People are not saying they are the same. They are pointing out the complications of banning certain video games based on selectively deeming certain content inappropriate, when other games exist with content which is also illegal in real life. This leads to a slippery slope of trying to determine which content should be allowed, and how and who decides this. Of course certain things are worse and on different levels to other things, but in the eyes of the law, it seems odd that we would allow some things which are illegal in real life to appear in games, but not other things.
It’s funny you mention that as I was independently about to mention that, in reality, this is how our legal system actually works.
We have laws. We apply those laws to the facts of a case / dispute and we get outcomes. Outcomes shape how facts should be interpreted and how laws should evolve.
^^^ The entire set-up
enables flexibility and for things ‘to depend’ on how the facts / contexts stack up.
There is nothing inherently wrong with making decisions on circumstances, one at a time. It’s what makes the most sense.
What if somebody does enjoy "Irreversable", or finds this stupid game "harrowing"?
Yes, what if they do…? It’s an open question.
Again,
it depends. What is the actual outcome of it? Is that expected or anticipated? Is it unusual or common?
Generally, we ought not to prohibit things on the mere basis that
some people take an unusual perverted pleasure from it.
For the purposes of ‘horror films’, of which I am generally a fan, the enjoyment there comes from titillation from the macabre. Again, there is a grey area. Sometimes, things
are too depraved and are deemed obscene / banned. This has changed over time.
The few horror films that remain edited / banned do generally (so far as I know) overly focus on the unnecessary suffering of another in a depraved way.
Again, just because ‘it depends’, doesn’t mean things can’t be navigated on a case by case basis.
