Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 310
yeah, damn those notoriously efficient jackbooted UN thugs who want to prevent us from *checks notes* being pedophiles
U.N. PROPOSES INITIATIVE TO BAN LOLI, SHOTA, AND UNDERAGE ‘DRAWINGS AND CARTOONS’
- Thread starter Burning_Hammer
- Start date
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2018
- Messages
- 5,172
@crazybars Your complaint perfectly describes the problem with this proposal.
Luckily UN have no power if no one agrees with them. Government officials should know better, I hope.
Luckily UN have no power if no one agrees with them. Government officials should know better, I hope.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2018
- Messages
- 395
The main reason why this is problematic is the setting of precedent that fictional depictions encourage real acts. This would mean that in the future you could use the same logic to ban violent video games or any fictional depictions of an illegal act because it might encourage such things in real life. If the UN was just honest about what they thought and said depictions of sexualized children are gross and wrong and you should feel gross and that's why we are banning it, I would be more okay with that because it sets less of a precedent for an assault on fictional depictions of illegal acts. (But that doesn't sound good in a formal resolution.)
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2018
- Messages
- 1,359
@dankdevice
I'm sure I don't need to spell this out for you, but if they manage to pass this initiative based on the premise that consuming a particular type of media makes us more likely to commit the crimes depicted within, what's stopping them from passing similar initiatives for whatever they feel like?
One Punch Man? Banned because it depicts people going on a killing spree based on their outward appearance.
Batman? Banned because vigilantism is illegal.
Game of Thrones? Banned, banned, banned.
GTA? Let's arrest all the devs too, while we're at it.
Porn? Do you even need to ask, when you know just how evil naked female nipples are?
I like to think that real child porn is banned, not because the consumption itself is bad (whether it is or isn't is not my point), but because its production requires abusing children into performing acts of which they understand neither the implications nor the consequences, and because the possession implies purchase, which encourages the production.
But let's all disregard the multiple decades of researchers who still haven't found any correlation between the consumption of "harmful" media, and the increase of crimes depicted therein. If I say I don't like something, it better be banned!
I mean, I suppose it's fair if they want to "prevent us from being pedophiles", but what about preventing us from being sociopathic mass murderers? Or simply criminals in general?
I'm sure I don't need to spell this out for you, but if they manage to pass this initiative based on the premise that consuming a particular type of media makes us more likely to commit the crimes depicted within, what's stopping them from passing similar initiatives for whatever they feel like?
One Punch Man? Banned because it depicts people going on a killing spree based on their outward appearance.
Batman? Banned because vigilantism is illegal.
Game of Thrones? Banned, banned, banned.
GTA? Let's arrest all the devs too, while we're at it.
Porn? Do you even need to ask, when you know just how evil naked female nipples are?
I like to think that real child porn is banned, not because the consumption itself is bad (whether it is or isn't is not my point), but because its production requires abusing children into performing acts of which they understand neither the implications nor the consequences, and because the possession implies purchase, which encourages the production.
But let's all disregard the multiple decades of researchers who still haven't found any correlation between the consumption of "harmful" media, and the increase of crimes depicted therein. If I say I don't like something, it better be banned!
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2018
- Messages
- 4
VIP
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2018
- Messages
- 375
Oh, I remember this popping up in r/manga recently: https://www.reddit.com/r/manga/comments/arkcow/un_proposes_initiative_to_ban_loli_shota_and/
Some thoughts:
I think it's important to not conflate real CP with drawings and cartoons and written materials here. Real CP is atrocious and terrible because real minors are abused and hurt. But no children are hurt in the making of drawings of fictional characters. Though photorealistic depictions of children that are indistinguishable from the real thing should not be acceptable, because they'll feed the real CP market.
However, widespread acceptance of loli and shota can contribute to a culture where child abuse is normalized, and that's not good either. Allegedly the predator can show the child the cartoon and say "see, it's normal." idk
Though if such a ban were to be put into place, it's important that it be based on conclusive evidence of actual harmful effects, and not just because of a moral knee-jerk reaction to something that seems icky. The latter would be a slippery slope. This has been compared to things like violence in video games and the case from a couple of years ago where the UN proposed banning media depicting sexual violence, and that got a lot of backlash. Kumiko Yamada of the Japanese Women’s Institute Of Contemporary Media Culture said:
I mean, to be fair, there's a lot of loli and shota stuff out there that can hardly be said to be high-brow art. (I mean, hikikomori NEET guy goes back in time to lust after lolis his age. Really.) However, blanket bans are detrimental to freedom of expression and a lot of innocent stuff can get caught up in it.
Putting restrictions on what fictional characters can and can't do just strikes me as kind of funny though. Here's an actual content guideline on Wattpad, a fiction-posting site:
Meanwhile, AO3 is supported by OTW, a nonprofit organization that advocates for preserving and encouraging fanworks, and having been appropriately burnt by the LiveJournal and FanFiction.net purges, don't have any such fictional character age restrictions. The only restrictions they have are against things like copyright infringement (i.e. copypastes of entire copyrighted works; fanworks don't count), plagiarism, harassment, CP (images of real children), warez, cracks, hacks, trade secrets, restricted technologies, classified information, and other non-fanwork content.
Tumblr in the last several years experienced a surge in "antis", who attack a ship and its shippers because they deem it pedophilic or incest or promoting of abuse IRL. (Because reporting people writing fiction to the FBI is a good idea /s) Lots of hot drama and interesting discussions on this topic.
Some thoughts:
I think it's important to not conflate real CP with drawings and cartoons and written materials here. Real CP is atrocious and terrible because real minors are abused and hurt. But no children are hurt in the making of drawings of fictional characters. Though photorealistic depictions of children that are indistinguishable from the real thing should not be acceptable, because they'll feed the real CP market.
However, widespread acceptance of loli and shota can contribute to a culture where child abuse is normalized, and that's not good either. Allegedly the predator can show the child the cartoon and say "see, it's normal." idk
Though if such a ban were to be put into place, it's important that it be based on conclusive evidence of actual harmful effects, and not just because of a moral knee-jerk reaction to something that seems icky. The latter would be a slippery slope. This has been compared to things like violence in video games and the case from a couple of years ago where the UN proposed banning media depicting sexual violence, and that got a lot of backlash. Kumiko Yamada of the Japanese Women’s Institute Of Contemporary Media Culture said:
I mean, to be fair, there's a lot of loli and shota stuff out there that can hardly be said to be high-brow art. (I mean, hikikomori NEET guy goes back in time to lust after lolis his age. Really.) However, blanket bans are detrimental to freedom of expression and a lot of innocent stuff can get caught up in it.
Putting restrictions on what fictional characters can and can't do just strikes me as kind of funny though. Here's an actual content guideline on Wattpad, a fiction-posting site:
Presumably they have this just to play it safe with regards to the law, since businesses are generally risk-averse.
Meanwhile, AO3 is supported by OTW, a nonprofit organization that advocates for preserving and encouraging fanworks, and having been appropriately burnt by the LiveJournal and FanFiction.net purges, don't have any such fictional character age restrictions. The only restrictions they have are against things like copyright infringement (i.e. copypastes of entire copyrighted works; fanworks don't count), plagiarism, harassment, CP (images of real children), warez, cracks, hacks, trade secrets, restricted technologies, classified information, and other non-fanwork content.
Tumblr in the last several years experienced a surge in "antis", who attack a ship and its shippers because they deem it pedophilic or incest or promoting of abuse IRL. (Because reporting people writing fiction to the FBI is a good idea /s) Lots of hot drama and interesting discussions on this topic.
Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 310
a quick peek over to the "h" tab reveals the second most recently uploaded title "molesting a grade schooler for sex education"
i got some news, if you're defending this "art" because you enjoy looking at it (but definitely not cranking it to it, right?) then you might be a pedophile
*edit*
after some reflection i thought i'd clarify. the slippery slope, while not an argument i agree with, isn't a completely unsound one. that having been said im not directly calling anyone here a pedophile, i generally will defend artistic freedom to the death but it's difficult to overcome any ingrained... prejudices i feel towards this subject.
i got some news, if you're defending this "art" because you enjoy looking at it (but definitely not cranking it to it, right?) then you might be a pedophile
*edit*
after some reflection i thought i'd clarify. the slippery slope, while not an argument i agree with, isn't a completely unsound one. that having been said im not directly calling anyone here a pedophile, i generally will defend artistic freedom to the death but it's difficult to overcome any ingrained... prejudices i feel towards this subject.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2018
- Messages
- 1,939
@m3m3
I said it because I live in a Muslim country and my family is Muslim. I'm the only one secretly rejecting everything nonsense about Islam. Everything is haram here, even when the Quran never said so. When a man looks at a girl walking down the street, the girl is doing a haram thing, despite not doing anything. You play a game, you're a sinner, because you're only supposed to sing Nasheed and pray to God, because entertainment is Haram. You work on Fiverr, you're a sinner, because it's an Israeli company. A doctor treating female patients is Haram, for whatever reason.
You're the one who should learn more. Learn more about fanatics who make everything they don't agree with as Haram. Sure, the country doesn't agree with these fanatics, but these fanatics try to push their ideals on everyone anyway, and nobody can do anything even when they repeatedly do this and turn weak minded people into fanatics because they're not doing anything illegal.
I said it because I live in a Muslim country and my family is Muslim. I'm the only one secretly rejecting everything nonsense about Islam. Everything is haram here, even when the Quran never said so. When a man looks at a girl walking down the street, the girl is doing a haram thing, despite not doing anything. You play a game, you're a sinner, because you're only supposed to sing Nasheed and pray to God, because entertainment is Haram. You work on Fiverr, you're a sinner, because it's an Israeli company. A doctor treating female patients is Haram, for whatever reason.
You're the one who should learn more. Learn more about fanatics who make everything they don't agree with as Haram. Sure, the country doesn't agree with these fanatics, but these fanatics try to push their ideals on everyone anyway, and nobody can do anything even when they repeatedly do this and turn weak minded people into fanatics because they're not doing anything illegal.
Hardly anyone gets away with murdering someone. It tends to get found out and the consequences are severe. We all know this. Unless you live in isis territory or some other ridiculous place, you will probably never hear someone tell you about someone murdering another and getting away with it.
Child sexual predation on the other hand....I'm sure some of you, if not personally been abused, probably know someone who has been abused by a family member with the abuser living just fine on the outside due to the abused not saying anything and suffering with it for their lifetime, having been to young/dumb to know they were abused or choosing not to/unable to get police involved.
Now, I'm not entirely convinced that someone looking at pedo drawings is going to make them more likely to abuse a "loli" but if the evidence exist that it does well....obviously most of us would likely to discourage that in some way. If you got a better idea than to ban loli, lets hear it.
TLDR: The opportunity for murder carries far more risk than pedo abuse stuff. Pedo is far more likely get by without seeing a jail cell than a murderer is. Treating violence in art the same as drawings of underage sex is ridiculous.
Child sexual predation on the other hand....I'm sure some of you, if not personally been abused, probably know someone who has been abused by a family member with the abuser living just fine on the outside due to the abused not saying anything and suffering with it for their lifetime, having been to young/dumb to know they were abused or choosing not to/unable to get police involved.
Now, I'm not entirely convinced that someone looking at pedo drawings is going to make them more likely to abuse a "loli" but if the evidence exist that it does well....obviously most of us would likely to discourage that in some way. If you got a better idea than to ban loli, lets hear it.
TLDR: The opportunity for murder carries far more risk than pedo abuse stuff. Pedo is far more likely get by without seeing a jail cell than a murderer is. Treating violence in art the same as drawings of underage sex is ridiculous.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2018
- Messages
- 1,359
@dankdevice
How does that even work?
Simple: I imagine myself in the shoes of the boy, as he enjoys his sexy teacher's private lessons.
Does that make me a pedophile?
According to you, yes.
Unfortunately, that's not what a pedophile is. A pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children. Yes, I enjoy shota (it is one of my favorite genres), but I am in no way attracted to them.
And besides, I'd rather people jerk off to that kind of "art" (as you call it), than enact them in real life.
All I've seen you do is make blanket statements accusing people of being pedophiles for simply enjoying this kind of content.
At the same time, you're dodging the issue of excessive violence in art. Shouldn't these people rightfully be called mass murderers or sociopaths or something?
You say you "generally will defend artistic freedom", but all I see is one hell of a double standard.
This is an interesting statement, because I'm a man who enjoys shota despite not being gay.
How does that even work?
Simple: I imagine myself in the shoes of the boy, as he enjoys his sexy teacher's private lessons.
Does that make me a pedophile?
According to you, yes.
Unfortunately, that's not what a pedophile is. A pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children. Yes, I enjoy shota (it is one of my favorite genres), but I am in no way attracted to them.
And besides, I'd rather people jerk off to that kind of "art" (as you call it), than enact them in real life.
So you say, but I have yet to see you bring up a single argument explaining why this type of artistic freedom is any different from other types of artistic freedom, including excessive violence.
All I've seen you do is make blanket statements accusing people of being pedophiles for simply enjoying this kind of content.
At the same time, you're dodging the issue of excessive violence in art. Shouldn't these people rightfully be called mass murderers or sociopaths or something?
You say you "generally will defend artistic freedom", but all I see is one hell of a double standard.
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2018
- Messages
- 1,258
Umm, no, at least not in the US. According to published clearance rate data, 4 out of 10 killers don't get found out. And body count in there doesn't include missing people, so it's likely higher.
Forty percent upwards isn't "hardly anyone".
Funny that no one's rioting about how useless police departments are.
Appeal to emotion. Dismissed.
@mikegnesium. Do you know any murderers that got away with doing it?
Anyways, Red Herring dismissed.
I'm pretty sure you know how low the rate of murder is.
My initial statement was a little absolute. Point still stands. Nice try though.
Per capita, which number do you think is higher? Murder victims vs Sexually abused kids in the U.S
Anyways, Red Herring dismissed.
I'm pretty sure you know how low the rate of murder is.
My initial statement was a little absolute. Point still stands. Nice try though.
Per capita, which number do you think is higher? Murder victims vs Sexually abused kids in the U.S
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2018
- Messages
- 1,359
@kano100
Of course not. If you did, you'd have reported them, in which case they didn't get away with it. At least I hope you reported them, because otherwise you'd be an accomplice, which is - as far as I know - illegal in most countries in the world.
Not sure what your point is supposed to be here, though...
It's also irrelevant. People don't commit crimes based on how easily they can get away with it. They commit crimes because their "moral code" allows it, and because they either think they can get away with it, or they don't care if they get caught.
Now, you seem to think that getting away with child abuse is easier than murder, but I believe in the opposite:
To say nothing of all the criminals who don't care if they get found out, like all the perpetrators of mass shootings at US schools.
Thousands of years back, 99% of all humanity thought the Earth was flat and at the center of the universe.
So what?
How about giving us proof instead of asking us what we think?
It also doesn't matter how much pedophiles outnumber murderers in the USA. What matters is whether or not drawings of fictive children contribute to an increase of pedophilia.
We've already had decades of research on the subject of violent video games and media, without any conclusive evidence of correlation.
Where's the proof that cartoon porn is any different, really?
Do you know any pedophile that got away with doing it?
Of course not. If you did, you'd have reported them, in which case they didn't get away with it. At least I hope you reported them, because otherwise you'd be an accomplice, which is - as far as I know - illegal in most countries in the world.
Not sure what your point is supposed to be here, though...
All I see is a claim without any backing.
It's also irrelevant. People don't commit crimes based on how easily they can get away with it. They commit crimes because their "moral code" allows it, and because they either think they can get away with it, or they don't care if they get caught.
Now, you seem to think that getting away with child abuse is easier than murder, but I believe in the opposite:
Whether or not a criminal can get away with a crime, depends on 4 factors:
1. The suspicion, that a crime has happened: There can be no murder without a dead body, and no arson without a fire.
2. The knowledge that a crime truly has happened: You can't search for a criminal if it was an accident, after all.
3. The proof linking the criminal to the crime: Obviously.
4. How well you can identify any of the above 3 factors: Which becomes increasingly more difficult the longer the investigation takes.
The first point is very likely to happen in the case of child abuse. Even if a child doesn't speak up, their behavior changes. Those behavioral changes are at times incredibly easy to pick up on. A kid caressing a doll between the legs? A kid molesting their classmates? Even a kid's drawing can speak volumes about what has recently happened.
Proving that a child's been abused (sexually) is fairly easy too. You can test if the child's had sex by looking for injuries around their genitals. Alternatively, you can look for traces of DNA that don't belong.
And the proof linking the criminal to the deed is just as easy, thanks to DNA tests. The only problem remains to find the person whose DNA matches the one that was found.
At that point you can probably ask the child to identify the criminal, or just observe the child's reaction to different photos. It may not be easy, but not impossible either.
On the other hand, burying a body, drowning it, pushing it off a mountain cliff, there are plenty of ways to ensure that a body will never be found. Or that by the time it's found, there is no longer a way of identifying the remaining factors.
Not to mention the many different ways of disguising a murder as an accident or even suicide.
"My wife died after eating a mushroom salad I made for her. Those were poisonous mushrooms? Oh, what have I done?"
Getting rid of the murder weapon (the most important link between the criminal and the crime) is also fairly easy. Well, maybe not if it's a car, but who'd use a car as a murder weapon anyway?
As long as the criminal doesn't keep the weapon around, he's fine. The police certainly isn't going to look through all garbage collection sites just to find that one knife, after all.
1. The suspicion, that a crime has happened: There can be no murder without a dead body, and no arson without a fire.
2. The knowledge that a crime truly has happened: You can't search for a criminal if it was an accident, after all.
3. The proof linking the criminal to the crime: Obviously.
4. How well you can identify any of the above 3 factors: Which becomes increasingly more difficult the longer the investigation takes.
The first point is very likely to happen in the case of child abuse. Even if a child doesn't speak up, their behavior changes. Those behavioral changes are at times incredibly easy to pick up on. A kid caressing a doll between the legs? A kid molesting their classmates? Even a kid's drawing can speak volumes about what has recently happened.
Proving that a child's been abused (sexually) is fairly easy too. You can test if the child's had sex by looking for injuries around their genitals. Alternatively, you can look for traces of DNA that don't belong.
And the proof linking the criminal to the deed is just as easy, thanks to DNA tests. The only problem remains to find the person whose DNA matches the one that was found.
At that point you can probably ask the child to identify the criminal, or just observe the child's reaction to different photos. It may not be easy, but not impossible either.
On the other hand, burying a body, drowning it, pushing it off a mountain cliff, there are plenty of ways to ensure that a body will never be found. Or that by the time it's found, there is no longer a way of identifying the remaining factors.
Not to mention the many different ways of disguising a murder as an accident or even suicide.
"My wife died after eating a mushroom salad I made for her. Those were poisonous mushrooms? Oh, what have I done?"
Getting rid of the murder weapon (the most important link between the criminal and the crime) is also fairly easy. Well, maybe not if it's a car, but who'd use a car as a murder weapon anyway?
As long as the criminal doesn't keep the weapon around, he's fine. The police certainly isn't going to look through all garbage collection sites just to find that one knife, after all.
To say nothing of all the criminals who don't care if they get found out, like all the perpetrators of mass shootings at US schools.
What does it matter what anyone thinks?
Thousands of years back, 99% of all humanity thought the Earth was flat and at the center of the universe.
So what?
How about giving us proof instead of asking us what we think?
It also doesn't matter how much pedophiles outnumber murderers in the USA. What matters is whether or not drawings of fictive children contribute to an increase of pedophilia.
We've already had decades of research on the subject of violent video games and media, without any conclusive evidence of correlation.
Where's the proof that cartoon porn is any different, really?
Sure, I know of them. I don't interact with many kids though so when I hear of these things happening its from adults who were sexually abused as kids and usually didn't say anything until they "got strong enough" to say something.
Adults are free to handle it however they do. I'm not trying to be Mr. SJW SuperHero if thats what you're getting at.
Fellow above tried to dismiss the comparison of child victimization to murder because I made the iMistake of saying "hardly anyone gets away with murder".
My point is child victimization is very common. Odds are higher that you know someone who is a pedo or has been victimized as a kid than someone who has murdered another and got away with it.
Not sure about 1. Probably a lot of kids do display that weird behavior. Is it really that obvious? Is it that uniform? Is the avg teacher trained to pick up on these things? How likely are they to get involved? Does the avg teacher even care or feel responsible say anything? How competent is the state in handling such cases?
What about cases where the relative/guardian starts before the child is in school and the teacher has no comparative bases to know that the kid just isn't weird in that way?
BTW, when you say these things are incredibly easy to pick up on, are you, by chance a counselor or psychologists?
Huh? We're not talking CSI here. You think some 5 year old kid is going to go in and have a rape kit exam? I can't imagine a scenario beyond very extreme case where a teacher is going to see a kid acting weird and elevate the issue so quick that a rape kit is even an option. Bureaucracy and all. Maybe a school in a very nice neighborhood or something..lol
Ah, I see, you're talking of some random person on the street just up and raping some kid. Yeah, in those cases, it's probably easy enough to find the abuser.
Well, in the case of murder someone goes missing. Boss/teacher/neighbor/family/friends start wondering where the person is. How common is it for a person to just disappear and leave all their stuff in perfect order and not say anything to anyone? Anyways, we'll just get into the weeds with this one. Of course, it's possible to disappear someone and get away with it, but the stakes are high enough that a very tiny percentage of the population is willing to go through with it and even a smaller percentage(nearly half of that), as our friend mike pointed out, are able to get away with it.
The rate of child victimization far outstrips the murder rate. I only brought it up for the opportunistic pedant. If he, or you, wants to start slicing and dicing the numbers, feel free.
The mechanics are simple, we don't need to go breaking out the data to understand what I thought was a simple point that murder in video games does not potentially carry the same risk as underage sexual drawings.
Again, and I stated this earlier, I'm not entirely convinced that someone looking at pedo drawings is going to make them more likely to abuse a "loli" but if the evidence exist that it does...it would make sense to make it harder to get access to. We are in agreement here with exception to cartoon child porn being the same as murder in video games. You don't need to (dis)ingeniously link the 2 to attack potential ban.
No more long post pls, I'm too lazy for this shit.
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2018
- Messages
- 1,258
If you're just making stuff up as you go, then at least please try to keep it cohesive.
In your op, you created the whole first paragraph based on untrue data, then tried to appeal to emotion to persuade the reader that violence oriented fictional content isn't potentially as damaging to society as the one presenting underage sex or sexual assault, and at the end you capped it by admitting that you basically have no idea what you're talking about, but it's better to err on the side of caution and ban it.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2018
- Messages
- 1,359
@kano100
Number of people who would admit to committing murder or child abuse: close to 0.
Number of people who would admit to being victim of child abuse: x if they're still alive (x being an unknown percentage), 0 if they're dead.
Number of people who would admit to being victim of murder: 0. The dead don't speak.
Yes, odds are indeed higher, but that is quite meaningless.
You missed my point. I said:
I even emphasized the keyword here.
It's all about what people think is or isn't possible, not about whether it really is. That's usually something they find out after committing the crime.
I know you think getting away with child abuse is easier, and now you know I think getting away with murder is easier.
Both camps exist, so your point about one being easier than another doesn't make one more meaningful than the other. They're both meaningful.
As I showed you above, do not rely on that confirmation bias of yours. Give us actual, factual, reliable statistical data.
If there is, they should just present it and get this shit over with. There is no point in all this esoteric discussion about morals and values.
If we're to use morals and values as basis to ban this, let's ban EVERYTHING that is morally questionable, including violence in ALL media (not just video games!) Obviously this is a horrible idea, which is why nobody's ever thought about proposing this shit (except for video games).
Which leaves us with the problem of legal precedence: I don't have to rehash what almost everyone else here already explained in one way or another.
I hope this wasn't too long.
If not, apologies.
Ok, I'll try. Can't promise anything, though...
Confirmation bias.
Number of people who would admit to committing murder or child abuse: close to 0.
Number of people who would admit to being victim of child abuse: x if they're still alive (x being an unknown percentage), 0 if they're dead.
Number of people who would admit to being victim of murder: 0. The dead don't speak.
Yes, odds are indeed higher, but that is quite meaningless.
Not quoting the rest.
You missed my point. I said:
I even emphasized the keyword here.
It's all about what people think is or isn't possible, not about whether it really is. That's usually something they find out after committing the crime.
I know you think getting away with child abuse is easier, and now you know I think getting away with murder is easier.
Both camps exist, so your point about one being easier than another doesn't make one more meaningful than the other. They're both meaningful.
Again: please provide proof.
As I showed you above, do not rely on that confirmation bias of yours. Give us actual, factual, reliable statistical data.
I think it's quite obvious by now that "the mechanics" aren't as simple as you thought they are, and whether murder in video games carries the same risk as underage sexual drawings are not something you can decide as simply as you just did. Especially not without providing any proof of your claims, and even more so if you think confirmation bias is a satisfying substitute for proof.
And that's the whole problem here: there is no evidence (yet).
If there is, they should just present it and get this shit over with. There is no point in all this esoteric discussion about morals and values.
If we're to use morals and values as basis to ban this, let's ban EVERYTHING that is morally questionable, including violence in ALL media (not just video games!) Obviously this is a horrible idea, which is why nobody's ever thought about proposing this shit (except for video games).
Which leaves us with the problem of legal precedence: I don't have to rehash what almost everyone else here already explained in one way or another.
I hope this wasn't too long.
If not, apologies.
@ mike Those were 2 different points. 1 following from the other. General form in these types of threads on this topic is that if virtual x increases x then virtual y also increases y therefore we should treat them the same.
My point was clear: barrier to entry/risk was higher in one than the other and didn't need the same "corrective". The main point was NOT that "hardly anyone gets away with murder." Even so, could easily restate it as its not in contradiction with anything else I said: Incidence of 1 vastly exceeds the other.
A bit clumsy, I admit, but there was no appeal to emotion. Appeal to experience fits better. I assume most people know of someone with such experience. Child abuse rates back me up enough that this isn't an unreasonable appeal to make. You probably know this though.
This doesn't mean we should ban the content though which is why I stated that I was skeptical of the claim but..
Sure, if sufficient data exist showing that fictional sexual content of minors increases incidents of abuse it would be better to ban/limit its availability in some way. It's not like gun rights where we generally think our ability to own firearms for protection is worth the occasional, illegal use of it. Now. if we can't agree on that, then there is nothing left for us to talk about.
Or perhaps, you'd like to dismiss it again due to some faulty grammar this time? How about spelling and punctuation?
@nolonar yeah, we're just talking here. Nothing of any real consequence. As a fan of pochi-goya's work and others, I'd rather nothing happen, personally. Seems like half my twitter of japanese artist would be at risk. ;-_-
My point was clear: barrier to entry/risk was higher in one than the other and didn't need the same "corrective". The main point was NOT that "hardly anyone gets away with murder." Even so, could easily restate it as its not in contradiction with anything else I said: Incidence of 1 vastly exceeds the other.
A bit clumsy, I admit, but there was no appeal to emotion. Appeal to experience fits better. I assume most people know of someone with such experience. Child abuse rates back me up enough that this isn't an unreasonable appeal to make. You probably know this though.
This doesn't mean we should ban the content though which is why I stated that I was skeptical of the claim but..
Sure, if sufficient data exist showing that fictional sexual content of minors increases incidents of abuse it would be better to ban/limit its availability in some way. It's not like gun rights where we generally think our ability to own firearms for protection is worth the occasional, illegal use of it. Now. if we can't agree on that, then there is nothing left for us to talk about.
Or perhaps, you'd like to dismiss it again due to some faulty grammar this time? How about spelling and punctuation?
@nolonar yeah, we're just talking here. Nothing of any real consequence. As a fan of pochi-goya's work and others, I'd rather nothing happen, personally. Seems like half my twitter of japanese artist would be at risk. ;-_-
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2018
- Messages
- 1,258
Uuuh.
Yes, great. That's an assumption. Which you partially tried to validate by claiming outright false stats about "virtual x", and playing the game of numbers about "virtual y" in relation to "virtual x":
Like it matters.
Which one is it? If equating those two is ridiculous, that kind of content should definitely be banned, without any reason for skepticism on your part. If you're not sure whether fictional sexual content including minors increases the rate of abuse, where does certainty about difference in evaluating their possible impact comes from?
I think I'll place my bets on your overall inability to make a cohesive stance.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2018
- Messages
- 5,172
This thread exploded overnight for me (I had a long sleep) what happened?
Fed-Kun's army
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2019
- Messages
- 406
Similar threads
