Humanity: Good News, Bad News

[FaustWolf]

The GTA series is the only set of games that I ever thought really, really crossed the line. What got me most was hearing that you had to sleep with prostitutes to restore your character's health, and then you had the option to shoot them afterward. I don't even know if it's true...is it? But that's what I heard, and I felt so disgusted by that that I've never picked it up despite the immersive world it apparently presents.

In just about every other violent game, you're killing soldiers, space aliens, demons, etc -- things that are armed and out to kill you, so it's sort of an even match; it's like playing one of those Holodeck training programs Worf always used to in Star Trek: The Next Generation.  Shooting poor harmless prostitutes (who go through enough pain in their lives already), and running over pedestrians and scoring points for it just seems like something I can't get into.

Not that I'm a prude -- hearing that there was "public urination" and a gay scene in FF7 didn't keep me from picking that up (and I found out that the first rumor was false of course). However, I admit it could be the old social conservative in me acting up. I mean, one of my long-term side projects is to edit the anime Perfect Blue. to make it more family friendly. I'm dead serious too; it's halfway done.

But I digress. Not that I think GTA or any game ought to be governmentally censored in the least -- that would be prudish. I'm sure there's plenty of people here who have played GTA and turned out to be upstanding individuals. Rather, it's the parent's responsibility to find out what their kids are playing and make sure they're delineating reality from fantasy properly.

[Radical_Dreamer]

The services of prostitutes are one way in those games to restore health, but I don't think they are the exclusive means. And while you can kill them and get your money back, you can kill anyone in that game. You don't get points for running down people, from what playing I've done, there are no points.

I should point out that I've played random bits of the PS2 GTAs, but haven't played GTAIV. It's never a series that I found worth actually purchasing and playing seriously, but sometimes my buddies and I would play to blow off steam or see how long we could avoid the cops. *shrug*

I personally don't think you're missing much if you don't play them. I don't anymore and I don't feel like I've missed out on anything.

[KebreI]

Meh I never found the games that appealing, The game play was good but the atmosphere wouldn't keep my interest. Now the used the EXACT same game play and mechanics to make an game adaption of the Godfather movie and it was a great game.

[Shee]

Played the ps2 GTA jams and GTAIV.  They're fun, it's true.  The hooker thing I missed entirely in two games before someone told me about it.  I can actually pull the same shady shit off in Fable II.  The whole kill hooker get my shit back deal.  Point is, I found it fun due to that immersive world you speak of, and there really is a lot to do.  It's not really about killing cops and hookers all the time.  Race cars, fly planes in San Andreas, buy buildings and clothes, be cab driver, just roam around.  But if you wanna go apeshit, feel free.  I never beat any of em I'd just drive around a lot.

Good Gawd, King!  I feel like a commercial! 

I hear what you're saying about it being extreme.  No doubt.  I'm not generally offended by video games but I understand how some people are.  Godfather was sweet.

[chrono eric]

I'm not generally offended by video games but I understand how some people are. 

Me either. I'm not generally offended by anything in the form of art or free-expression. The only things that I am really offended by is some of the actions that people take in life.

Mindless violence is fine to me, and the fact is, the GTA games are really fun. I like RPG's better, but meh. But should a 6 year old be playing GTA? Hell no. But that's no reason to censor or tone down the games.

I also don't have a problem with prostitution, both in reality and in video games. Hell, it's probably the worlds oldest profession, and I have absolutely no problem with it being legalized and taxed along with many other things that I think should be legalized as well.

[placidchap]

 along with many other things that I think should be legalized as well.

The Swiss recently set up a legalized heroin program, providing those who are addicted with a safe and secure environment to get their fix and then carry on with their day.  Not a bad way to go about it, rather than a costly, never ending "war on drugs".

And I thoroughly played GTA III when it came out and some of Vice City, before I got tired of the gameplay.  I wouldn't call it senseless violence though.  Sure it is about committing crime, but running over people or killing senselessly was only done on part of the gamer, not through the missions themselves.  The only reason to actually go on a killing rampage is to boost up your wanted level so you can get the FBI and army on your ass.  Trying to escape from the authorities is probably the best part about the game.  As far as I remember "senseless" killing was never required.

[HyperNerd]

Me and my best friend did Really REALLY Stupid things in GTA4 the other day, such as stealing a semi, and driving it into the ocean, off of a cliff. See? And then we stole a sports car, Drove Really fast, and jumped out before we hit a wall. It was Hilariously stupid. The guys accent didn't help either. Another thing to add, is that he bought the game for like, 10 bucks, and he never plays it. With the exeption of the desire to be an idiot, of course.

[chrono eric]

The Swiss recently set up a legalized heroin program, providing those who are addicted with a safe and secure environment to get their fix and then carry on with their day.  Not a bad way to go about it, rather than a costly, never ending "war on drugs".

I agree, although I don't think such a thing would happen in the US anytime soon. If anything happens, it would be first the legalization of relatively harmless drugs that can be taxed which would open the doors in the future for a program similar to the Swiss one. But that's wishful thinking on my behalf. Undoubtedly what will happen instead is first drugs which have been used in religious practices for centuries will continue to be made illegal one by one by fearful Western society, and the Analog Drug Law will effectively erase the potential for any medical benefit derived from these drugs.

But perhaps I am too pessimistic. The Federal government spent over $250,000 this past year on research into the medical benefits of MDMA (Ecstasy) and LSD after numerous outcries from scientists and psychologists for decades. 250 grand is pocket change as far as research is concerned, but that still presents a glimmer hope.

And on the topic of GTA, ironically although I fully support freedom of speech and expression, games like GTA will probably add fuel to the fire to the misconceived War on Drugs^TM

[Thought]

Good News:
Scientists Create Life!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479777,00.html

Well okay, it's technically not life, and they didn't technically create it so much as modify pre-existing life to not be so alive. But still, it's cool.

Bad News:
 
http://www.startribune.com/politics/37570039.html

Okay, this really isn't so much bad news as annoyingly ill-informed news. It is made worse by the fact that one of the dupes involved is President-Elect Obama (and in a little while I can drop the elect part, wheee).


Be forewarned, a rant here ensues:

What is a mutt? Well let's ask Mr. Dictionary:

A Mutt is any animal that is a cross of two or more different breeds or varieties.

What is a "labradoodle"? A friggen’ cross between a Poodle and a Labrador!

Come on, Mr. President. You don't want to adopt from a shelter because most of those dogs are mutts and your daughter has allergies (totally unrelated, but okay), so instead of adopting a mutt from a shelter you are going to buy a mutt from a *ahem" breeder. Brilliant! A clever ruse and your daughter's allergies will never suspect a thing

To note, no, "Labradoodles" are neither "low-shedding" nor a "breed" because 1) They're mutts and 2) see#1. Not being a breed means you have no idea what you are getting. You could get a lab-like dog with poodle-like fur, or you could get the reverse, or you could even not notice that the dog has any poodle in it.

Breeds have established criteria for what makes them a breed. All Corgis are going to have stumpy legs. Mix a corgi with a Rottweiler (not sure if that is physically possible) and the result may or may not have stumpy legs.

Hopefully if they go with the mutt they'll at least get a 3rd or 4th generation mix. At least then there are some predictable traits (but still not enough to be considered a breed).

Course, even then the reason poodles are considered "Hypoallergenic" has little to do with the breed. Their hair is curly and grows long. That's it, that is the only breed-specific reason poodles are hypoallergenic. They shed, they release dander, it just happens to get caught in the dog's curls more than other breeds. They're essentially dirty mops.

There is another reason Poodles are considered hypoallergenic, though. This one is entirely the result of human behavior, however. Poodles on average are groomed more frequently that other breeds, which in turn removes hair, saliva, and dander more often. So get a mutt, Mr. President, and groom it.

Buying a Labradoodle will have little-to-no benefit for your family and it will increase the demand for the mutts across the nation, resulting in more irresponsible individuals breeding them. Overcrowded animal shelters will then suffer when more dupes buy the dogs only to discover that there are no breed standards (not being a breed) and the animals are a mixed bag because of it. Thus, not only to the Shelters suffer, the animals suffer.

[placidchap]

Some breeds may benefit by being a "mutt"...*cough*pug*cough*

[KebreI]

I have two dogs. One is a pure breed $400(about?) Chihuahua, and he is huge for a Chihuahua. 11inches and 6 1/2lbs solid black coat with a Grey beard and his name is Rosco Pico Coltrane very sexually active.

My other dog is my beloved Tallulah Blue, name for Tallulah Blankhead. She is a mix bread both of her parents were purebreds, Blue Heeler and Border Collie. She's pretty much energy and brains with no common sense.

[chrono eric]

You don't want to adopt from a shelter because most of those dogs are mutts and your daughter has allergies (totally unrelated, but okay), so instead of adopting a mutt from a shelter you are going to buy a mutt from a *ahem" breeder. Brilliant! A clever ruse and your daughter's allergies will never suspect a thing

Yes, this is despicable. Especially for the president elect. He should set an example for everyone else.

Hopefully if they go with the mutt they'll at least get a 3rd or 4th generation mix. At least then there are some predictable traits (but still not enough to be considered a breed).

Why would "predictable traits" be a pre-requisite for getting a good dog? Sure, he wants a dog that is hypoallergenic, but what makes mutts superior dogs in the first place is because they don't have predictable traits. Crossbreeding eliminates almost every breed related congenital condition present in the two original breeds, as the probability that both breeds have a complementary recessive allele that contributes to the maladaptive traits is extremely low. This is what causes the phenomenon of "hybrid vigor". Mutts live longer and have typically better lives.

The president should have adopted from a shelter, and adopted a random mutt to show the country that mutts are physically healthier than purebred dogs and the practices of many irresponsible purebred breeders should be abandoned.

Here's an example: What is considered phenotypically "ideal" for the Boxer breed is to have about 3/4 white fur to 1/4 brown or brindle fur. What's the problem with that? Well, the white fur is created by a recessive allele that exhibits incomplete dominance with the dominant, colored allele:

                W           w
W           WW        Ww


w            Ww        ww


The homozygous dominant boxers are all colored, the homozygous recessive boxers are all white, and the heterozygous boxers are a mixture of colored/white in varying ratios because of the incomplete dominance. What's the probelem? The white gene is associated with congenital deafness in homozygous animals. Not every animal goes deaf, but many do. So by upholding this breeding practice they are effectively keeping the recessive allele within a large portion of the given population at any time and condemning 1/4th of all boxer puppies produced to a potential life of deafness just because they think the heterozygous ones "look prettier". The white ones are often euthanized or abandoned by irresponsible owners.

That is genetic cruelty, and it is wrong and should be stopped.

[KebreI]

That is genetic cruelty, and it is wrong and should be stopped.

And here is where I just say...so what >_>

[Thought]

Why would "predictable traits" be a pre-requisite for getting a good dog?

Good question; it depends on how one defines a "good" dog. In this case it would appear that Obama is determining a "good" dog based on how is daughter would react to it and its allergins. In other words, physical qualities.

As mentioned, with a mutt you don't know what you'll get. You'll often not even know the parentage. But with a purebred you can know the physical characteristics of the resulting pups quite reliably (not perfectly, however). If he wants a dog with long, slow-growing fur that curles, he's much better off getting a poodle puppy than a "labradoodle" puppy; it is essentially a sure thing that the poodle puppy will have that sort of hair, its not even a 50/50 chance that a labradoodle will.

Since it would appear that the physical qualities are weighing supreme in the Obama Family's decission, predictability is what makes a good dog for them.

Its all about finding the right dog for the right owner.

[chrono eric]

And here is where I just say...so what >_>

Hmm, let's see - because the breeders are condemning countless innocent animals to a life of suffering and death because of an aesthetic quality that can easily be changed? All it would take to eliminate the practice is to not allow any boxers with any white fur to breed. Problem solved.

An analogous example is the number of purepred dogs that have an enormous predisposition to certain types of cancer because of inbreeding practices. People want a purebred dog, so breeders breed them without any thought as to what recessive alleles they may carry. As such their lifespan is drastically shortened.

Are you saying that is a moral practice? Or that the lives of animals are not worth caring about because they are unimportant compared to us big, powerful, cosmically important human beings?