Was the Little Big Planet Recall Really Necessary?

[Doctor Setebos]

By now, we're all quite aware that the PS3-exclusive heavyweight Little Big Planet has been delayed (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?t=1336) so that Sony can remove passages from the Qur'an that were inadvertently included in the game. Supposedly, this move was designed to prematurely derail any controversy that might arise from a potentially offended Muslim community.

However, at least one person has voiced concerns that the delay was unnecessary, and perhaps even counterproductive, to the ongoing theological debate of religious overtones in commercial media. And this concern comes from a rather unlikely source: M. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D., president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.

“Muslims cannot benefit from freedom of expression and religion and then turn around and ask that anytime their sensibilities are offended that the freedom of others be restricted. The free market allows for expression of disfavor by simply not purchasing a game that may be offensive.”

Source - Edge (http://www.edge-online.com/features/muslim-group-condemns-lbp-%E2%80%9Ccensorship%E2%80%9D)

[TheFlyingOrc]

Absolutely not necessary. Might have been a good move for the company's PR, but the fact that society has a problem with it is nuts.

[Johan]

Of course, I and others were wrong for suggesting the same thing. :rolleyes: The holiest of Christian symbols are regularly and routinely pissed and shit upon in the West (AND the East); LITERALLY.

Get over it. True freedom actually necessitates the recognition that one's personal offense is NOT ENOUGH to lead to the censoring of others' behavior or life.

[Gorvi]

Necessary or not it still makes me a sad panda.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Of course, I and others were wrong for suggesting the same thing. :rolleyes: The holiest of Christian symbols are regularly and routinely pissed and shit upon in the West (AND the East); LITERALLY.

Get over it. True freedom actually necessitates the recognition that one's personal offense is NOT ENOUGH to lead to the censoring of others' behavior or life.

I don't think many people disagreed with your viewpoint, but rather your ranting and raving for post after post.

[QUOTE=Gorvi;37166]Necessary or not it still makes me a sad panda.[/QUOTE

I am really glad that quote from a random South Park episode has entered the geek consciousness.

[Johan]

I don't think many people disagreed with your viewpoint, but rather your ranting and raving for post after post.

Bullshit. I rationally and logically presented my view. Bullshit. You don't like the fact that I defend my position and restate it? Don't read it.

Or, I suppose you're offended...and therefore would like your feelings honored above my own right to express my views. :rolleyes: Irony.

[LongStepMantis]

If everything was truly treated equally, then absolutely not.

But nowadays, anything that even has a hint of Islamic content seems to have the manufacturers bomb proofing their buildings.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Bullshit. I rationally and logically presented my view. Bullshit. You don't like the fact that I defend my position and restate it? Don't read it.
I honestly agreed with what you were saying. I didn't need to hear it restated exactly some dozen times. Quit making this a personal attack. I disagreed with your behavior. Either agree with me and change it or disagree with me and keep on.

[Widgetcraft]

I think pretty much everyone agrees with this... except the most extreme Muslim fundamentalists; the ones who'll kill you over something like this. I still don't think one should give into the threat of terrorism, for obvious reasons, but we're talking about a corporation here. There was never any debate about what their course of action would be.

[Gorvi]

I am really glad that quote from a random South Park episode has entered the geek consciousness.
\Oh, it's not random. Sexual Harrassment Panda is a certified badass.


Ok, maybe not, but at least it's better than Chuck Norris.

[Johan]

Free speech is not free if it's on one group's terms, and this is happening already in the West. The cartoons from Denmark were not reprinted in the United States specifically so as not to cause offense. Other similar situations have arisen.

Frankly, it's an unbelievable double-standard and an erosion of the basic premise that the things seen as unassailable within one's culture and the broader world and marketplace of ideas are some of the very things that art is supposed to comment on, satirize, mock, humiliate, and abuse...in the name of free expression.

Quit making this a personal attack.

WHAT? :confused:

I didn't even reply to you until you attacked me and said I was ranting and raving. Quit attacking ME!!!

[LongStepMantis]

\Oh, it's not random. Sexual Harrassment Panda is a certified badass.


Ok, maybe not, but at least it's better than Chuck Norris.

Chuck Norris is played out. The new hotness is Van DAMMEAGE!

http://www.dtm.at/Reviews/Bilder/bloodsport03.jpg

[johnperkins21]

Nobody has the right to not be offended. This is total bullshit, and I will not be buying the game now due to this blatant form of censorship. I was looking forward to this game more than any other this year, and now I will never buy it.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Nobody has the right to not be offended. This is total bullshit, and I will not be buying the game now due to this blatant form of censorship. I was looking forward to this game more than any other this year, and now I will never buy it.
This is also stupid.

[Mike Kelehan]

No, it wasn't necessary at all.

Nobody has the right to not be offended. This is total bullshit, and I will not be buying the game now due to this blatant form of censorship. I was looking forward to this game more than any other this year, and now I will never buy it.

It's not censorship if you do it to your own product. Sony decided that it would make more people unhappy than happy, and so they changed it.

[Johan]

This is also stupid.

Second attack post this thread. You should stop.

It's not censorship if you do it to your own product.

Actually, it is indeed censorship; it's SELF censorship (in this case, the "self" is a corporation). Now, it may indeed be that they will garner more goodwill from Muslims than bad feelings from non-Muslims over this (that is yet to be seen and/or determined), but it is indeed a form of censorship.

It was also censorship when newspapers across America decided not to print the Danish cartoons. It was self-censoring, of course, but it's censoring nonetheless. The point is that one segment of a particular religious group is in fact determining to some extent what everyone else is exposed to, through fear, intimidation, and the like. That's just the reality.

I'm done with this thread. I'll leave it to the excusers/rationalizers/panderers to pick up the pieces. I'll continue to call it as I see it...they caved. It may work in their favor, but they did indeed cave.

[violent]

It happened with Ocarina of Time. Did we ever figure out if it was necessary back then?

[Gorvi]

Nobody has the right to not be offended. This is total bullshit, and I will not be buying the game now due to this blatant form of censorship. I was looking forward to this game more than any other this year, and now I will never buy it.
That's a little much, don't ya think? If you're looking forward to the game that much something as trivial as a one week delay to remove something that some might find offensive in an E rated game shouldn't really effect your buying decision. You're the one who's going to be missing out on a fun game.

Heck, if something as little as this bothers you that much, how do you deal with real problems in day to day life?

[Morratut]

If they didn't take it out someone would've kicked off. I would've kept it in. People shouldn't be so highly strung.

It's sad but I think a lot of companies would've done the same thing nowadays.

[Schnoogs]

Of course it wasn't necessary but we're now supposed to treat the Muslim community like children who will throw a violent tantrum at the slightest provocation or in this case an exercise in free speech and artistic creativity.

Tolerance of the intolerant will get us nowhere.

[Siraris]

Second attack post this thread. You should stop.

You need to cut this out Johan, if you want to continue to post on this site. I appreciate some of your thoughts, and I actually agree with you on the LittleBigPlanet issue, but you are antagonizing other users for no reason, and trying to play the victim when you incite most of the problems in the first place. I'm going to ask you to please stop, as you are creating an atmosphere of hostility that is totally unproductive to the process.

[Abednigo]

Of course, I and others were wrong for suggesting the same thing. :rolleyes: The holiest of Christian symbols are regularly and routinely pissed and shit upon in the West (AND the East); LITERALLY.

Get over it. True freedom actually necessitates the recognition that one's personal offense is NOT ENOUGH to lead to the censoring of others' behavior or life.

Agreed, but the problem is that it almost always happens with Islamic symbols, and especially with the "prophet" himself. Jesus is, as you said, routinely mocked in horribly crude ways. As a Christian I don't like it, but people are entitled to draw whatever they want. It's their constitutional right. Who am I to stand in the way of that or censor that? I can not like it, but I'm not going to threaten the artist, or the publication that prints it, with death.

The precident has been established already:

Mock Christ/Christian symbols = YAY FREE SPEECH!!
Mock Mohammad/Islamic symbols = HATEMONGER AND BIGOT!!

HUH?! :rolleyes:

A clear double standard if I ever saw one.

[bapenguin]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

One Muslim group wanted it pulled, the other said it's limiting freedom of speech.

Go figure.

[violent]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

One Muslim group wanted it pulled, the other said it's limiting freedom of speech.

Go figure.

The gaming industry. 2 fat guys, one Twinkie.

[johnperkins21]

This is also stupid.

Why? Because I believe so strongly in the right to free speech that I'm actually willing to do something about it? I see this as an affront to free speech, and am speaking out with my dollars and a letter to the publisher.

You are free to disagree with me, for now. However, if crap like this, and the stupid Dunkin Donuts fiasco continue, only popular, unoffensive speech will be allowed. Do we really want that? Who decides what is offensive?

Heck, if something as little as this bothers you that much, how do you deal with real problems in day to day life?

I don't think this is little. It's a small part of a larger problem. When I see my right to free speech slowly eroding away as more and more things that could be seen as offensive are censored, I take that very seriously.

[Savok]

Idiotic self censorship aside, why even put anything from holy texts into a song unless you're a Christian rock band?

Ok, I admit Song of Songs/Solomon could work, but then just about everything written after 1970 is about doing it anyway, it'd kinda get lost in the crowd.

[Inspector Fowler]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

One Muslim group wanted it pulled, the other said it's limiting freedom of speech.

Go figure.

It's almost like....almost like....Muslims are all individual people! Without a single voice or person to talk for them!

Oh, wait, they are.

This kind of stuff happens all the time, when community "leaders" decide they speak for a whole group, and for what offends that whole group. We also end up with (and I am guilty of this sometimes) stereotypes and views of other people based off that so-called leader.

I've been talking about my religious views in another thread - I would be very upset if somebody else started claiming they represented my views without my okay.

If Sony wanted to waste a few millions dollars to make a subset of a group of people happy, that's their business decision. I, and others, may have found it pretty stupid, and even insulting, but it was their choice.

[Telefrog]

The precident has been established already:

Mock Christ/Christian symbols = YAY FREE SPEECH!!
Mock Mohammad/Islamic symbols = HATEMONGER AND BIGOT!!

HUH?! :rolleyes:

A clear double standard if I ever saw one.

Whose fault is that precedent? Is it the Muslims for insisting that the Q'uran be venerated and respected, or the Christians for slowly allowing their holy book to be mocked?

Here's an anecdote. My wife works for a national chain bookstore as a reader. She reads a lot of stuff and then has to decide how to merchandise it in the stores, how to classify it, etc.

Check the religious section of the larger bookstores. Check where the Q'uran is kept compared to how the Bible is merchandised.

You should find that the Q'uran is never, ever allowed to be stocked on the bottom shelf of the displays. It can never be on the bottom of a table under other books. If there is a pyramid display, it can never be anywhere but the top of the stack.

None of these restrictions hold true for the Bible. Why is that? Is it the Muslim's fault that they have consistently safeguarded their holy book while Christians did not? Should we apply our own disregard for the Bible to other people's religions?

[Johan]

You need to cut this out Johan

I didn't attack anyone. The person who said I was ranting and raving brought to THIS thread ANOTHER thread, without my having said a thing to him. He subsequently called another poster stupid.

If there's any hostility, it's not from me. Your calling me out is bias on your part.

Whose fault is that precedent? Is it the Muslims for insisting that the Q'uran be venerated and respected, or the Christians for slowly allowing their holy book to be mocked?

The only fault of Christians is in helping create a society where people are free to do as they please, and subsequently to allow their most cherished symbols to be abused in defense of that freedom.

Most sane people realize that true freedom does indeed require that no one group has the right to impose its views of offense and conduct upon others.

I'm sure you're not suggesting that we need a segment of Christian society which will kill in order to obtain its way in such things. That is indeed part of the fear that exists toward one part of the Muslim community, but that's not what we would want, I would hope.

[Schnoogs]

It's almost like....almost like....Muslims are all individual people! Without a single voice or person to talk for them!

Oh, wait, they are..

Unfortunately for us SOME of them seem to speak their opinions more loudly and violently.

Noone is suggesting they are all like minded.

[Schnoogs]

Whose fault is that precedent? Is it the Muslims for insisting that the Q'uran be venerated and respected, or the Christians for slowly allowing their holy book to be mocked??


Let me get this straight...you're now suggesting that freedom of speech actually represents a weakness in Christian and western thought??

Wow...I've lived to see it all now. :confused:

[Widgetcraft]

Whose fault is that precedent? Is it the Muslims for insisting that the Q'uran be venerated and respected, or the Christians for slowly allowing their holy book to be mocked?

Here's an anecdote. My wife works for a national chain bookstore as a reader. She reads a lot of stuff and then has to decide how to merchandise it in the stores, how to classify it, etc.

Check the religious section of the larger bookstores. Check where the Q'uran is kept compared to how the Bible is merchandised.

You should find that the Q'uran is never, ever allowed to be stocked on the bottom shelf of the displays. It can never be on the bottom of a table under other books. If there is a pyramid display, it can never be anywhere but the top of the stack.

None of these restrictions hold true for the Bible. Why is that? Is it the Muslim's fault that they have consistently safeguarded their holy book while Christians did not? Should we apply our own disregard for the Bible to other people's religions?

No one here is worried about Muslims protesting the game because they find it offensive, just as your wife's company isn't worried about offending normal Muslims by placing the Q'uran below other books; they're worried about getting killed by fringe lunatics. That is not acceptable in a free society, I don't really give a shit how offended you are. Civil protests are how such grievances are supposed to be dealt with.

The problem is that we no longer have to deal with only our society; other people from outside want to have a say in how the West behaves. This could be in large part because we want to have a say in how their societies treat their citizens as well.

[Schnoogs]

This could be in large part because we want to have a say in how their societies treat their citizens as well.

I think it's more a sign of weakness. White guilt...liberal political correctness. Tolerance without bounds.

[Widgetcraft]

I think it's more a sign of weakness. White guilt...liberal political correctness. Tolerance without bounds.

Personally, I believe that they want as little contact with us as possible, so that they can propagate their oppressive society in isolation. We're not content with letting that happen, so over the past half-century or so we've been meddling with the East to try to make them more like us. Personally, I don't fundamentally disagree with the motives behind such action, but I doubt it's effectiveness and know that it's consequences (backlash against us from luddites and the people at the top in such countries) are grave. This has lead to private entities in our society becoming overly cautious towards Muslims as they know that they're a group looking for a reason to attack, and reinforce their agenda of pushing the West out of the East.

It's not that they take offense to something like the content in Little Big Planet, it's that they want to solidify the idea that we should cut off all interaction with them. It seems to be working.

[Telefrog]

Let me get this straight...you're now suggesting that freedom of speech actually represents a weakness in Christian and western thought??

Wow...I've lived to see it all now. :confused:

No, I'm saying that freedom of expression is a weakness to religion in general. The fact that Christians couldn't/wouldn't safeguard their religion against it throughout the past few decades is what allows people to treat The Bible a lot differently from the Q'uran. I see people raging against the "double standard" here and I just wanted to remind them that this is the bed we (as a dominantly Christian, but free-thinking society) has made.

I agree with most people that venerating the Q'uran to an absurdly high degree is counter-productive to freedom, but blaming the Muslims for their religious ideals of respecting their Holy Word is just as stupid.

No one here is worried about Muslims protesting the game because they find it offensive, just as your wife's company isn't worried about offending Muslims by placing the Q'uran below other books; they're worried about getting killed.

I usually like your posts, but this one makes little sense. I guarantee that the overriding concern at my wife's company with regard to the Q'uran isn't "getting killed" it's plain old business. If you piss off too many Muslims, they're not going to be too jazzed about going to your stores. Now, if you own some podunk ma & pa business, you have the freedom to tell people to eat it if they don't like it. A national retail business can't do that and succeed.

[Schnoogs]

Personally, I believe that they want as little contact with us as possible, so that they can propagate their oppressive society in isolation..

They are all over Europe now...Sharia Law is recognized now in countries like England.

This is OUR problem now.

[Widgetcraft]

They are all over Europe now...Sharia Law is recognized now in countries like England.

This is OUR problem now.

You overstate the matter; if I understand things correctly, Sharia Law is something that Muslims can essentially opt-in for when settling disputes. It's not legally enforced by the government upon people who don't want any part of it. It's the equivalent to Judge Judy, but for Muslims instead of morons.

Again, if I understand things correctly. Not to say that Muslim fundamentalism isn't a problem in Europe today, but I don't think that bringing up Sharia Law in England is a proper demonstration of it.

[Telefrog]

You overstate the matter; if I understand things correctly, Sharia Law is something that Muslims can essentially opt-in for when settling disputes. It's not legally enforced by the government upon people who don't want any part of it. It's the equivalent to Judge Judy, but for Muslims instead of morons.

Again, if I understand things correctly.

You are correct.

[Schnoogs]

You overstate the matter; if I understand things correctly, Sharia Law is something that Muslims can essentially opt-in for when settling disputes. It's not legally enforced by the government upon people who don't want any part of it. It's the equivalent to Judge Judy, but for Muslims instead of morons.

Again, if I understand things correctly.

England recently said they would acknowledge CERTAIN Sharia Laws in domestic disputes thus denying Muslim women protection under English law.

That's fucking scary. Acknowledge Sharia Law = Ignoring their own law protecting people's freedoms.

[Schnoogs]

You are correct.

No he wasn't...see my follow up post.

And read this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece).

[Telefrog]

No he wasn't...see my follow up post.

And read this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece).

Still not seeing what you see.

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

It's arbitration which you have to opt-in for.

[Savok]

You overstate the matter; if I understand things correctly, Sharia Law is something that Muslims can essentially opt-in for when settling disputes. It's not legally enforced by the government upon people who don't want any part of it. It's the equivalent to Judge Judy, but for Muslims instead of morons.

Again, if I understand things correctly. Not to say that Muslim fundamentalism isn't a problem in Europe today, but I don't think that bringing up Sharia Law in England is a proper demonstration of it.
Such things are called "slippery slopes" for a reason.

The Poms are sick of this kind of shit anyway. I mean shit, they got rid of Red Ken, thought that asshole would die there.

[Johan]

It's arbitration which you have to opt-in for.

You don't see the very real potential for, as an example, women intimidated by their male relatives, to be forced to opt in? Why don't women who are beaten leave their men? Fear, intimidation, lack of resources to the outside world, peer-pressure, family pressure...

Sharia is a bad idea, even as a supposedly "optional" alternate court. It won't be truly optional for everyone there.

[Widgetcraft]

No he wasn't...see my follow up post.

And read this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece).

Again, this is something you opt-in to. If you'll notice, while they are "Sharia courts", they are acting as an entity that already existed in British law. It is not something that will automatically apply to all Muslims. If you turn to them to arbitrate a dispute, you have to abide by their decision; the only new revelation here is that the actual government will enforce their decision (something that I don't object to; it's essentially the enforcement of a contract).

You don't see the very real potential for, as an example, women intimidated by their male relatives, to be forced to opt in? Why don't women who are beaten leave their men? Fear, intimidation, lack of resources to the outside world, peer-pressure, family pressure...

Sharia is a bad idea, even as a supposedly "optional" alternate court. It won't be truly optional for everyone there.

That is a problem of a society and culture, not of law.

[Morangie]

They are all over Europe now...Sharia Law is recognized now in countries like England.

This is OUR problem now.

If both parties agree to it then, in civil cases, the dispute can be settled under sharia. In exactly the same way that, if both parties agree, civil disputes can be settled under halakha law (Jewish religious law). If both parties don't agree to using that system then it goes through the regular courts.

Hardly the downfall of Western civilisation.

edit: I see other people type faster than I do. :)

[Savok]

Hey what happened to all being equal in front of the eyes of the law? I realize that's never really worked out but at least the ideal is there.

[Widgetcraft]

Hey what happened to all being equal in front of the eyes of the law? I realize that's never really worked out but at least the ideal is there.

It is equal, under the law. You can argue that their oppressive culture could force (and by force, I mean pressure, assuming the others involved aren't ready to go to jail for assault/murder) members of the Muslim community in the UK to seek Sharia courts to arbitrate disputes, but they don't have to. If you and I lived in the UK, and we wanted to have a dispute over land settled by a third party acting in a similar capacity, we'd be free to do that; if one of us wanted it to be handled by the real courts, it would be.

This is actually a fine demonstration of how free a Western society is; as long as you aren't otherwise breaking laws, you can have your own little mini-cultures with their own courts and cultural rules/responsibilities that will be enforced by the state if you opt-in to it before hand.

[Schnoogs]

If both parties agree to it then, in civil cases, the dispute can be settled under sharia. In exactly the same way that, if both parties agree, civil disputes can be settled under halakha law (Jewish religious law). If both parties don't agree to using that system then it goes through the regular courts.

Hardly the downfall of Western civilisation.

edit: I see other people type faster than I do. :)

Only that's not the case...both parties don't have to agree to it...hence the issue with Muslim women.

But if you think stripping them of their rights isn't a step in the wrong direction then maybe you and I disagree about what western civilization is. :confused:

[Schnoogs]

the only new revelation here is that the actual government will enforce their decision (something that I don't object to; it's essentially the enforcement of a contract)..

Hence the part about muslim women losing their rights...

[Savok]

Yes because battered wives find it so simple to go to the police.

This is futile, I'm going to sleep, hope you'll all enjoy the world you're creating tomorrow.

[Widgetcraft]

Only that's not the case...both parties don't have to agree to it...hence the issue with Muslim women.

Nothing in your article suggests that, at all. If you'd like to provide quotes, or other references, please do.

Hence the part about muslim women losing their rights...

Only if they choose to give them up when it comes time to go to the law. Even then, there is a limit to how far these courts are permitted to go; no one is going to be getting beaten or beheaded under this system, which has been in place in England for quite some time.

EDIT: Just to prove the fact that your own reference disputes what you're saying...

There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.

[Schnoogs]

Nothing in your article suggests that, at all. If you'd like to provide quotes, or other references, please do.

Did you even read it? Your responses indicate that you didn't.

As Savok said this is futile...no point in arguing with the type of people who allowed these laws to begin with and defend another cultures right to oppress people.

Tolerance of intolerance...the epitome of leftwing lunacy. :(

Later.

[Schnoogs]

Only if they choose to give them up when it comes time to go to the law. Even then, there is a limit to how far these courts are permitted to go; no one is going to be getting beaten or beheaded under this system, which has been in place in England for quite some time.

Just to give you a heads up I'm not wasting my time any more. :rolleyes:

[Widgetcraft]

Did you even read it? Your responses indicate that you didn't.

I read every word; I would question the idea that you did anything more than read the title, to be honest.

[Schnoogs]

I read every word.

Reading and comprehending are two different things.

Here are just some of the “benefits” British Muslim women can look forward to if Sharia law replaces English law: The Muslim woman cannot marry without parental approval, worsening the problem of forced marriage; marriages can be conducted without the presence of a bride, as long as the guardian consents, creating a climate for underage and early marriage; Muslim women may only marry Muslim men.
It gets worse. A Muslim man can divorce his wife by repudiating her; they have no obligation to support a former wife, or her children after the divorce; women are prohibited from divorcing husbands without his consent; abuse is not grounds for a woman to end a marriage; in matters of inheritance, sons are entitled to twice as much of an estate as daughters.

That was written before the law passed...gonna rationalize this too?

Cracks me up how the same women who fought long and hard for their own rights here have no problem supporting the oppressive beliefs of another culture just because they aren't white and Christian.

[Widgetcraft]

Reading and comprehending are two different things.



That was written before the law passed...gonna rationalize this too?

You just quoted a hypothetical situation, where Sharia law becomes the law; not the reality of the law today, or the law in the foreseeable future, where Sharia courts are permitted to act as any other civilian arbitration tribunals. You quoted it without citing a source as well, as this isn't from your reference (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece) (in case you had forgotten).

[Schnoogs]

You just quoted a hypothetical situation, where Sharia law becomes the law; not the reality of the law today, or the law in the foreseeable future, where Sharia courts are permitted to act as any other civilian arbitration tribunals. You quoted it without citing a source as well, as this isn't from your reference (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece) (in case you had forgotten).

Oh my bad...I'll ignore using Google in the future.:confused:

Later man.

[Morangie]

You just quoted a hypothetical situation, where Sharia law becomes the law; not the reality of the law today, or the law in the foreseeable future, where Sharia courts are permitted to act as any other civilian arbitration tribunals. You quoted it without citing a source as well, as this isn't from your reference (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece) (in case you had forgotten).

Give it up man, its Schnoogs and a story regarding something Islamic. The actual facts have no place here.

[Johan]

That is a problem of a society and culture, not of law.

The two are inseparable. Laws grow out of society and culture, as well as modify behavior and post limits within which society and culture operates/functions.

Unfortunately, militant Islam has a much easier time in its approach to the West than the West does in its approach to fundamentalist/militant /extremist Islam. Tolerance of intolerance eventually leads to a loss of tolerance for the freedoms we enjoy. It's already happening, albeit to a small degree and bit by bit.

The problem is, are we willing to allow a segment of our population (in the Western world) the option of taking certain of our cherished freedoms backwards a century or two, whether the parties involved agree or not? In many parts of the Muslim world, it is illegal to convert or to proselytize a faith other than Islam. This is anathema to the West, where people are free to advocate for virtually any faith/belief/idea (not to shout "fire" in a theater, of course). Women's rights in the Muslim world are often, though not always, far behind those of women in the West.

How do we deal with this? That's the question. It's not really about a "game" but about how we welcome Muslims into our societies while maintaining a core/foundation of particular beliefs about equality of the sexes and, even, of sexual orientation (which is punishable by death in many Muslim countries...if you're gay).

[Schnoogs]

Give it up man, its Schnoogs and a story regarding something Islamic. The actual facts have no place here.

Irony at its best...a completely factless dismissal of my posts.

Try some supporting or contradictory evidence next time.

Hypocrisy and denial go hand in hand.

England's recent law changes are a matter of public record...are you honestly disputing it?

And last of all you don't know jack shit about my opinions regarding Islam. :rolleyes:

The only opinion I've shared is my criticism of radical Islam...I take it you disagree with me then? You must support it then. Think before you type.

[Telefrog]

Ahhh, this is the kind of reasoned debate I've been missing since I left EvAv.

[Widgetcraft]

The two are inseparable. Laws grow out of society and culture, as well as modify behavior and post limits within which society and culture operates/functions.

Unfortunately, militant Islam has a much easier time in its approach to the West than the West does in its approach to fundamentalist/militant /extremist Islam. Tolerance of intolerance eventually leads to a loss of tolerance for the freedoms we enjoy. It's already happening, albeit to a small degree and bit by bit.

Would you propose changing our laws to cut out their ability to act as we currently allow any other group to act? This is yet another surrender to terrorism. I would again point out that the "Sharia law" in England which Schnoogs has been referencing as the beginning of the downfall of society is, in fact, nothing more than the use of law already on the books since 1995, and practiced through-out the 20th century. The only solution to the influx of Islamic fundamentalism in our society is to continue heralding our philosophies of equality and freedom, for both individuals and groups; slowly adapting Muslims to our culture as they disperse from concentrated areas and into the general populace.

The problem in Europe is that Muslims are clustered together, and this enforces the same isolationism from the rest of society that they experience in their countries of origin. Clusters of one cultural group will cause problems when introduced into a cosmopolitan society, but should be absorbed evenly over time.

[Johan]

Ahhh, this is the kind of reasoned debate I've been missing since I left EvAv.

I'll point to my posts as reasoned. They have been. :)

slowly adapting Muslims to our culture as they disperse from concentrated areas and into the general populace.

I believe America has been reasonably successful in this regard (internally...not externally). However, Europe has NOT been. In fact, the younger generation of Muslims in Europe, born in their respective European countries, is often even MORE extreme in their hatred of the West and their interpretations of Islamic customs/faith/culture than either their parents or their homeland! Integration in Europe isn't working out very well, for whatever reasons.

[Widgetcraft]

I'll point to my posts as reasoned. They have been. :)



I believe America has been reasonably successful in this regard (internally...not externally). However, Europe has NOT been. In fact, the younger generation of Muslims in Europe, born in their respective European countries, is often even MORE extreme in their hatred of the West and their interpretations of Islamic customs/faith/culture than either their parents or their homeland! Integration in Europe isn't working out very well, for whatever reasons.

To be honest, America tends to be more easily adaptable to this sort of situation than Europe; possibly as a result of our youth and history of diverse groups living together, with new groups regularly introduced.

[Morangie]

Irony at its best...a completely factless dismissal of my posts.

Try some supporting or contradictory evidence next time.

Hypocrisy and denial go hand in hand.

Your posts have been ignoring the facts all throughout this thread. The facts had been posted by several people, including me earlier, which have been either ignored or dismissed by you as "liberal white guilt". You have "left" this thread and returned several times already, finally posting a random quote without source that sounds like a BNP party speech.

It really isn't that hard to just admit you're wrong on this. Not everything muslims do is aimed at killing you in your sleep.

England's recent law changes are a matter of public record...are you honestly disputing it?

My earlier post clearly shows I'm aware of the issue. This does show how closely you're reading other peoples posts though.

And last of all you don't know jack shit about my opinions regarding Islam. :rolleyes:

I know your post history from EvAv. It very clearly showed your opinions regarding Islam over several years.

[Johan]

To be honest, America tends to be more easily adaptable to this sort of situation than Europe; possibly as a result of our youth and history of diverse groups living together.

I think that's very true. We have a shorter history, and a more malleable one in terms of defining what is "American" and what is not. We generally are pragmatic and accept what is the best and brightest, whether it's ideas, people, products, and the like. Europe, however, has a long history of what it actually means to be "French" or "German" or "British."

I rarely look for "American" things when I buy, for example; I just want the best I can afford, at the best price possible.

Speaking of which, my Sony camcorder rocks. :D

You have "left" this thread and returned several times already

I've done the same, admittedly, but I'm trying to be productive.

[Schnoogs]

You have "left" this thread and returned several times already, finally posting a random quote without source that sounds like a BNP party speech..

What the heck are you talking about? My first post and last post were within several hours of each other. Left the thread???? My only posts were apart of a SINGLE continuous conversation.

Lie much? On crack? Insane?

You are special my friend...if this place had an ignore list you'd be on it.

[TheFlyingOrc]

That's a little much, don't ya think? If you're looking forward to the game that much something as trivial as a one week delay to remove something that some might find offensive in an E rated game shouldn't really effect your buying decision. You're the one who's going to be missing out on a fun game.

Heck, if something as little as this bothers you that much, how do you deal with real problems in day to day life?

Hence why I called it stupid.

[agentgray]

Here we go again.

I still think that there's something bigger here than just an "offending" song...something Sony's trying to prevent and the song issue is a better cover.

The logistics of an all-inclusive recall, stamping, and re-packaging have got to go beyond just a week or two. Doesn't it?

There may be nothing there, but it just doesn't add up to me. Far worse things have been done in games long before they even shipped and there have been no recalls—no matter what company.



None of these restrictions hold true for the Bible. Why is that? Is it the Muslim's fault that they have consistently safeguarded their holy book while Christians did not? Should we apply our own disregard for the Bible to other people's religions?
I'm not disagreeing with you but the Bible teaches to respect the Word of God not worship it. The worship is to be for the Author.

Also, your wife has an awesome job.

[Schnoogs]

I know your post history from EvAv. It very clearly showed your opinions regarding Islam over several years.

Then tell me one thing about my beliefs? :rolleyes:

Waiting for the impending fail.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Then tell me one thing about my beliefs? :rolleyes:

Waiting for the impending fail.

You believe in a thing called love.


Just listen to the rhythm of my heart.

[Widgetcraft]

I think that's very true. We have a shorter history, and a more malleable one in terms of defining what is "American" and what is not. We generally are pragmatic and accept what is the best and brightest, whether it's ideas, people, products, and the like. Europe, however, has a long history of what it actually means to be "French" or "German" or "British."

I rarely look for "American" things when I buy, for example; I just want the best I can afford, at the best price possible.

Speaking of which, my Sony camcorder rocks. :D



I've done the same, admittedly, but I'm trying to be productive.

I'm glad we could bring this back down to a reasonable discussion. I think that if we all approach these hot-button issues with a personal focus on having a clear mind, and even hand, we can have a much more pleasant (and intellectually stimulating) experience.

[Morangie]

What the heck are you talking about? My first post and last post were within several hours of each other. Left the thread???? My only posts were apart of a SINGLE continuous conversation.

Lie much? On crack? Insane?

You are special my friend...if this place had an ignore list you'd be on it.

I was referring to your repeated "Later" and "I'm not wasting my time anymore". My apologies if you didn't mean you weren't going to be replying to this thread anymore, though I'm unsure what else you could mean. I don't really think you need an ignore list here since you ignored the rest of my post already.

Then tell me one thing about my beliefs? :rolleyes:

Waiting for the impending fail.

I don't claim to know anything about your beliefs. I know from your post history that whenever there is any story relating to Islam, you're usually against it.

This really isn't going to get anywhere so I actually will just leave this thread alone. My congratulations on a highly successful derail into UK civil law from the original LBP story though.

[Doctor Setebos]

I have nothing of any real substance to add except to agree with agentgray -- Telefrog's wife does indeed have an awesome job. I am genuinely jealous. ;)

Carry on (with civility, please).

[Schnoogs]

I don't claim to know anything about your beliefs.

That's what I thought...but that didn't stop you from insulting me and making a blanket statement about my past, present and future posts.

You'll be hard pressed to find one unreasonable opinion of mine in regards to Islam...unless of course you support radical Islam which I hope you don't and don't think that you do.

[TheFlyingOrc]

That's what I thought...but that didn't stop you from insulting me and making a blanket statement about my past, present and future posts.

You'll be hard pressed to find one unreasonable opinion of mine in regards to Islam...unless of course you support radical Islam which I hope you don't and don't think that you do.
It's pretty impossible to definitively state that oneself is reasonable. If one was unreasonable, you wouldn't accurately assess your unreasonableness.

[Johan]

What we're ultimately getting at is this simple question, with no simple answer:

In daily life, society, law, culture, art, and the like...how much do we accommodate Islam, and how much do we expect Islam to accommodate us/the West?

Either one gets accommodated entirely...OR
the other gets accommodated entirely...OR
we deal with uncomfortable conflict over where the line is drawn in the middle.

It's pretty impossible to definitively state that oneself is reasonable. If one was unreasonable, you wouldn't accurately assess your unreasonableness.

That sounds pretty reasonable. :D

[Schnoogs]

It's pretty impossible to definitively state that oneself is reasonable. If one was unreasonable, you wouldn't accurately assess your unreasonableness.

Work with me man!

If I had said "All Muslims should be put into a death camp" I think it would be reasonable to call that unreasonable! ;)

[Sl1pstream]

Chuck Norris is played out. The new hotness is Van DAMMEAGE!

It really isn't. Ever.

Does anyone know which part of the Koran they've used? While the cartoons were intentionally offensive (hiding behind the free speech argument seemed to have helped them), I really don't know about this one.

[Telefrog]

I have nothing of any real substance to add except to agree with agentgray -- Telefrog's wife does indeed have an awesome job. I am genuinely jealous. ;).

Add me to that list as well. I'm jealous of her awesome job as it routinely involves reading very early press versions of books before they hit the stands.

[Schnoogs]

It really isn't. Ever.

Have you seen the trailer for J.C.V.D.?

Looks very cool...the man is making a comeback!

[Abednigo]

Johan and I just cause trouble wherever we go. ;)

[Johan]

Johan and I just cause trouble wherever we go. ;)

But only one of us is a nice guy, and it's not me! :D

[Shieldmaiden]

Removing a song containing lyrics from a holy book because it might offend someone because of its source would be completely shitty.

Removing a song containing lyrics along the lines of "You're all going to die!" in a widespread language from a game you're marketing at families and kids is just good business sense.

[Shieldmaiden]

Does anyone know which part of the Koran they've used? While the cartoons were intentionally offensive (hiding behind the free speech argument seemed to have helped them), I really don't know about this one.

'Every soul shall have the taste of death' and 'All that is on earth will perish.'

[violent]

'Every soul shall have the taste of death' and 'All that is on earth will perish.'

Hah! Niiice.

[Schnoogs]

'Every soul shall have the taste of death' and 'All that is on earth will perish.'

Isn't that the truth?

Kids need to learn about their mortality..what better vehicle than a video game...currently kids are learning that by collecting mushrooms they can live forver...now THAT is a disservice!

[Doctor Setebos]

'Every soul shall have the taste of death' and 'All that is on earth will perish.'Well, to be fair, both statements are technically true.

[Johan]

This thread could have been something, but it shriveled up like a...yeah, that.

[Schnoogs]

This thread could have been something, but it shriveled up like a...yeah, that.

A raisin????

[Goronmon]

This thread could have been something, but it shriveled up like a...yeah, that.
A dick in a cold swimming pool?

[johnperkins21]

Removing a song containing lyrics along the lines of "You're all going to die!" in a widespread language from a game you're marketing at families and kids is just good business sense.

Probably true, but this is something they should have thought about before including the song. Removing it after it's already been shipped to retail is kowtowing to censorship.

And as others have said, we are all going to die.

[Shieldmaiden]

Probably true, but this is something they should have thought about before including the song. Removing it after it's already been shipped to retail is kowtowing to censorship.

And as others have said, we are all going to die.

But it's not censorship. It's like Disney not releasing a PVC-clad Lesbian Slut Little Mermaid doll. Or the new Pokemon game featuring a grown-up protagonist who uses guns and swears a lot. There's nothing stopping them from doing it, but they're going to have trouble marketing and selling it to their usual fanbase.

As I said in the previous thread, the lyrics aren't actually offensive, but they're not something you're going to put into a family game.

[LongStepMantis]

It really isn't. Ever.


Oh no you din't! (http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/articles/film-brain/66-videos/2143-kickboxer) ;)

Anyways, I think most of us can agree that the removal of the content was something they have to do...given the way things are right now, and the fact that big businesses always try to err on the safe side. Especially with something this important to them.

But that doesn't mean it's right. Oh well.

[johnperkins21]

But it's not censorship. It's like Disney not releasing a PVC-clad Lesbian Slut Little Mermaid doll. Or the new Pokemon game featuring a grown-up protagonist who uses guns and swears a lot. There's nothing stopping them from doing it, but they're going to have trouble marketing and selling it to their usual fanbase.

It is censorship. They're self-censoring as Johan said earlier, it's self censorship. They're removing it so as not to offend a certain class of people, after already pressing the discs and shipping them out to retailers. How is this not censorship?

Just because the government isn't censoring it, doesn't change the fact that it's censorship.

[National Kato]

Self-censorship? Since when was that something to get up in arms about? Someone else censoring an entity is usually seem as a bad thing since it's against that entity's will or intent, but self-censorship?

Eh, I'm really not too upset about it. Had the delay been several months, it would've irked me - but one week? I have a life...I can get by.

[Shieldmaiden]

If it was being removed to avoid offending Muslims, then I would agree that it was self-censorship. If the phrases were completely innocuous, like "And Allah declared 'let there be fluffy bunnies!'" or something and they were removed JUST because they were in the Qu'ran, yep, censorship and kowtowing to minority fanatics. Bad thing. Don't like.

However, it's not the case. They are removing a song with possibly scary lyrics from a family game. Yes, they're factual. Yes, everyone is going to die. No, I don't think it makes sense to include it in a family game. I wouldn't want to buy a kid's game and find that it included a detailed, graphic account of the Holocaust. No matter how factual it is, it does not make sense for it to be in a family-friendly product. It's like someone suggesting that a detailed sex education documentary be included in a Hello Kitty game and the publisher not going for it. It's not censorship, it's just common sense.

[National Kato]

It's like someone suggesting that a detailed sex education documentary be included in a Hello Kitty game and the publisher not going for it. It's not censorship, it's just common sense.

Hey, kids need to learn about sex eventually, right? It's the truth...it's part of life. Let's just show 'em how to do it as soon as possible! :rolleyes:

[Johan]

They are removing a song with possibly scary lyrics from a family game.

Scary? Oh boy...

if they wanted to remove the "scariness" from the game, they should have made it impossible to create user-generated content. What's going to happen when the first PENIS level turns up, eh? Oh...that's already happened!

That's a weak excuse, frankly. Very weak.

Sony made a decision that the delay and subsequent anger of the delay would be less than the possibility of anger over the inclusion of this content. That's pretty amazing, when you let that simmer a bit. I also think it's a bit scary that a company has to take out two lyrics, yet can allow a game where you can create a dick, which you can then play with and run around...and insert into other objects, if you so choose. :D

[Shieldmaiden]

I'm sorry, but that IS ridiculous. It's like saying that you're not going to sell Mickey Mouse notebooks because someone may draw a penis on it.

I stand by my comments. LBP is supposed to be a family friendly game. You would not expect such a product to contain those lyrics. The developers and Sony were incredibly stupid to let the song slip through without checking what the lyrics actually meant. Sony made a decision based on the kind of product they were trying to produce. It's not a censorship/religious/freedom of speech issue.

[National Kato]

if they wanted to remove the "scariness" from the game, they should have made it impossible to create user-generated content. What's going to happen when the first PENIS level turns up, eh? Oh...that's already happened!

You don't see a difference between user-created and developer-created content? Really?

[Johan]

I'm sorry, but that IS ridiculous.

You may think so, but I don't. I'm sure there will be families who buy this "family game" and, subsequently, are surprised to find little Johnny either creating boobs/vaginas/penises, or downloading them.

You don't see a difference between user-created and developer-created content? Really?

Of course. Why do you think MS crippled the sharing of user-created content in N+? The answer is what I've already indicated. Sony took out two song lyrics, and left in the biggest potential for problems; the sharing of user-generated content.

I think Sony's admirable for allowing the sharing of content, but let's not kid ourselves that it will be "family friendly."

[Shieldmaiden]

I would call those bloody stupid families.

EDIT: From the perspective of letting their children online without supervision. It's 2008, the internet is not a new thing.

[Johan]

I would call those bloody stupid families.

EDIT: From the perspective of letting their children online without supervision. It's 2008, the internet is not a new thing.

Ah, but others might say it's bloody stupid to take out two song lyrics. Pretty subjective.

And if you're going to argue for personal responsibility, you can't have it both ways. People should be personally responsible for what they download in terms of user content for this game. People should also be personally responsible not to buy it if they don't like the idea of said content, or if they don't like two songs in that content. Just don't buy it!

[Raen]

And if you're going to argue for personal responsibility, you can't have it both ways. People should be personally responsible for what they download in terms of user content for this game. People should also be personally responsible not to buy it if they don't like the idea of said content, or if they don't like two songs in that content. Just don't buy it!

Well yes and no. Unfortunately I don't have a PS3 so I haven't seen the beta to see how things work, but I assume there is some form of preview for levels? This makes it potentially easy to screen for offensive content. It's much harder to screen for two lyrics in the soundtrack of a game where I shouldn't imagine there's a detailed track listing, let alone lyrics for every song. I don't know I totally agree with recalling the game, but lyrics that relate to death in an E rated death are clearly not appropriate.

[National Kato]

There's a rating system and a way for players to report offensive user-created content. I don't know of any way for players to report a soundtrack song included with the original disc.

[Telefrog]

There's a rating system and a way for players to report offensive user-created content. I don't know of any way for players to report a soundtrack song included with the original disc.

Apparently, send an email directly to Sony. ;)

[Raen]

Btw I also agree about Telefrog's wife. I want that job. Be a great use for my CS degree once I'm finished :p

[Schnoogs]

There's a rating system and a way for players to report offensive user-created content. I don't know of any way for players to report a soundtrack song included with the original disc.

The rootkit that it installs has a "feedback" option. :p

[Shieldmaiden]

Ah, but others might say it's bloody stupid to take out two song lyrics. Pretty subjective.

And if you're going to argue for personal responsibility, you can't have it both ways. People should be personally responsible for what they download in terms of user content for this game. People should also be personally responsible not to buy it if they don't like the idea of said content, or if they don't like two songs in that content. Just don't buy it!

I agree completely. However if you want people to buy it for their kids, then you don't include potentially offensive content. Hence my previous comparisons to Hello Kitty, Pokemon and Disney. No-one is saying that Sony can't include the song, however it's inclusion could affect sales to parents who are making that "is this suitable for my kid?" decision. It's not going to affect you, me or the majority of the English speaking world, but it is going to affect the few hundred million Arabic speakers.

[Schnoogs]

I agree completely. However if you want people to buy it for their kids, then you don't include potentially offensive content. Hence my previous comparisons to Hello Kitty, Pokemon and Disney. No-one is saying that Sony can't include the song, however it's inclusion could affect sales to parents who are making that "is this suitable for my kid?" decision. It's not going to affect you, me or the majority of the English speaking world, but it is going to affect the few hundred million Arabic speakers.

Are arabic speakers going to object to it because they don't think its suitable for their children OR are they going to object to it because unsuitable for ANY player?

[Shieldmaiden]

Are arabic speakers going to object to it because they don't think its suitable for their children OR are they going to object to it because unsuitable for ANY player?

I would assume the former, from the experience of Muslims I work with. (My school has a very large Muslim minority, mostly Pakistani, they're not native Arabic speakers for the most part, but they generally learn it to be able to read the Qu'ran in it's original form.) The vast majority of them are normal folks, no different from any Christians I know. It's great when you hear them talking about their other halves only going to mosque for Eid or old people donating loads of money to charity in a last ditch attempt to gain access to paradise.

That and my own feelings as a parent. I'm a great consumer of allegedly "offensive" media, but I'm careful when it comes to what my son watches. I don't mind him watching slightly higher-rated kung-fu flicks, but I know horror stuff would give him nightmares. The lyrics in the song would, if they were in a language he understood, possibly disturb him and, if I wasn't a gamer myself, affect my purchase decision.

[Schnoogs]

I would assume the former, from the experience of Muslims I work with. (My school has a very large Muslim minority, mostly Pakistani, they're not native Arabic speakers for the most part, but they generally learn it to be able to read the Qu'ran in it's original form.) The vast majority of them are normal folks, no different from any Christians I know. It's great when you hear them talking about their other halves only going to mosque for Eid or old people donating loads of money to charity in a last ditch attempt to gain access to paradise.

That and my own feelings as a parent. I'm a great consumer of allegedly "offensive" media, but I'm careful when it comes to what my son watches. I don't mind him watching slightly higher-rated kung-fu flicks, but I know horror stuff would give him nightmares. The lyrics in the song would, if they were in a language he understood, possibly disturb him and, if I wasn't a gamer myself, affect my purchase decision.

What is it about these quotes that make them inappropriate for children?

[johnperkins21]

If it was being removed to avoid offending Muslims, then I would agree that it was self-censorship. If the phrases were completely innocuous, like "And Allah declared 'let there be fluffy bunnies!'" or something and they were removed JUST because they were in the Qu'ran, yep, censorship and kowtowing to minority fanatics. Bad thing. Don't like.

However, it's not the case. They are removing a song with possibly scary lyrics from a family game. Yes, they're factual. Yes, everyone is going to die. No, I don't think it makes sense to include it in a family game. I wouldn't want to buy a kid's game and find that it included a detailed, graphic account of the Holocaust. No matter how factual it is, it does not make sense for it to be in a family-friendly product. It's like someone suggesting that a detailed sex education documentary be included in a Hello Kitty game and the publisher not going for it. It's not censorship, it's just common sense.

But it is being removed simply because the lyrics are quoting the Qur'an.

During the review process prior to the release of LittleBigPlanet, it has been brought to our attention that one of the background music tracks licensed from a record label for use in the game contains two expressions that can be found in the Qur’an. We have taken immediate action to rectify this and we sincerely apologise for any offence that this may have caused.

Emphasis mine, from: Three Speech (http://threespeech.com/blog/2008/10/littlebigplanet-scees-official-statement/)

Doesn't say anything about the lyrics themselves being offensive, but the fact that they're from the Qur'an is why it's being recalled.

And your analogy is incredibly weak. Two lyrics in a song, in a language that only a very small minority of their audience understands, referencing death is wildly different than detailed sex ed or even graphic violence. You're comparing apples to fighter jets, and it's disingenuous.

[Shieldmaiden]

The lyrics are roughly equivalent to "You're all gonna die." Not something I would expect to find in a low-rated, family friendly game.

[Schnoogs]

The lyrics are roughly equivalent to "You're all gonna die." Not something I would expect to find in a low-rated, family friendly game.

Yeah but if its in the Qur'an wouldn't any good Muslim kid have already heard that at their local Mosque?

The Bible is full of bleak passages...they don't refrain from stating them just because children show up to Church.

I highly doubt it's the specific quotes that's causing the problems.

[Shieldmaiden]

And your analogy is incredibly weak. Two lyrics in a song, in a language that only a very small minority of their audience understands, referencing death is wildly different than detailed sex ed or even graphic violence. You're comparing apples to fighter jets, and it's disingenuous.

It's not a very small minority. There are something like 250 million native Arabic speakers, not including those who learn it for religious reasons. Even then, that should be irrelevent. If a game had "FUCK, SHIT, COCK, BOLLOCKS, WANK, ARSE!" in an obscure language, it should still be treated the same as if it were in English.

[Shieldmaiden]

Yeah but if its in the Qur'an wouldn't any good Muslim kid have already heard that at their local Mosque?

The Bible is full of bleak passages...they don't refrain from stating them just because children show up to Church.

I highly doubt it's the specific quotes that's causing the problems.

My six year old can go to church and hear all kinds of scary stuff, it doesn't mean I want it showing up in Pokemon.

[Schnoogs]

It's not a very small minority. There are something like 250 million native Arabic speakers, not including those who learn it for religious reasons. Even then, that should be irrelevent. If a game had "FUCK, SHIT, COCK, BOLLOCKS, WANK, ARSE!" in an obscure language, it should still be treated the same as if it were in English.

Only in this case it's not cussing...

[Schnoogs]

My six year old can go to church and hear all kinds of scary stuff, it doesn't mean I want it showing up in Pokemon.

Then don't buy it.

[Shieldmaiden]

Right, I'm about to go to bed, so closing statement time.

Would you, as an international videogames publisher, include Biblical quotes regarding death in a game you were attempting to launch as a major, family-friendly (not sure about the US, but it has a 7+ rating here) franchise?

I would be genuinely surprised if anyone would honestly answer yes to that question.

EDIT: Regarding "Don't buy it.": My point exactly. The inclusion would lose sales, which is why they don't tend to include even minutely objectionable stuff of any kind in kids games.

[Johan]

Would you, as an international videogames publisher, include Biblical quotes regarding death in a game you were attempting to launch as a major, family-friendly (not sure about the US, but it has a 7+ rating here) franchise?

No. Probably not. :)

The lyrics are roughly equivalent to "You're all gonna die." Not something I would expect to find in a low-rated, family friendly game.

True enough.

Tickle Me Elmo! (http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/02/elmo_doll_wants_to_kill_child_we_still_want_to_kil l_elmo-2.html)

[Schnoogs]

EDIT: Regarding "Don't buy it.": My point exactly. The inclusion would lose sales, which is why they don't tend to include even minutely objectionable stuff of any kind in kids games.

Minutely objectionable? These are video games...they are replete with "minutely objectionable" material.

I think this has less to do with "minutely objectionable" material and more to do with a backlash.

[johnperkins21]

It's not a very small minority. There are something like 250 million native Arabic speakers, not including those who learn it for religious reasons. Even then, that should be irrelevent. If a game had "FUCK, SHIT, COCK, BOLLOCKS, WANK, ARSE!" in an obscure language, it should still be treated the same as if it were in English.

And how many of them own a PS3 in relation to say English and Japanese speakers? I said it was a small minority of their audience, not of people.

And again, their reasoning for the recall is not the subject of the song, but that it is quoting the Qur'an. If they came out and said they were recalling the game because they thought the lyrics were unsuitable for children, then you'd get no argument from me. However, that's not what they did.

[mister slim]

Probably true, but this is something they should have thought about before including the song. Removing it after it's already been shipped to retail is kowtowing to censorship.

I don't think anyone at Media Molecule or Sony was aware of the meaning of the lyrics before the translation and source were brought to their attention. The lyrics were not part of the creators' intent.

[Telefrog]

And again, their reasoning for the recall is not the subject of the song, but that it is quoting the Qur'an. If they came out and said they were recalling the game because they thought the lyrics were unsuitable for children, then you'd get no argument from me. However, that's not what they did.

So you admit that you have no problem with self-censorship, if it's for a reason you can agree with? :rolleyes:

[johnperkins21]

So you admit that you have no problem with self-censorship, if it's for a reason you can agree with? :rolleyes:

What I have a problem with is the idea that something needs to be censored so as not to offend people. They were pressured into the self-censorship by a small group of people who probably had no intention of ever buying the game anyway.

What I have a problem with is the idea that creativity needs to be censored so as not to offend people.

I don't have a problem with them self-censoring the game based on what they feel is appropriate for their audience, but being pressured into that decision by an outside group does bother me.

So, yes, it does depend on whether or not I agree with the reason. One is truly self-censorship whereas the other is technically self-censorship, but pretty much instituted by an outside source. I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Schnoogs]

So you admit that you have no problem with self-censorship, if it's for a reason you can agree with? :rolleyes:

Self-censorship should never be the result of intimidation.

[Telefrog]

Self-censorship should never be the result of intimidation.

Refresh my memory, Schnoogs. Did Sony say they felt intimidated? Did they actually say that they changed the content because of Islamic threats?

I mean, it couldn't possibly be a business decision based around the idea that offending a good portion of your audience makes no economic sense right? Since Sony never actually stated their internal motivation behind the recall, it's unfair to attribute cowardice to them.

They were pressured into the self-censorship by a small group of people who probably had no intention of ever buying the game anyway.

I have no idea what the breakdown of LBP's potential audience and the ratio of Muslim fans would be in that demographic, but the initial complaint email to Sony came from a Muslim that was able to buy the game early. (His local store broke the street date.) So, at least one Muslim was interested in the game.

[Schnoogs]

Refresh my memory, Schnoogs. Did Sony say they felt intimidated? Did they actually say that they changed the content because of Islamic threats.

I guess some of us can read between the lines....and recall a certain incident in Denmark involving cartoons.

[KingGorilla]

At what point are some of you missing the fact that the song features some very strong, violent lyrics, and this is an all ages game? If anyone were really concerned about the threat of militants or attacks, then Call of Duty 4, most of the Tom Clancy games, would never be made.

[Telefrog]

At what point are some of you missing the fact that the song features some very strong, violent lyrics, and this is an all ages game? If anyone were really concerned about the threat of militants or attacks, then Call of Duty 4, most of the Tom Clancy games, would never be made.

That's crazy talk. It's obviously all about caving in to the Jihadists.

Businesses aren't allowed to make decisions based on financial realities. They have to pick a political narrative and stick by them no matter what.

[KingGorilla]

Now, if there were a nipple involved in some way, it would be another story.

[Heresyte]

I didn't read the thread because it diverged into topics I wasn't interested in, so I might just be reiterating something that was already said.

I think most people are completely missing the point here. This isn't about freedom of speech, it's about sales. The guy admits that he thinks it's inappropriate for "the words of god" to be present in non-educational video games. His argument is that Sony should have just released the game and allowed muslims to boycott it. But that is exactly the kind of bullshit that sony is trying to avoid. Nobody ever said sony didn't have the right to publish an offensive game, sony is trying to maximize sales, and offending people is the best way to not do that. If a line in the game said "It's cool to anal-fist Jesus!" they would have done the same thing.

Yes, it is ridiculous that people would boycott the game because of this, but that's the kind of bullshit we're going to have to live with as long as long as it's considered normal and respectable to worship invisible sky-creatures. You can't be surprised when people who shape their lives around nonsense behave nonsensically.

[Schnoogs]

That's crazy talk. It's obviously all about caving in to the Jihadists.

Businesses aren't allowed to make decisions based on financial realities. They have to pick a political narrative and stick by them no matter what.

Yeah...because they stood to lose soooooo much money by leaving them in. :rolleyes:

[KingGorilla]

I wonder if they were afraid that having the song in would create controversy that would detract from the game's message and overshadow the product within?

[Schnoogs]

I wonder if they were afraid that having the song in would create controversy that would detract from the game's message and overshadow the product within?

99% of the consumer base wouldn't have notice or cared.

[Johan]

I wonder if they were afraid that having the song in would create controversy that would detract from the game's message and overshadow the product within?

I think the penis levels are going to do that. :)

but that's the kind of bullshit we're going to have to live with as long as long as it's considered normal and respectable to worship invisible sky-creatures. You can't be surprised when people who shape their lives around nonsense behave nonsensically.

I'm personally fond of my sky-creature. No, he's not Chef Boyardee. :P (is that "tongue sticking out at you" or is that "DUH...I'm dopey" when you use a colon and a capital P?).

[Variable Gear]

No, it wasn't.

[LongStepMantis]

Seriously? I mean...fucking REALLY?
Can someone clean all this shit up?

[zarathstra]

I didn't read the thread because it diverged into topics I wasn't interested in, so I might just be reiterating something that was already said.

I think most people are completely missing the point here. This isn't about freedom of speech, it's about sales. The guy admits that he thinks it's inappropriate for "the words of god" to be present in non-educational video games. His argument is that Sony should have just released the game and allowed muslims to boycott it. But that is exactly the kind of bullshit that sony is trying to avoid. Nobody ever said sony didn't have the right to publish an offensive game, sony is trying to maximize sales, and offending people is the best way to not do that. If a line in the game said "It's cool to anal-fist Jesus!" they would have done the same thing.

Yes, it is ridiculous that people would boycott the game because of this, but that's the kind of bullshit we're going to have to live with as long as long as it's considered normal and respectable to worship invisible sky-creatures. You can't be surprised when people who shape their lives around nonsense behave nonsensically.

Agree on the sales thing. Sony wasn't doing this because the government forced them to comply to some standard, but because they felt that the controversy it created would hurt sales. I'm sure the Sony people think its ridiculous too, but they don't control the nonsense people get offended over.

[TrackZero]

Seriously? I mean...fucking REALLY?
Can someone clean all this shit up?

*waves hand*

These are not the droids you're looking for.

[Variable Gear]

If you believe in god, meaning the one true god, meaning the god you believe in, you shouldn't pray to your false idol called the Play Station 3. Do not bow (or shake your DualShock3) in front of it. Therefore, Sony shouldn't have reacted so strongly to protect people's souls from being destroyed by the word of god.

Thanks, and have a godly day!

[LongStepMantis]

*waves hand*

These are not the droids you're looking for.

*Stares blankly*
These are not the droids we're looking for...Move along.

Thanks for taking care of the mess. :D