Hooker beating: What if you read the Bible AND play GTA5? Angry Aussie gamers were up in arms this week after Target and Kmart pulled Grand Theft Auto V from sale in the country. The shops dumped the game after a petition on Change.org claimed that GTA5 “encourages players to murder women for entertainment”: The incentive is to commit sexual violence against women, then abuse or …
Between the bible and that new ISIS manual that was released i'd say the bible is still pretty tame when it comes to the treatment of women...
> comparing a 2000 year old book with a recently released videogame isn't a flawed argument?
Not if the claim is that "fictional violence (such as in GTA5) should be banned because it causes real violence".
Then it's perfectly logical to point out that the claim is ridiculous, as showcased by the fact that the supposed source of morality and goodness is brimming with worse fictional violence than GTA5.
Your argument, on the other hand, was that "the bible is good because there are even worse", which is fallacious.
@Vociferous is on the money here.
The assertion being levelled is that GTA V, a fictional work, "spreads the idea" that women can or should be treated in a certain way and "shows hatred and contempt", "grooming yet another generation of boys to tolerate violence against women" and "fuelling the epidemic of violence experienced by so many girls and women".
The petition is saying, essentially, that Target's tacit approval of the game, as shown by them selling it, sends a message that the behaviours portrayed in the game are acceptable by mainstream establishments.
In this, the bible can be used as a direct parallel. Indeed if one accepts the premises of the argument it is even more problematic. Why? Because GTA V merely gives you the ability to perform certain actions. The Bible - and other works in similar vein - don't just give an option; in the instances where such violence is committed, it is actually MANDATED. Not only that, it is portrayed as the right, proper and just thing to do.
One can point out that the Bible is (variously) +/-2000 years old and not 'interactive' like a modern video game but that need not affect the central claim - that a work has the effect of promoting an idea of behaviour or even an 'acceptance' of an idea or behaviour.
It is impossible to claim that the Bible - and the Koran - do not have this effect because there are clear instances where mistreatment of women and the acceptance of women as inferior and as scapegoats (women 'bringing it on themselves') has been brought about by an immersion in the teachings of such books. On the other hand, there a no clear instances that I am aware of where it has been shown that someone robbed and killed a prostitute simply because they did it in a video game.
One may point out that the Bible is not focussed on mistreating women and contains many 'good' passages so shouldn't be judged on the questionable portions. One might then respond: "exactly".
I don't believe this petition is seriously asking Target (and presumably Kmart) to take bibles off shelves - I don't even know if they stock them. What it is is showing the premises of the argument to be ridiculous and its application to be unfairly targetted at one very specific work.
In other words, if their premise is sound - that potrayal of behaviour in a work encourages people to commit or accept that behavior- then there is no reason to single out GTA V and their petition should have been far, far broader.
Instead, it is aimed at a convenient scapegoat.
Following on, none of the above is to make any judgements on the Bible (or Koran).
Whatever your religious persuasion, and whatever the arguments one might muster for the quality, holiness, 'goodness' or historicity of the Bible, and whatever one might say about context or allegories, there is no way any person who has actually read the thing could honestly claim that there were not parts that portrayed the protagonists treating women in ways that would be unthinkable to most people today, including sexism, misogyny, scapegoating, violence and through to murder.
My point is not that the Bible should be removed from shelves - and that is not the point of this new petition either - it is that the points and premises used to argue for the removal of a video game result, if taken seriously, in the condemnation of rather more than just GTA V. Including, but not limited to, the world's undisputed all-time best-seller.
And this is what is being said - if you think that playing a game will cause young men to mistreat women then only by the most one-eyed special pleading can you prevent such argument from applying to other works.
Your problem with the counter-petition is always going to be that it's supported by many of the very same killjoy lunatics who supported and created the original petition.
And the problem with the rule-by-women lobby is that you can't just campaign against stuff they like because they don't seem to like anything.
Except possibly cats.
>The Bible - and other works in similar vein - don't just give an option; in the instances where such violence is committed, it is actually MANDATED.
Er, no it isn't. I think you'd be hard pressed to find find Christians in your local culture who think the Bible provides a mandate for killing prostitutes. In fact, the bible writers go out of their way to note the non-Israelite prostitute (Rahab) in Jesus' genealogy and that he was friends with prostitutes and other "sinners" rather than those considered "righteous." I know its difficult to fathom, but you can't do Christianity like twitter as it deals with fairly complex real-world issues and often not in an "if X then Y" manner. It seems those who are anti-Christian are far more "fundamentalist" than Christians - its just a shame they don't actually study what they "believe." Christianity doesn't operate on the simplistic computer-game-logic of "kill the bad guy" or "use the prostitute for your own benefit" that GTA uses.
All of this is irrelevant to the shop in question. That issue can be addressed in twitter-fashion: The content of GTA offends a large percentage of their customers who might decide to shop at a rival. They serve their customers, not internet petition writers.
>>The Bible - and other works in similar vein - don't just give an option; in the instances where such violence is committed, it is actually MANDATED.
>Er, no it isn't.
Er, yes it is. Whether or not Christians choose to adhere strictly to the old testament, it doesn't say stuff like "optionally you may, if you so wish, stone someone to death". It deals in absolutes. The fact that the new Testament lurches in the opposite direction, advocating forgiveness and some measure of tolerance doesn't change that fact.
Please don't presume to know what I have and haven't studied, or whether I am or am not a Christian myself. If it only suits you to accept your personal interpretation of the bible over the actual contents, or the interpretations of others, then you're not going to make a convincing argument.
"Er, yes it is. Whether or not Christians choose to adhere strictly to the old testament, it doesn't say stuff like "optionally you may, if you so wish, stone someone to death". It deals in absolutes. The fact that the new Testament lurches in the opposite direction, advocating forgiveness and some measure of tolerance doesn't change that fact."
Especially, according to Matthew, Jesus specifically noted that the old laws as laid down in Leviticus and so on still apply:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished." - Matthew 5:17-18
And the punishments laid down by the Torah were quite specific and explicit, so that supports the idea that the Bible, by its own admission, is brutal and misogynist at the very least.
@P.Lee
"Er, no it isn't. I think you'd be hard pressed to find find Christians in your local culture who think the Bible provides a mandate for killing prostitutes."
But don't you see - this is exactly my point - that the PREMISE of the original petition's argument would, if true, apply equally (if not more so) the the Bible. This is the function of the 'mock' petition - to bring this into focus.
Now, with the exception of, I believe daughters of priests* (Levites), the Bible does not have a particular problem with prostitution but the point is not the specific case of violence against prostitutes, but the more general assertion that exposure to certain behaviour via a some media or other 'encourages' and 'promotes' that behaviour in the real world.
That is the premise that must be accepted for the argument of original petition to be valid.
The counter-argument of the mock petition to have the Bible removed can be seen as a reductio ad absurdum.
You have essentially argued the same point I am making while missing it entirely. The fact that Christians don't stone adulterers to death, despite it mandated in the Bible is analogous to the fact that young men don't beat up prostitutes because they saw it in GTA V.
Someone well-versed in their Bible or with a grab-bag of stock Christian Apologist counter-points would bring up that most cherished passage in John about 'casting the first stone'. Sidestepping the debate and considerable uncertainty as to this story's providence, one can say that in the same (collected) work, there is an instruction to stone adulterers and a contrasting passage where an adulterer is forgiven.
My point is that it is trivial to find sections of the Bible that depict, condone and even mandate behaviour that is abhorrent to today's morality. It is also trivial to find sections of GTA V that are abhorrent.
If playing a game with violence and misogyny contributes to violence and misogyny in society then reading a book with violence and misogyny likewise contributes to violence and misogyny in society. No special pleading.
* - Who are supposed to be burnt alive if they "profane [themselves] by playing the whore". Because, after all, they have "profane[d] [their] father".
"Someone well-versed in their Bible or with a grab-bag of stock Christian Apologist counter-points would bring up that most cherished passage in John about 'casting the first stone'."
I've always been curious about that passage, considering what if someone just-baptized had come along at precisely that instant. Part of the ritual of baptism is the forgiveness of past sins. So if he'd been there, he'd be without sin at the time, creating a loophole that would've allowed the execution to proceed anyway. Sort of like the total innocent who wasn't afraid to reveal the Emperor's New Clothes.
@Charles
An interesting question but it relies on the story actually being true, of course! There are other similar stories and the 'final' version as it appears in John is almost certainly something inserted well after the initial writing. Some believe it may have originally existed in the synoptic tradition, based on the style.
But let us assume that it was real and so understand that the context is that the Pharisees were testing Jesus, trying, in the manner of "render unto Caesar" (as found in the synoptic gospels), to trap him in a no-win situation.
In John 8, one important part which is sometimes overlooked is that Jesus writes in the ground/dust. Many people ponder what he may have written but that just isn't really relevant. The salient point is that he was writing in the dust and not on a tablet. By doing this, he was showing that he knew the minutiae of Pharisaic law, which forbid anyone from writing two letters together on a tablet or a wall.
To the "he who is without sin" part, we should understand that this was a kind of trial rather than just the judgement. The woman had yet to be accused by anyone there and Mosiac law dictated that eyewitnesses must be present to accuse someone before judgement can be carried out.
In other words, the woman had not yet been found 'guilty'.
Another important point that bears directly on the 'cast the first stone' is that, under Mosaic law, the first stone was to be cast by the witness who comes forward and makes the accusation. Thus, if someone wanted to cast a stone at the woman, that person would have had to come forward and attest to being an eyewitness to the crime and formally accuse her of it.
It is important to note that Jesus was not saying that those who had sinned COULDN'T accuse her, because that was not a legal requirement, but his words had the effect of shaming them into leaving, thus leaving the woman without an accuser.
On a more careful reading, one can see that they caught the woman 'in the act', which must mean that they have identified the male perpetrator as well. If so, why was he not brought forward alongside the woman? One speculation is that the man was one of those accosting Jesus and in cahoots with the Pharisees and so the male adulterer was one of them. Either that or it was a fabrication.
Which then sheds light on why they were defeated when Jesus said that the one without sin should cast the first stone, for someone there was either breaking the 6th (adultery) or 9th (bearing false witness) commandments and would therefore be subject to punishment also.
But, and now we come to another part, where we bring back the connection with the 'render unto Caesar' passage mentioned above. Under Roman rule, as was the case in Judea at that time, it was up to the Roman government to pass judgement on the Jews and so this trap laid by the Pharisees is, as with the question of taxation, likely set to put Jesus between the Mosaic law of the Jews and the Law of the governing Romans.
One suspects that, if the situation is more-or-less representative, the idea was to turn him over to the Roman authorities if he agreed with the Pharisees or condemn his teachings if he went against Mosaic law by saying she shouldn't be stoned then and there.
To the point of baptism, specifically, however, the proposition that Jesus was calling their bluff renders it somewhat moot but I don't believe that would have mattered anyway. Original sin is not a part of Judaism and indeed goes against one of the tenets - that people are born innocent and choose to do good or evil. Baptism was used as a ritual purification, not as a way to absolve one of all sins and thus a newly baptised Jew was not absolved of their sin. I am not a Jewish scholar so I can't be sure of that, of course, but baptism would not, at any rate, have purified someone to the extent that they would no longer have liability until Mosaic law for breaking the commandments.
So, the proposed witness coming forward would either be:
1. Lying, and thus breaking the 9th commandment.
2. The male adulterer, and thus breaking the 6th commandment.
3. Innocent but exposing the real male adulterer, who we presume to be a confidant.
Even then, if someone was to come forward and throw a stone then that person would have then been breaking Roman Law by taking the law into their own hands. Given it is likely that it was set up as a trap for Jesus, one doubts anyone would have gone quite that far and put themselves in jeopardy.
Again, this is going from the assumption of Jesus being a real person (divine or not) and this story being accurate but whatever the case, it's all now COMPLETELY beside the original point : )
"This book which mandates murder, bigotry and hatred on pain of eternal damnation isn't so bad because this other book is so much worse."
Compared to "A book which mandates murder, bigotry, hatred, rape, plunder, slavery, pedophilia, AND slaughter in the name of a deity"? Yes, it's not SO bad. Doesn't mean it's still BAD, though. Kinda like comparing Epic Movie to Disaster Movie.
Haven't had time to play GT5 but I remember GT4 as a highly moral game. You could do immoral things, sure, but that was up to you. Murdering prostitutes for money is certainly possible, but that arises as a consequence of open-world gaming with detailed supporting logic; I got to 100% without murdering a single prostitute.
Have to tack my agreement on here. Indeed if the petition really does include the phrase "The incentive is to commit sexual violence against women, then abuse or kill them to proceed or get 'health' points" then I think Rockstar could have a fairly solid Libel/Slander case.
Not that I think they'd take that route, I'm sure they just want to walk away from all this idiocy after the Hot Coffee fiasco.
".....Brian Wernham, author of Agile Project Management...." Two misnomers in one go! Project managers do not actually manage anything, at best they are usually project coordinators and project progress documenters, nothing more. They rarely have any actual ability to control the path of a project or the people on it. And slavish obedience to the latest process fad (such as 6Sigma or Scrum) does not equate to agile.
Could you imagine the uproar from the 'feminist' camp if you were only allowed to murder male characters on GTA? Pretty sure that would be considered sexist. So - right - Rockstar allows you to murder any sex character, but that not encourages violence against females.
Its pretty much what men have known for centuries - you just can't win... lol
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
