You replied twice to 2 different posts and the forums put them together, I was replying to part where you said:
" As usual neo-fems claim to know exactly what people are thinking, just ask them. Target apparently obviously intended to sell it to children, it wasn't just an ad exec who saw a popular and profitable store item and put it in the ad. "

To, I assume, my theory about Target being in cahoots with kids to get teh gaems into their bedrooms

Regardless, you seem to jump to the conclusion its done intentionally. I find it much more likely an ad exec found 3 very popular "Toys" from 3 separate sections of the toy department, and featured them in the ad.

I'm not surprised video games would qualify as "Toys" when they break merchandise up by department. I'm also not surprised GTA V might be their most popular video game either. And frankly its only outrageous if you have an extreme negative opinion of GTA V anyway.

Seriously, if I go through a Meijer ad, I might find toys on a page and two pages later ads for guns (at least they use to sell guns if they don't now). How many stores have both toys and alcohol in the same pamphlet?

The ads aren't meant for kids anyway. They are for the adults who will be buying the stuff. If you really think about it, that outrage is really kinda stupid.

but if thats the case, then you can just pull things like: http://www.msnbc.com/thomas-roberts/did-grand-theft-auto-turn-8-year-old

and say that the Australian KMart ban is just the same, not distorting the truth - just bad journalism.

But I DON'T have a negative opinion of GTA V overall, I LOVE the GTA series, I love Game of Thrones, I love American Horror Story and I love Terry Gilliam's 'Tidelands'

I just SERIOUSLY do not think any of them should be marketed at kids!

Anne Frank's diary presented nazism and that BBC documentary on crimes against women in India presented rape. Are they both wrong and worthy of censorship?

So should the customers have to pay for the fuck up whoever made the ads with the game by the toys?
To me, that is a "NO!", the customers didn't put the ad in that place

No, I'm not advocating for kids to have access to the game but then IIRC that wasn't what the petition was about. it was about it offending someone based on "Violence to women" so should we go ban all games that a woman could get hurt in? like Tomb Raider, Bayanetta, Elder Scrolls & Fallout for examples

What?

Rape and nazism is wrong. Does portraying them warrant a censor?

Warning! Danger! Godwin's Law approaching!

This is one of the most non sequitur questions I have ever got... I have no idea what you are on about... sorry.

Great article, I mean one killer played Diablo III and World of Warcraft. Maybe everyone who ever played those games needs to be rounded up and put in a camp for everyone else's safety since its clearly a risk factor.

But just no, using the Target ad as an emotional argument is clearly what they intended. It didn't matter to them it had nothing to do with the game itself, it was a means to an end. Just as all the stupid arguments I'm hearing in this thread on why its okay to get a game banned from stores.

From, "It's okay because that's not my definition of censorship" and "you can still buy it somewhere, so it's okay"
or "These women were hurt so its okay for them to get games banned" or "Target has bad ads, so ban it" or "Why can't we only have games liked by everybody, if anyone is offended lets ban it"

Quite frankly, all these arguments just make people dumber.

----

So let me propose this...how about we just stop selling video games to women in K-Marts or Targets. I mean, they can get the games elsewhere so its not hurting anyone. If they don't buy them, they can't be emotionally scarred by their content. I mean, a lot of men get hurt in those games and I can see how they might promote violent tendencies in women. So really, it would be a good thing to keep them away from games because they are such fragile little flowers and need protecting from the bad bad games.

Really no different from the current petition...in content nor accuracy...

you do realise that my point was about how you rationalise the petitions...

A gamergater, not a journalist, using Destructoid's community blogging feature, says that Sarkeesian was involved in Electronic Arts' game development.

--> "Destructoid did make that claim".

Once in a while you guys will actually have to read and understand the pages you link to. But, alas, zero research, zero data. Hey, reading the browser tag title would have sufficed to place the blog entry. But who cares. Who the fuck cares.

Go on with the fact downvoting instead. Hell yeah. C'mon, you can do it.

I'd like to know those facts too actually.
1.Who is posing rational arguments and engaging logical discussion to end the ''problem in videogames''; on the anti#GG AND
2.Who is downreppin'. Its not me; I think I even lost some.