d19f68686b8c2ea9bd642a9a1eb41b.jpg)
so severe were the victorians, that only 100 years ago people were covering the legs of their own dining tables with lace doilies, lest men get excited by pieces of carved wood. the meaning individuals may ascribe to these symbols and their subsequent compatibility may depend entirely on the culture in which the individual exists.Īn excellent example has been made above regarding the public display of females' legs in many islamic societies aroudnt he world, today: compare the 'outmoded' islamic fashion for women wearing the hijab/niqab with victorian britains's attitude to public displays of any female flesh. the same could be said to be true of paedophilia: two diametrically opposed ideas, when mixed together, have the ability to deeply offend our moral sensibilities and beliefs of what is 'normal' and therefore, acceptable. it is this inherent symbolic incompatibility that causes our revulsion. it would seem to me that the truly shocking thing about rape is the combination of these two fundamentally incongruent behaviours: violence is (generally speaking) in diametric opposition to (normal, loving) sex and vice versa. to generalise once again, sex (usually) involves two partners of opposite gender participating in a mutually respectful and loving act. to generalise, violence is an impersonal, brutal, essentially male characteristic. Secondly, ian makes a valid point in some respects, however i don't think the issue in this context is one of violence in and of itself, but of the relationship of violence to sex. Firstly, i would like to state that i am not for censorship but i am also not for degradation of any human being, male or female.