Hotline Miami 2 Devs Remove "Rape Scene" From Demo

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
 

NeedsaBetterName22:

Yeah, I think I'll skip this debate, and just point out why: Your first rape point makes no sense in the context of your larger argument. By contextualizing it on the grounds of will you act as if people are willingly murdered. Also, by making that statement you're stating an objective moral definition, which breaks your whole argument again. Another logical fallacy, mostly likely based on your emotional opinions towards rape. All your arguments in legality towards murder can be equally applied to rape, as what constitutes rape is established by laws and vary between states (Sweden, for example, has completely different consent laws to that of the U.S., and thus grounds its notion of 'willingly' differently). Your own central argument discredits your point.

The context of my larger argument is that rape and murder are SEPERATE words confined by SEPERATE definitions and requirements for them to be true. Rape being a matter of the will of the individual, while Murder is a construct of the rule of law. I am not sure why you are taking what I am saying about murder and applying it to rape and vice versa. Another part of that context is that killing can be justified whereas rape cannot. Unjustified killing is what we commonly refer to as "murder". We typically rely on the rule of law to determine whether that justification has been met. The rule of law concerning murder however changes depending on location and political environment and therefore can be subjective. The fact that Sweden and the US have different consent laws is irrelevant, unless Swedish law says that a adult can be raped even though that adult contends they were willing the entire time even in front the court. In fact I will go so far to say that the subjective rule of law can make rape a subjective term. We could use morality to determine/measure the justification of homicide, but which set of morals do we use? Once again we run into subjectivity issues.

I may have identified the source of our disagreement. What you would call "murder" outside the rule of law I would call "willful homicide", especially after looking up the definition of murder and seeing that it is dependent on the rule of law for that definition to be satisfied,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder?s=t
unless you go by this definition "5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously." Which would invalidate YOUR assertion that killing in self defense is not murder, because you can certainly kill someone inhumanly or barbarously even in self defense or during wartime, etc.

'The lack of a winner' is also a massive logical fallacy. By using 'lack of a winner' to point to morals being subjective, you're just assuming a winner. Once again, circular reasoning (the 'lack of a winner' shows that moral subjectivity is correct therefore there is a 'winner' because there is a 'lack of a winner').

Then tell me, O enlightened one, who has established objective morality, and what does it entail?

In regards to the 'laws establish morals' argument, I'm discussing this in the context you offered. You stated that morals were subjective, and then pointed to definitions of murder as an example of how murder is determined by the state, and thus is not objective. However, even in the context of subjective morals, your argument concludes that laws establish or at least reinforce subjective moral standards. You're using this as evidence to back up your point, and then disregard or refuse to support the logical conclusions of your argument.

Laws can establish/reinforce morality, but not always. You once again are fabricating "logical conclusions" I never made that you then use to discredit what I am trying to say. You should try to focus more on what I am actually saying rather than trying to construct abstractions that you can conveniently shoot down. I believe this is the very definition of a "straw man argument".

I'm patronizing largely because I feel you're intellectually dishonest in your statements. You establish definitions, then change those definitions or discredit them in order to state something else, only to go back and validate your previous statement. You also continue to use circular reasoning to back up your points and then cite it as 'evidence'. I'll openly drop the argument in your favour just to prevent you from arguing nonsensical points at me.

You'd make a good lawyer or politician. You are very good at finding or creating weaknesses in other people's statements then exploiting them, rather than arguing the content of those statements. I am not going to bother to call you "intellectually dishonest" because only you know if you are being deceitful. And if you are, then you aren't exactly going to admit to it.

There was no rape scene first of all, there was a scene where rape was implied to be ABOUT to happen, and then was revealed to be part of a movie shoot.
In any case I trust these guys to use this stuff to make a point, in fact the response and discussion it has prompted makes me think it is a very good point to make and something we should be thinking about ourselves.

Jarimir:

The context of my larger argument is that rape and murder are SEPERATE words confined by SEPERATE definitions and requirements for them to be true. Rape being a matter of the will of the individual, while Murder is a construct of the rule of law.

I may have identified the source of our disagreement. What you would call "murder" outside the rule of law I would call "willful homicide", especially after looking up the definition of murder and seeing that it is dependent on the rule of law for that definition to be satisfied

No murder is not a construct of law, what constitutes justification for killing is actually a construct of personal legality/morality. It is of course dependent on law in the sense that a legal precedent is required to vindicate this morality and give it worth, but a murder is still a murder even if there is no legal precedent by which you can achieve justice for the crime. But if you want to argue that this dependency on law makes murder a legal construct you cannot not argue that rape is not also a legal construct. A persons right to consent and to have personal freedom are of course moralistic and not legal concepts, but they are entirely dependent on law to vindicate them in the same way as it is required for murder.
This why I think your distinction is entirely erroneous, as an analogy imagine a post-apoc world where there is no legal system. Now if someone kills someone unjustly you would say this cannot constitute murder because there is no rule of law to hold him to account or to establish this killing as unjust as opposed to just. So why is rape different? If someone forces someone to have sex with them in this world it is surely not rape because there is no rule of law to establish a persons right to their own personal freedom.

Another part of that context is that killing can be justified whereas rape cannot.

Interesting that you seem to argue morality is subjective but then force your view that rape cannot be justified as if it where objective truth.

Unjustified killing is what we commonly refer to as "murder". We typically rely on the rule of law to determine whether that justification has been met.

Except that's not true and it only seems that way because people in the west largely agree with their Government's view of what constitutes murder, but there are clear cases where people have a large disagreement with the state for what is 'legal' e.g a Government that has capital punishment or one that commits genocide, these are not established as murder in the Government's own legal system but clearly do constitute murder to any sane citizens who holds his government legally accountable.

Here's a good video of Noam Chomsky explaining the difference between what is personally legal and what the state defines as legal.

Does not matter. Game will be amazing and this is pretty old news.

Also how does murdering tons of dudes not prove to be slightly offensive? Hell Hotline Miami was one of those games that pushed the boundaries and I loved it.

EDIT: I'mma let you finish, but Hotline Miami had one of the best stories of all time. As well as a beast mode soundtrack

Jarimir:

Ok, ok, I admit to using an "extreme" edge to try to prove my point. I don't feel it was an overreaction, per se. And I was merely venting my frustration at the people who demonize the feminism movement and concoct paranoid conspiracy theories about their actions independent of definitive knowledge of their actual involvement or intent. Your follow-up statement clearly places you outside of that group. I apologize for any implication that you were part of that group. I certainly didn't mean to say that you were. We both seem to be bothered by the level of vitriolic hyperbole that boils up over this issue.

I am not sure why you are offended by the "social media" comment. In my experience I have seen many people in many walks of life claim things have gotten worse when in reality it's only been increased media exposure of something that's been happening all along with either the same frequency or even a declining frequency. I sometimes have to remind myself of this. If this forum and other forums were not so prevalent these "toxic discussions" would be happening with less frequency and they would have a smaller audience. "Social justice warriors" use social media for communication between themselves and as a platform to broadcast their ideas.

Specifically I hopped into this thread because I wanted to defend the exchange that happened between the developers and the people that were bothered by the content of their demo. Not every artist creates for an audience or is concerned with the reaction of an audience, but these developers are. It can be hard to judge the reaction of other people to things. The developers of this game did seem genuinely surprised at the reaction their demo received. It wasn't the reaction they wanted. They made changes accordingly.

I too fail to see the problem or need for a "toxic discussion", nor would I characterize the original exchange as a "shitstorm". I do leave open the possibility that it might have been. The content of the article at best uses incomplete/inconclusive evidence.

Well thanks for apologizing.

I took the social media comment badly because i though you were implying i was narrow minded or something. I also thought you were talking about the Feminism and sexism thing in general.

I came to this forum because usually people go of saying that if they changed it, it was probably shit or they didn't believe in it in the first place regardless if the creator was harassed or not because if the creator thought it was good they wouldn't have succumbed, I thought you were saying something like that but you've now made it clear you are talking about this situation so I'm sorry for the misinterpretation it seems I have made a mistake

Oh, please. Stick to your guns, Devolver, going back on your decision that has overall no effect on the actual game is weaksauce. Don't change your mind right before the game is released.

great... f*cking great
thanks internet, making sure mature games don't handle mature themes

Yay for censorship by mob rule!

Lee Oyd:
Eight pages of bollocks. It's almost certainly too late, but here's a short heads-up for you manchildren:

Thank you for your precious Cheeto-gobbling time.

Well then clearly you haven't played HM since all the killings your character commits are murders and there is not a single instance of self defense.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here