Outrage from retards

[Matt]

Yeah that'd be the icing on the cake would that. This thread needs more moral indignation and jesus.

[Super Goat Weed]

We've had our differences in the past to be sure, but it's always been strictly business. My family has always tried to resolve such things peacefully and without such senseless violence. Antonio was a good boy. It's one thing to send a message, it's another to do it in such a disgraceful and insulting manner.

This was a call to war, and such calls must be answered.

Click here to view the YouTube video. Click here again to hide it.

[Bogey]

Mik, what relevance do your posts have on this exactly? This is more of an animal rights discussion than anything to do with violence in computer games. Most of the outcry is from animal rights groups. We've been over and over the whole violence in computer games discussion and it's just not interesting anymore, nothing else can be said. Everyone here already knows how rediculous the claims are that relate violence in computer games to real life.

Yes, Sony pulled this stunt for shock value and they knew what they were doing. I never said they weren't, Icefire. You are completely avoiding the issue though. Stupid statements like the world changes so none of this matters anyway. One day you'll get a girlfriend and stop being such an emo. I've heard enough depressing shit from you already about how you have no faith in humanity. It's like a broken record, slit your wrists already.

Matt, it did go to publication. That's why it was recalled. The photos were not blurred in the magasine, the Daily Mail are the ones who blurred the photo for use in their article. Just because stunts like this are expected from big names like Sony, should not mean it is acceptable. You complain about people imposing on your personal rights, but this was hardly a private function. Go ahead and have your own party with a dead goat as the centre piece, I won't be complaining.

[Matt]

Matt, it did go to publication. That's why it was recalled. The photos were not blurred in the magasine, the Daily Mail are the ones who blurred the photo for use in their article. Just because stunts like this are expected from big names like Sony, should not mean it is acceptable. You complain about people imposing on your personal rights, but this was hardly a private function. Go ahead and have your own party with a dead goat as the centre piece, I won't be complaining.

Ah, right, I stand corrected on that one. That is a tad out of line, then. Especially with the under 18 audience that reads their magazine. Personally, and clearly, I don't. I stopped buying them once they hit the £5 mark.

I can't remember saying that it was acceptable or expected of Sony. Putting the pictures in a magazine that could've been bought by minors is kind of wrong. But it's not like the kids would be disturbed by them. I think perhaps the comments would have been like "holy shit...cooooool" from them. Which, if I'd've stumbled across them, I'd've said the same thing.

And yes, I go on about imposing on my personal rights, but you make that sound like people were forced to go. Of course it's going to be a public event, what use would a private promotion do? The main point was that no one was forced to go, or stay. So that way it wasn't imposing on peoples rights. Though, I doubt people would've been aware that this was going to be taking place, which does impose on peoples rights, especially if they were asked to pay upon entry. But to 'stand up' for Sony there, it wouldn't have been that good of a "surprise" if they made it clear. So it's kind of a grey area.

As far as animal rights are concerned. I'll say it again; they have no palpable argument. The goat was dead prior to it's disembowelment and decapitation. Which is why it just doesn't bother me at all. I find things like fox hunting and seal clubbing to be a better use of these group's time, because those are ones I personally feel are wrong and should be halted.

[Bogey]

I understand your point of view. It really is a grey area, like I said in my opening post it's kind of hypocritical of me. It's hard to find where to draw the line. I personally find public stunts involving dead animals to be quite vulgar, which is even more highlighted when I see a topless model standing next to it. Boobs and goat blood don't mix. I probably would've thought this was cool when I was younger too.

[Mik]

yeah, I was kinda redressing an old issue.

Animal rights campigners generally don't know what they are taking about. My only problem with it from that angle, is it's a bit wasteful if they just fucked it in a skip after the photoshoot. It depends on the source, but the animals death itself was prolly a fairly quick and humane affair with the rest of this being fairly post-mortum, in which case it doesn't really matter as the animals dead I don't think it'd mind at that stage.

[Matt]

I understand your point of view. It really is a grey area, like I said in my opening post it's kind of hypocritical of me. It's hard to find where to draw the line. I personally find public stunts involving dead animals to be quite vulgar, which is even more highlighted when I see a topless model standing next to it. Boobs and goat blood don't mix. I probably would've thought this was cool when I was younger too.

You're fun to discuss with because you don't get angry with me :wub:

It was very vulgar, but I guess I'm still a teenager who finds vulgar things amusing. My favourite form of abuse is to call someone a Jew, because it's the most offensive thing I can muster. Which seems to work and conclude that anti-semitism is still very much alive and well.

yeah, I was kinda redressing an old issue.

Animal rights campigners generally don't know what they are taking about. My only problem with it from that angle, is it's a bit wasteful if they just fucked it in a skip after the photoshoot. It depends on the source, but the animals death itself was prolly a fairly quick and humane affair with the rest of this being fairly post-mortum, in which case it doesn't really matter as the animals dead I don't think it'd mind at that stage.

It's my understanding the carcass was given back to the butcher they bought it from. I mean I read it on the internets, so it must be true!

[kaos]

I think the problem is that the goats presence was hardly about food.
If they were just there to enjoy some fresh goat. ok. a bit weird. but ok.

instead its pretty much like they were playing with a dead body like a bunch of necrophilliacs.

theirs a lot of "it was already dead so it doesnt matter" going round.

but you wouldnt want sombody dancing around with a dead relatives corpse and taking pictures as a publicity stunt.

[Matt]

They made a traditional Greek soup from the goat and I'm not actually related to any goats. But I guess I agree, I'm not really into things like organ donation, so yeah, don't want people fishing around in my body after I'm dead.