Leisure Suit Larry • Hacker News Board

Re: Leisure Suit Larry

#141

Post by Gormo » Wed, Apr 04, 2012, 12:43 AM UTC

spindritf wrote: post #109

terhechte wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We won't get rid of hookers until we change or get rid of capitalism, which is the major cause for self-inflicted objectification in our society.

> We won't get rid of hookers until we change or get rid of capitalism While that's true, prostitution was just fine in every other system. Maybe if we could get rid of scarcity of resources, there would be nothing to trade for sex. But that still leaves us with all kinds of psychological reasons, so maybe if we could get rid of human nature...

> there would be nothing to trade for sex

No? Prostitution is itself purely a service; why wouldn't people trade sex for other services in a kind of barter exchange? (One might note that this kind of informal quid-pro-quo is in fact an element in many 'traditional' sexual encounters.)

Re: Leisure Suit Larry

#142

Post by minikomi » Wed, Apr 04, 2012, 2:22 AM UTC

chubs wrote: post #28

eps wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got any scribbles to share? Sounds really interesting.

Have a look if you're interested: http://lauradesign.com.au/on-fire http://lauradesign.com.au/to-the-bat-cave http://lauradesign.com.au/what-the-rock-is-that I've made an objc framework for quest games, ready to go, just need lots of artwork. Maybe we'll finish it one day...

Very cool. Definitely has the style down! That green is spot on.

Re: Leisure Suit Larry

#143

Post by ekianjo » Wed, Apr 04, 2012, 3:22 AM UTC

aqme28 wrote: post #116

ekianjo wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have enough people trying to mess up with the real world, leave games alone. If we go down that path we end up burning books, remember ? Free society begins with free speech, no matter if you like what is being said or not.

So you're saying that we shouldn't have dissent about games because that stifles free speech? I think you're mixing up two mutually exclusive messages here.

No, it is OK to have dissent, but saying that " it doesn't have a place in a future that is trying its hardest to remove objectification of women from society." is very close to saying "we should forbid it" or something like that, and that crosses the line to prevent free expression.

Nobody is forcing anyone to play or buy that game. If you don't like that kind of contents, don't buy it. Leave the ones who enjoy it alone. We don't need a higher moral authority to tell everyone what's right or wrong.

Re: Leisure Suit Larry

#144

Post by papaver » Wed, Apr 04, 2012, 7:54 AM UTC

How sad. A remake for 500k? Really?

The 8-bitness of the old-school games gave the old sierra games their magic. I would have loved to play a new larry game, but this just makes me sad.

What a waste...

Re: Leisure Suit Larry

#145

Post by DanBC » Wed, Apr 04, 2012, 10:54 AM UTC

Jeema3000 wrote: post #128

DanBC wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People trafficking is a huge business with profits for organised crime of over $30billion. Significant numbers of women are forced into sex work in countries across the world. ( http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/issues_doc/labour/Forced... ) Even if the person is not trafficked there are consent issues around addiction: Can a person addicted to a substance make a free informed choice? Here's some research showing t…

"People trafficking is a huge business with profits for organised crime of over $30billion." I am going to go out on a limb here and say that, if we have learned anything from the War on Drugs, then the solution to this problem is probably not increased criminal penalties for prostitution. Perhaps the solution is to educate people - both young women who are at-risk of getting caught up in human trafficking, as well a…

Ah, yes, I was suggesting that criminalising prostitution is a good idea.

In general I don't have a problem with people selling or buying sex. There are some people who need strong protections - anyone under age; anyone who's being coerced; anyone who's being trafficked. There could probably be strong laws made around those areas, with extra help and support for victims.

Then there's a bunch of public health stuff. People addicted to drugs; people with STDs; people engaging in risky ('bareback') behaviour; and so on. Education and support would be good for these. Unfortunately drug addicted sex workers are not a sympathetic vote winning crowd.

The law in the UK is a bit odd. Exchanging money for sex is okay, but you're not allowed to offer sex for money or to offer money for sex. And then there are some newer laws which are "strict liability offences" (it doesn't matter if you know or not; even if you made efforts to find out) covering women who are forced into sex working. (This covers drug addicts paying debts for drugs using sex work.)

The UK has a stricter definition of trafficked than the UN. A person can voluntarily be trafficked into the UK.