Print 72 comment(s) - last by Belard.. on May 6 at 5:32 AM

Baby Shaker was the hottest new video game for the iPhone, until Apple changed its mind and deigned it offensive, removing it from the App Store.  (Source: YouTube)
Apple appears very confused when it comes to baby shaking

When it comes to iPhone apps, Apple has received bad press aplenty for its policy of strictly regulating the application market.  From competitive browsers to "offensive" apps like a South Park app, the iPhone App Store may have millions of apps, but is still relatively closed.

However, Apple is in the unusual situation this time around for being in hot water for an app it approved.  Apple approved an interesting title -- Baby Shaker -- on the App Store Monday.  This video game, authored by Sikalosoft, looked to channel the inner English au pair in some people, making shaking a baby (as the name implies) into a videogame.

The game consisted of multiple levels.  Each level had a drawing of a baby, which crying loudly.  You would shake the phone until the baby stopped crying and red X's appeared over its eyes (apparently signifying the baby's death).  The app was available from Monday to Wednesday night for $0.99.

Child advocacy groups pitched a fit, demanding Apple remove the app and stating unequivocally that killing babies was unacceptable.  Apple caved in, ruling that there is no longer a place in the world for Baby Shaker.  However, many are noting the curiousness that the company, which is usually so strict with offensive content (like the South Park app) would approve the app in the first place.

As some are pointing out, Apple's iTunes store sells some music which could be designed as highly offensive, with lyrics featuring sexually explicit content, violence, racism, homophobic remarks, strong language, and stories of criminal behavior.

However, as in the past, while other mediums like music and art may deal in the same themes, video games receive the most controversy.  From Wii Beer Pong to the Columbine video game, video game developers' creative licenses have often led to confrontations with the moral opinions of many in society.

You can view a video of Baby Shaker here, and decide for yourself whether it should have be banned.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Never shake a baby!
By unclesharkey on 4/23/2009 2:38:20 PM , Rating: 5
It made news because shaking a baby can kill it period and it happens all too often. I don't care if it was a board game a card game or whatever it is great that it made the news.

I work in child welfare so I have seen first hand what shaking a baby can do. The lucky ones end up blind or with brain damage the others end up dead. It is called "SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME" Even lightly shaking a young baby can damage its neck, optic nerve and brain.

It is possible that people playing this game might think it is ok to shake a baby. It is never ok to shake a baby. You have to remember that there are a lot of stupid people out there that are easily influenced by such things.

"An estimated 1,200 to 1,400 cases of Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) occur each year in the United States. Only 1 out of 4 babies dies of Shaken Baby Syndrome. HOWEVER, the other three babies will need ongoing medical attention for the rest of their short lifespans."

Those are the ones that we know about there are a lot that go undocumented.

RE: Never shake a baby!
By ClownPuncher on 4/23/2009 2:55:53 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe babies should stop being so lame then and start working out, how is it MY fault if they are too weak to stand up for themselves.

RE: Never shake a baby!
By rmlarsen on 4/23/2009 5:28:43 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for that enlightened reply. This is exactly why I agree with Apple's decision to impose censorship in this specific case. It also just makes sense from a business point of view. The Apple brand would be severely tarnished in many parents' minds if it became known that they had approved something like this.

RE: Never shake a baby!
By Belard on 4/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Never shake a baby!
By unclesharkey on 4/23/2009 10:18:20 PM , Rating: 3
I want to know where you heard that workers get a bonus for placing a child in another home. Now that is a joke and it does not happen. I have 15 years in child welfare and work with veterans with 30 years and believe me you do not do this kind of job for the money, you do it for the kids and if you don't have the heart for it then we don't want you.

Of course there are bad apples in every bunch but I have seen very few and most of them leave not because they don't like children but because they can't handle the stress.

Let me tell you that we don't want to take a child out of a home and in our state we do everything we can to avoid it. Foster care is not a long term solution and children should be with their families. Besides working with the parents we work with relatives as well. If all else fails then adoption is the last step. But that does not usually happen for at least 12-15 months of working with the family.

In some cases we do get it wrong and we pull a kid that does not need to be pulled. That is why we go in front of a judge within 24 hours after pulling a kid and the child and parents and DSS have attorneys. The judge hears the evidence and then makes a decision.

I would rather pull a kid and then find out it was nothing and let them go home than to take a chance and have the kid die or get injured. We have to go by what the child is telling us or what type of injuries we see or what a doctor or the police are telling us. It is a tough job. One mistake and a child dies. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

RE: Never shake a baby!
By JAB on 4/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: Never shake a baby!
By Belard on 4/24/2009 3:54:31 PM , Rating: 3
I want to know where you heard that workers get a bonus for placing a child in another home. Now that is a joke and it does not happen.

Err... its been happening for years in the USA, it varies from state to state of no bonus to thousands of dollars. CPS is also a business. The "more kids that need help", the more funding they need. But yeah, people and companies make money off of children, especially those taken from good homes. Use google, do some research. Here is one of many.

Let me tell you that we don't want to take a child out of a home and in our state we do everything we can to avoid it.

I'm glad to hear that YOU (and your state) is like that. But I've seen CPS do their thing up close and personal... including the 24hr court hearing in front of a judge, but that was on a Friday, so it wasn't until the next week.
But judges will generally side with CPS, even if "info" is incorrect / false.

And sad thing, the child was taken on hear-say and from a "drug problem" from another party. I've seen a case worker lie, I've read the report on the accused and the info was false (I know, becase I witness what really happened). A: CPS calls as mom is leaving state, late for airport. During the 2 minute phone call - she never told mom "we have your kid" B: 1hr later, calls again while mom is bording plane and says "we have kid, are you going to pick him up". trip is canceled. C: When arrived at CPS office, child is proccessed into foster care because mom took too long. D: court report says "mom didn't care". Funny, how hard it is for a person to say "you're leaving on a plane? Wait we have your kid". Mom could have been there in 10-15minutes after the 1st call. Not two hours later from the airport. A woman that worked there played with the child, waiting for mom for pick up, until the case worker decided to proccess the child. (She told us this)

So no... many times, CPS is abusive, they have a lot of power. Talking to attorneys, I've heard plenty about the abuse. In fact, more kids have been abused and sexually assualted and killed by foster parents than by their own parents. Or how about the day-care incident that happened in the mid-80s in which many parents lost their kids and went to prison for 8~15 years based on lies by the DA?

UncleSkarky... People are afraid of CPS for these reasons.
The only people who should be afraid are abusive parents - but such people don't really care much IMHO. But a phone call from a stranger or a person who wants revenge is all that it takes to create a nightmare for parents. If it works out, no "sorry" or repayment for legal bills. Of course this happens to those with lower income who can't afford to protect themselves.

Or how about the teenage girl who called CPS on her parents, so that her little brother and two sisters were removed saying that both dad and mom sexually molested them and with no real evidence. As each child turned 18, they returned home at midnight. As pointed out, once the "child" becomes 18 - the money machine goes away... obviously there is no abuse if 3 teenagers are crying to go home. Oh, the lying daughter when asked by mom why she did this "Oh I wanted to see what would happen"!?! The mother sould have recorded that conversation. If I was her brother, I'd sue that sister for emotional damages. Oh, and what is this girl's future who ruined her family's lives. She's going to become a CPS caseworker!! That is evil, that girl is going to legally ruin people's lives and she obviously gets off on it.

Or the father who was hugging his daughter at a sporting event, lost both of his kids (both about 10). He spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and still lost. So when does hugging your child become a crime? Or the father who was bathing his child in an APT in which the air-ducts are kind of connected - someone "thought" they heard abuse.

If the GOVT. wants to remove children because the parents are poor, then birthcontrol should be free (or a licence should be required) and requirements should be meet. I was recently talking to a women who lost her 4 kids because her BF was molesting some of them and didn't know. I agree that some mothers turn a blind eye... so if she's innocent, they shouldn't have been taken away. She admits she trying to get by, but she nolonger has value in life... nothing matters anymore. :(

I don't think many case-workers have children. If they did and loved their kids, they would know the difference. Going to classes about children and having children are two different things. Of coure there are people who have kids, don't abuse them (physically), but don't have any love. Can't do anything about that. :(

Again, if you're speaking from the heart about your job and YOU really do your best for the children. Then I give you a thumbs up. I think there are a lot of people who really do want to help abused kids, but they are blind about the abuse that CPS does. There should never be a bonus for terminating a parent/child relationship.

RE: Never shake a baby!
By unclesharkey on 4/24/2009 7:08:06 PM , Rating: 2
I am not sure where your anecdotal evidence is coming from but I assure you that those stories are the exception and not the rule. The courts do usually side with DSS and all DSS investigators side with the children. If you are familiar with child welfare law this will be a brief review. At a shelter hearing hearsay is allowed so anyone can say anything. So if the judge has reasonable concerns the child will be sheltered for 30 days at that time you return for an adjudacation hearing. This type of case is based on "preponderance of the evidence" and no hearsay is allowed. It is just like a regular trial.

I suggest you look at the child welfare law in your state. It is very specific as to why a child can be removed. If the parents loose at the adjudacation level they can still appeal it to a judge all the way up to the court of appeals. Maybe 30 years ago this might have been easy to do in a small town but there are a lot of safeguards against this type of abuse.

Also you are wrong about funding. The feds do give the state money but the state also pays for a lot of these kids. It all depends on their IV-E eligibility. Paying for foster care is not cheap and children belong with their families. At one time in states where there are a large number of Native Americans they were placed in foster care a lot. Then the feds passed the ICWA in 1978 and that dropped the number of Native Americans coming into care. 30 Years ago! I am sure that in some rare cases the system is abused by workers or judges. But you have to remember we are on the side of the child at the time of investigation. Once the child comes into care it is the job of the foster care staff to reunify the child with their family.

So one guy writes and article and you buy it hook line and sinker? It looks like sensational journalism to me. He makes all these statements but where is the evidence? I don't get any extra money. I actually got furloughed this year along with all the other State employees in my state. Child protective services and foster care services are federally mandated. If we are not out there trying to protect the children who will do it? IMO we fall under the same category as the police, teachers, doctors and other professionals who's job it is to protect children. Our workers staff shelters, work with the homeless and provide out reach services including in-home services to families which is free of charge. I can only speak for my State and my county but we hold ourselves to a higher standard. When working with families we follow many of the same types of procedures out lined in the Anne E. Casey Foundation.

The unfortunate thing is you can find horror stories in any kind of profession and it is almost impossible to prevent these type of tragedies. Remember we didn't start the fire. But we do need to try to fight them.

RE: Never shake a baby!
By dever on 4/25/2009 3:14:03 PM , Rating: 3
The unfortunate thing is you can find horror stories in any kind of profession
Yes, that may be the case, but since CPS is an arm of the government they wield the ungainly, blunt instrument of legalized use of force. This clearly puts parents at a disadvantage.

I don't think there's any rational parent that doesn't realize that the power of CPS to pull children without a full trial of the parents is a clear violation of our country's founding principals.

Not only that, but CPS workers are personally exempted from lawsuits by parents. So, if a worker screws up "protecting a child" and wrongfully pulls it out of a home, there is no appropriate feedback to the system. Civilians who would make such an impact on a child and family should be terribly liable. But someone who has the power of legalized force on their side should be even more liable, not less.

RE: Never shake a baby!
By Belard on 5/6/2009 5:32:35 AM , Rating: 2
It is no secret that in some states, CPS workers get money for placing children into new homes. CPS, like any other business or govt. enitity has corruption and incompentency.

The day-care nightmare from 1985 was a fact. There are these stories because such things happen. Just as you say that you have "good" experinces, there are way to many victims of CPS.

The companies that support CPS make money... they'll say the child needs (A) (B) and (C) which makes them $1000 a month.

I'm in the USA too... which isn't the perfect country and I don't think there is such a thing. But as noted, when people can abuse the system and not get in trouble for ruining peoples lives, that is a serious problem. Talk to some lawyers who have experince with CPS - they can be a nightmare. They can and DO work to fail the parents if they want to. As far as evidence... its out there, and as seen in COURT with CPS case-workers, they HAVE removed children based off of little / no evidence and not doing any research. They also trick parents into failure: If there is a report. Agree to take a parenting class to improve yourself. But taking a class proves your a bad parent.

CPS to judge: such and such happened.
Parents to Judge: No true.
Jude: give parents classes, sides with CPS.

BUT, yes some people need these classes, some of these kids need to be saved. But when the system is abused, its breaks it.

If you have a son taken away from you based off of lies or incorrect report - what right should someone rip your child from your arms without PROOF first? Its pretty bad when a person calls CPS for help and they don't do anything because they requires work... and when they do something, its wrong wrong wrong.


RE: Never shake a baby!
By Murloc on 4/24/2009 11:12:12 AM , Rating: 2
I think the baby might prefer to die than to lose vision and get brain damage.

RE: Never shake a baby!
By unclesharkey on 4/24/2009 7:10:18 PM , Rating: 2
About 10 years ago we had a baby that was shaken and he lost his eye sight. He should be about 10 now. I will go and ask him if he would rather dead.

By JonnyBlaze on 4/23/2009 10:16:44 AM , Rating: 1
Someone port this to the wii

By invidious on 4/23/2009 10:26:42 AM , Rating: 2

By callmeroy on 4/23/2009 1:45:50 PM , Rating: 3 long as the game is named after one of your kids....

By Davelo on 4/23/2009 12:07:12 PM , Rating: 3
What kind of sick MFers would buy this "game"? Better question, what kind of sick geek would make this game and what kind of sick company market it?

By Alexstarfire on 4/24/2009 5:07:13 AM , Rating: 2
You really seem to imply that only geeks and nerds can actually program stuff. That's just not the case. From the looks of that picture I'd say this game probably took no longer than 10 minutes to actually make and with very minimal coding. Even if you had no idea what you were doing I'd say this is would take maybe a day at most to finish.

While I see no problem with this "game" I'd never buy it. Waste of my $.99 if you ask me. No skill involved what-so-ever. Of course if you use this as a gauge as to how strong your masturbation hand/arm is then it might have a market.

By aguilpa1 on 4/24/2009 8:57:26 AM , Rating: 2
exactly I could do this in flash in about 10 minutes. It didn't take someone a lot of talent to make this.

By Davelo on 4/24/2009 4:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
My point is not about geeks but about how this thing could bring down Apple should this story grow legs and make it to the mainstream media.

yes or no?
By Screwballl on 4/23/2009 9:32:13 AM , Rating: 4
The real story here is how confused Apple is with these apps... they are so afraid to make anyone mad that they approve the seemingly harmless apps (like baby shaker), yet anything from a known "mature" TV show like South Park is denied without so much of a review of what it actually does.

I think they are finally learning that you can't make everyone happy. They are (maybe) starting to learn that without their iPhone, they would still be some niche computer maker with 4% or lower of the PC market.

Face it, without the iPhone, a good chunk of people would not have even known that they still make anything other than Windows computers for home users.

RE: yes or no?
By TomZ on 4/23/2009 9:35:42 AM , Rating: 2
Apple is learning that being a censor is a hard job.

RE: yes or no?
By masouth on 4/23/2009 2:14:07 PM , Rating: 2
I 100% agree with you that Apple seems confused with how to handle these apps and their decisions seem to be totally arbitrary. It's their right to do so but hopefully this helps them decide to manage the process at least a little better.

However regarding Apple outside of the iphone...

You seem to have forgotten about that money train they have been riding for several years: the iPod. I also can't say that I know anyone, let alone a good chunk of people, who believes that Apple makes Windows computers.

By mattclary on 4/23/2009 9:38:33 AM , Rating: 3
As some are pointing out, Apple's iTunes store sells some music which could be designed as highly offensive, with lyrics featuring sexually explicit content, violence, racism, homophobic remarks, strong language, and stories of criminal behavior.

But killing babies is ok. Sounds like the status quo to me.

Just approve everything
By nafhan on 4/23/2009 10:33:32 AM , Rating: 2
If they didn't try to censor stuff based on content, this would be a non-issue.
Since they are engaging in censorship, it looks like they purposefully allowed this to be published to the app store Whether they did or not can be debated, but judging by the public outcry a lot people seem to think so.
This is a great example of how censorship can be a double edged sword...

RE: Just approve everything
By nixoofta on 4/25/2009 1:02:03 AM , Rating: 1
I was wondering about weapon upgrades.

This just goes to show...
By Donovan on 4/23/2009 10:46:11 AM , Rating: 2
If you want to declare yourself the morality monitor, you have to actually do the job.

What happened to our world...
By japlha on 4/23/2009 2:07:40 PM , Rating: 2
when "shaking a baby until it dies" is considered an acceptable theme for a video game?

I hear the end game boss is a big 300lbs baby. Try shaking that.

New commercial...
By VashHT on 4/23/2009 2:46:14 PM , Rating: 2
"Want to shake your baby? There's an app for that!"

Hahaha come on people its not even vaguely realistic just a stupid game made by some guy probably trying to piss people off.

Get a dictionary already, Mick!
By C'DaleRider on 4/23/2009 4:41:37 PM , Rating: 2
...while other mediums like music and art may deal in the same themes...

Again, get a dictionary, Mick.

Media is the work you wanted, not mediums. Media is the plural word, medium is the singular version of the word.

By AlmostExAMD on 4/24/2009 4:30:27 AM , Rating: 2
Waterboarding not torture? LOL
Come here and let me demonstrate on you,Let me DROWN you over and over again and see if you feel the same way.
The problem with waterboarding is that IT WORKS because it is torture.Meaning the threat of death you are gonna spill your guts and tell them what they wanna hear because you want the PAIN to stop.
It produces the gag reflex instantly,Extremely painful and can potentially cause brain damage.
Having experienced the opposite side of drowning in a dam when I was young,That was more than bad enough. I would hate to experience a deliberate drowning over and over again.

Babies in early pregnancy are not even babies,Fetuses more like it.Don't see how they could possibly feel pain as their brains arent developed enough to communicate with pain receptors,Think its about 20+weeks.Most abortions are carried out in the first 6-12 weeks.
Doctors have acknowledge that a fetus needs a cortex to connect to the brain in order to feel pain, the cortex connects the brain to the pain nerves in the end of second trimester (24/25/ weeks on.) Therefore if the nerves havent connected to the brain, the fetus cannot feel pain as the brain needs to send a message to the nervous system in order for us to understand that.
Where is this evidence I would like to read how they showed the fetus experiencing pain,Did it talk to them,Did it wave it's arms or legs ohh that's right they arent wired in yet either damn? lol

By SandmanWN on 4/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: seriously?
By weskurtz0081 on 4/23/2009 9:22:31 AM , Rating: 2
Believe it or not, this made national news! Not that it should be all that surprising I guess, but it did.....

RE: seriously?
By Ryanman on 4/23/2009 9:23:58 AM , Rating: 2
It made national news for two reasons.

One: Video games are a victim of gross media discrimination.
Two: Any "child advocacy" group can get free publicity from making a huge fit about something as minor as this.

The lesson here is, save children at any cost, especially when I'll learn to shake babies as a father from this game.

RE: seriously?
By SandmanWN on 4/23/2009 9:27:42 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately you are correct. Instead of ignoring something so pointless and letting it die in obscurity. Advocacy groups become their own worst enemy by giving these things news worthy attention.

They keep falling for the same catch-22.

RE: seriously?
By afkrotch on 4/23/2009 12:10:40 PM , Rating: 2
I bet the person, company, or whatever who created the app is making a good chunk of money now, due to all the publicity.

RE: seriously?
By Moishe on 4/23/2009 9:28:54 AM , Rating: 2
You are so right.

RE: seriously?
By TomZ on 4/23/2009 9:24:56 AM , Rating: 2
The real question is, what kind of an idiot would pay even $1 for such a stupid program?

RE: seriously?
By Brandon Hill on 4/23/2009 9:25:54 AM , Rating: 3
Remember the idiots that paid for the "I'm Rich" app? :)

RE: seriously?
By DeepBlue1975 on 4/23/2009 10:36:45 AM , Rating: 2
About the same class of idiots that are asking for it to be banned, but with an opposite opinion about the game :D

Just two faces of the same coin... Both types earned the right to be called idiots.

RE: seriously?
By 440sixpack on 4/23/2009 11:48:12 AM , Rating: 2
I can't believe anyone would find such a game fun. Maybe I'm biased having an infant myself, but I fail to see how this game could have any appeal to anyone.

RE: seriously?
By afkrotch on 4/23/2009 12:22:47 PM , Rating: 2
Everything has an appeal to someone.

Hell, I don't see the appeal of running 26 miles, but ppl do it.

RE: seriously?
By callmeroy on 4/23/2009 3:36:09 PM , Rating: 2
Hell people murder babies all the time right?

By Moishe on 4/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: geeez
By Fanon on 4/23/2009 11:15:13 AM , Rating: 3
I don't see the humor.

How about an app where you hang black people, shoot Mexicans crossing the border, beat gays with a bat, shove Jews into gas chambers, or feed Christians to lions? I guess those could be labeled as "sick humor" too, and thus would be just fine to you. It's just a frakkin video game, after all.

RE: geeez
By HackSacken on 4/23/2009 11:37:17 AM , Rating: 3
The humor isn't there for me either.

However, you can beat prostitutes in GTA (humorous for me). Maybe a bad comparison, but either way, still a fine line nonetheless.

RE: geeez
By Moishe on 4/23/2009 2:18:48 PM , Rating: 4
I don't see the humor in beating prostitutes... The problem is that it's harmless. Shaking a phone that has a picture of a 3D baby on it is not evil or wrong. We can't equate it to race (hanging blacks, etc) because general violence doesn't hold the same taboo.

If you're gonna say it's sick to shake a video game baby til it dies, then it's EQUALLY as sick to beat a video game hooker. Wanton violence is wanton violence. Apple better remove ALL violent video games so that they're fair.

RE: geeez
By AstroCreep on 4/23/2009 5:54:23 PM , Rating: 2
Hookers are people too, ya know...

RE: geeez
By peritusONE on 4/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: geeez
By Fanon on 4/23/2009 12:17:19 PM , Rating: 2
Last time I checked, babies aren't in their own race or sexual preference classification.

Correct, but babies are a group of people who are completely and totally dependent on other people to survive. Shaking a baby for the expressed reason of killing her is no different than killing someone of a specific race or creed for the same reason.

But let me guess, you don't use the ol' "jews and gas chambers" analogy when it comes to shooting adults in GTA.

Nope. Adults are only slightly different than babies.

What if the game was centered around shaking teenagers? Would you be as upset?

Nope. See reason above.

RE: geeez
By adiposity on 4/23/2009 1:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
Correct, but babies are a group of people who are completely and totally dependent on other people to survive.


Shaking a baby for the expressed reason of killing her is no different than killing someone of a specific race or creed for the same reason.


I'm having trouble following your logic--babies are the equivalent to racial/religious groups because they are helpless?

If anything, baby shaking is universal. We were all babies, most people will have babies, and babies are a necessary part of our existence as a species. None of these things can be said about specific racial or religious groups. Additionally, babies are one of the most cared-for and protected groups in almost all societies. So a game that mistreats them is pretty different from one that encourages hate against a certain race or religion, which might play into biases that already cause crimes and mistreatment.


RE: geeez
By phxfreddy on 4/23/2009 5:45:00 PM , Rating: 1
GeeSuss more believers in THOUGHT CRIMES.

Let's see...we should give people lighter sentences because they really liked who they kilt !

You see you bought the premises all of you on "hate crimes"....generally people hate who the freakin kill. So give em death 2 times!

RE: geeez
By ayat101 on 4/24/2009 4:03:15 AM , Rating: 2
Nah... not really... sometimes it is just business :)

RE: geeez
By adiposity on 4/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: geeez
By omnicronx on 4/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: geeez
By Moishe on 4/23/2009 2:21:43 PM , Rating: 2
So it's be wrong to make a video game where you shake crippled or old people until they die because they are helpless?

Now you're splitting hairs. If video game killing is bad, then it's bad. No more Doom, BattleField, or any other violent video games for you!

RE: geeez
By Moishe on 4/23/2009 2:19:23 PM , Rating: 2
Oh no, don't bring up logical comparisons... none of that.

hush you! :)

RE: geeez
By munky on 4/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: geeez
By nvalhalla on 4/23/2009 1:34:43 PM , Rating: 1
Those would be fine by me. It doesn't hurt real people so I don't care. It's a video game. If it is tasteless, so be it, I won't play it. I find lots of things to be tasteless, MTV for example, so I don't consume those media. If it's so tasteless no one likes it then it won't sell. I'm not about to tell people what is ok to make a video game/movie/book/song about.

RE: geeez
By nvalhalla on 4/23/2009 1:36:35 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, Munky and I had the same opinion. We even used similar examples. Kinda creepy...

RE: geeez
By omnicronx on 4/23/2009 1:35:42 PM , Rating: 2
I find it kind of funny, but its not something I would continually play (or pay for in the first place), but if someone showed it to me, I would probably laugh a bit.

Its not like you see the babies neck or back break onscreen, or anything happen to the baby at all for that matter. That I would find offensive, but red x's around the eye's is not exactly the worst thing in the world, I see worse on TV during prime time every night...

RE: geeez
By mattclary on 4/23/2009 2:25:31 PM , Rating: 2
Those are all hate crimes, thus legally protected from being humorous. Babies aren't an officially recognized minority, so killing them, while frowned upon, can be the source for much humor.

This was an attempt at humor.

RE: geeez
By TBottch on 4/23/2009 4:07:43 PM , Rating: 2
Well there goes 5 of my six ideas for apps.... Just kidding personally I think this is in very poor taste.

RE: geeez
By AstroCreep on 4/23/2009 6:01:47 PM , Rating: 2
You should pitch those ideas to the creators of Postal.

RE: geeez
By callmeroy on 4/23/2009 1:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
This is wrong and Apple is stupid for ever even allowing it temporarily.

Here's why --

Short Version: Babies and young kids are off limits, as they have not yet grasped the reasoning ability to make their own decisions based on moral guidance. In short - they are completely innocent.

Long Version: First for me my own sense of moral values is all I need to tell the difference between a computer game with shaking a baby isn't right while at the same time I can play a game where I blow adults up (see short version for part of "why" I think this way).

In your average game there is some kind of mission or intended storyline which provides for the "fantasy" of the game world... Be in you are playing a wanna be gangster trying to build your reputation and power, a soldier on some top secret mission, a race car driver, a space explorer, etc. etc. They are clear goals that take us away from our real life (unless you are a gangster who kills people, a soldier on a top secret mission, race car driver, etc...) and allow us to pretend to be something we never would do in the real world because of things like KNOWING IT WOULD BE WRONG, it would be against the law or something we just wouldn't cut it doing (like being a secret agent). However, the illusion is created and therefore we clearly know it doesn't mimic our actual life or most people's actual lives for that matter.

Conversely, what's the goal or story to a baby shaker game? There is none -- its simply....shake the baby. There's no fantasy world there's no escape from reality -- there's no disconnect from something being fake or real.

This is just how I rationalize these things....just like I wouldn't play a game where you shoved Jews into ovens, or lynch Black Americans....but I'd have no problem blow the head off a terrorist in a game, and no moral conscience of kill baddies trying to take over the world.

If you really need this much explaination to know right and wrong - you are a very disturbed individual.

RE: geeez
By Jcfili on 4/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: geeez
By callmeroy on 4/23/2009 3:30:17 PM , Rating: 1
This is just RETARDED!!! .... It's just a game and the game its not even realistic!!! just X's on the babies face!!! Whats going on with the world ??

Oh the irony in your expressed view point there....for you to end with "What's going on with the world??".....

Its not retarded --- of course its just a game, but that is EXACTLY the point at least I was making and I assumed others were making who are against the app as well --- today there are no lines drawn more, everyone is just "do whatever you want....." --- there is no shock value anymore, nothing offends the majority -- less and less is off topic or out of bounds.

Complete de-sensitization is one of the key down falls of modern society.

I wash things off my shoulder too --- but its always with perspective. The whole mindset and everyone who shares the mindset of -- "do whatever you want, its cool...its not real after all..." Is what's wrong with the world.

It has nothing to do with being uptight, it has nothing to do with folks being "retarded", etc. It has everything to do with a healthy perspective on right and wrong. In this case maybe I should say tasteful and tasteless.

Easiest way to get the feeling I'm talking about --- picture your child looking over your shoulder while you are playing this game? If your honest answer is "so what"....then please reply that its so what -- then I'll know to never ever bother to put any weight into any comment you ever make again. On any subject.

RE: geeez
By ClownPuncher on 4/23/2009 3:51:30 PM , Rating: 2
How do you know what the downfall of modern society is? I think EVERYONE agrees that the game is tastless, but being tastless is a choice that people can make if they want. I personally think the downfall of modern society will be from people imposing their own set of morals on others.

If you think it is going to make people go out and harm children, then I dont know what to tell you, other than WTF?? People who shake babies are already effed up in the head, a cartoony game is not going to indoctrinate a generation of people into baby murdering wack jobs.

RE: geeez
By smackababy on 4/23/2009 4:19:11 PM , Rating: 2
You can't be serious. You are advocating censorship. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it should be banned. I don't like gay porn, but I don't cry that it exists.

Do I respond "so what" to your question? Nope. I respond with "Learn to be a parent and enforce some morals and guidence."

What's going on in this world when you have to force me to not enjoy things you don't like because you can't be responsible enough to keep it away from your children or simply explain why it is "bad" or "wrong"?

Everyone against this game might as well be against every book, movie, song, video game that has ever dealt with violence towards children. Go ahead and burn down the library and board up the internet while you're at it.

RE: geeez
By mindless1 on 4/24/2009 6:31:59 PM , Rating: 2
If you can't discern the difference between this game and burning down a library and boarding up the internet, odds are good you can't discern the difference between play-acting violence against children and the real thing.

The reason why we frown upon trash like this is there are too many people in the world who, despite what you or I /think/ they should and shouldn't do, are going to act irresponsibly then place the blame on someone else. Like it or not that does effect other people, innocent people.

It's easy to throw around the word censorship but there are worse things than your ideal of 0% censorship. This game is not an important idea being suppressed, not a statement of rights or individuality, it has no useful purpose whatsoever.

Yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't one and find out why a minimal level of restraint is needed.

By ZachDontScare on 4/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: iAbort
By Helbore on 4/23/2009 3:19:52 PM , Rating: 5
This is so stupid.

It would work so much better on Windows Mobile. Then you could poke it with the stylus. Much more realistic.

"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki