Precursor Games Founder Arrested For Child Porn

[DugMachine]

and hoping that they have some outlet for their sexual energy that ISNT harmful to all parties involved.

Like Lolicon? A drawing?

Look, I am not going to pretend to know what is best or appropriate for these people, so you go on and have your pedophile pride/acceptance/attempt at understanding parade with out me, ok?

It's not pedophile acceptance. It's knowing that it's a fucking drawing made of colors and lines. Somebody shouldn't be drug through the streets or put away for years because they have some drawings.

 

[DugMachine]

and hoping that they have some outlet for their sexual energy that ISNT harmful to all parties involved.

Like Lolicon? A drawing?

Look, I am not going to pretend to know what is best or appropriate for these people, so you go on and have your pedophile pride/acceptance/attempt at understanding parade with out me, ok?

It's not pedophile acceptance. It's knowing that it's a fucking drawing made of colors and lines. Somebody shouldn't be drug through the streets or put away for years because they have some drawings.

First of all you (or really the prosecutor in this case) have to prove that was the only thing he had. Secondly I am still not the person that makes that call, so you are going to have to convince someone else.

Personally I am not outright opposed to stuff like lolicon, though it creeps me out. My skeptical nature demands proof that it can suppress these urges and not make it more likely that someone acts on them.

captcha - face the music

Agreed. We don't know all the information here and this is most likely actual child pornography which is a crime. It was just that specific quote from you that kind of bothered me but I apologize if it seems like I'm trying to persecute you here. The whole lolicon argument has just always reminded me of the "Violent videogames" argument.

 

[Duncan Belfast]

And to the lolicon defenders here.

I personally don't even think lolicon should be acceptable in the slightiest. In my opinion its just as bad a child porn. The point that no children are harmed with lolicon is combated with the reason that such people look at lolicon in the first place. Its for sexual arousal caused by children, and I can't abide by that. There's too much of a slippery slope in lolicon for me to find it ok.

That's my opinion and you're free to disagree, but you have to acknowledge the fact that its still involves a person who is sexually attracted to children.

The problem is, try replacing instances of the word "lolicon" with "violent videogames", or, heck, anything that could be deemed offensive or objectionable.

And to the violent videogame defenders here.

I personally don't even think violent videogames should be acceptable in the slightiest. In my opinion its just as bad as real killing. The point that no people are harmed with violent videogames is combated with the reason that such people play violent videogames in the first place. Its for fun caused by killing, and I can't abide by that. There's too much of a slippery slope in violent videogames for me to find it ok.

That's my opinion and you're free to disagree, but you have to acknowledge the fact that its still involves a person who finds pleasure in killing.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

And to the lolicon defenders here.

I personally don't even think lolicon should be acceptable in the slightiest. In my opinion its just as bad a child porn. The point that no children are harmed with lolicon is combated with the reason that such people look at lolicon in the first place. Its for sexual arousal caused by children, and I can't abide by that. There's too much of a slippery slope in lolicon for me to find it ok.

That's my opinion and you're free to disagree, but you have to acknowledge the fact that its still involves a person who is sexually attracted to children.

The problem is, try replacing instances of the word "lolicon" with "violent videogames", or, heck, anything that could be deemed offensive or objectionable.

And to the violent videogame defenders here.

I personally don't even think violent videogames should be acceptable in the slightiest. In my opinion its just as bad as real killing. The point that no people are harmed with violent videogames is combated with the reason that such people play violent videogames in the first place. Its for fun caused by killing, and I can't abide by that. There's too much of a slippery slope in violent videogames for me to find it ok.

That's my opinion and you're free to disagree, but you have to acknowledge the fact that its still involves a person who finds pleasure in killing.

You do realize that all you're point is a perfect example of apples to oranges arguing right?

Violent videogames isn't the same as animated child porn in terms of offence. The former has been scientifically proved to have no endangering effect on people, and the latter is an expression of wanting to have sex with children.

I can't throw those two into the same boat because they are both offensive.

People play violent video games when they get bored. People look at lolicon to get off. Major difference. Lolicon being illegal in Canada makes sense because of the reason it exists.

 

[Duncan Belfast]

You do realize that all you're point is a perfect example of apples to oranges arguing right?

Not really. All of the arguments you made against lolicon can also be (and have been) applied to videogames.

Violent videogames isn't the same as animated child porn in terms of offence. The former has been scientifically proved to have no endangering effect on people, and the latter is an expression of wanting to have sex with children.

People play violent video games when they get bored. People look at lolicon to get off. Major difference. Lolicon being illegal in Canada makes sense because of the reason it exists.

People play violent videogames for fun, which implies that they find violence fun. Even if they have no endangering effects, playing these games is still an expression of wanting to inflict violence. Violent videogames exist as a means to act out said desire.

I can't throw those two into the same boat because they are both offensive.

I'm not throwing both in the same boat because they are both offensive. I'm throwing them in the same boat because they are both ways of living out socially unacceptable behaviour, and stem from a desire to do so; the former being violent behaviour, and the latter being the sexualization of children.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate to illustrate a point and ask questions:

Why is it okay to live out some socially unacceptable desires in a controlled environment where no one is harmed, but not others?

Why can a person drive through Liberty City gunning down old ladies, and still drive safely in real life, but a person can't look at lolicon without then abducting a child?

Why can people have some fantasies, yet know better than to try and live them out, but not others?

 

[Olas]

I like how he's being charged with possessing AND accessing child pornography. Presumably if you possess child pornography you must have accessed it at some point.

Anyway, I'm not going to defend OR indict him until I know more.

 

[ZettieBeans]

If this man was truly involved in the actual abuse of children or the distribution of such abuses, then this is an individual with both a mental and physical problem requires both proper investigation as well as monitoring and psychological evaluation. As for what reasons why would it occur in individuals to perform such acts? Victims of past-child abuse themselves? An unbalanced chemical within the brain? Are we clearly missing a step here in the PREVENTION of child-abuse by going into a mob-like frenzy instead of questioning why the abuses occur in the first place? Are there stages which occur? And if so, what is the best possible early detection to avoid these circumstances? Prevention is the act preventing, not the after-effect after all has been said and done. More than often I believe we as a society push the opposite in our witch-hunt process, rather than getting these type of individuals help for their conditions, we often automatically put them in a forced state of isolation. This I believe results in a many of those who are struggling with these issues with no way of getting proper help end up having to deal with their issues on their own, which can result in isolation and further increase of bad behavior. This does not provide a healthy environment for Recovery and Prevention, but instead enforces the "caged animal" "back against the wall" ideology. In other words, these individuals are less likely to actually seek help for their illness and instead it results in that illness growing to a point that the individual becomes involved in an abuse(either as the partaker, or the actionare). Are there different stages? And what stages are the ones that actually lead to harm of an individual? What about other issues, such as consensual relationships where the younger marries the spouse? What about the Romeo and Juliet Laws? What of the stereotypes that assume that only men can abuse, while there have been cases ranging from relatives to actual mothers abusing children? I think there are many things that we, as a society, have a tendency to "gloss-over" as it doesn't fit this visual of the pre-defined Little Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolf definitions.

If this was an individual who was drawing artwork, making a 3D CGI Model or simply fashioning his work in the cultural artwork inspired from Japan, then I do not support the prosecution of this man. I have read cases through the years of individuals or groups who have hurt children, but in in the case of fiction NO child, absolutely no such children are hurt or harmed by the production of a cartoon or CGI models. While I am full In support against the abuse of children (individuals who kidnap kids, hurt kids, actual involve a victim, etc) I am not in the support of thought-police propaganda against artists or game-developers for creating fictional characters of cartoon drawings or 3D models.

If the clothes of Tera Online can garner in it's censorship of the elin-race in USA, then why are not the same standards applied to Naughty Dog's Last of Us where Ellie is violently stabbed and killed before the viewers and players eyes? Is it because violence is much more acceptable and defined form of entertainment?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zszU6NyKpw (Last of Us Link Here)

If cartoons and 3D models are treated as actual citizens of society, than the same lawships that have been applied to Loli should also be applied equally across the board for any entertainment that involves a 'young' character. Developers who make scenes of children's deaths, the ability of players to kill a child-like character, or the reference of child death should also be examined under the law as potential child-murders, passages of books should be ripped out that even mention scenes of sexuality like SPEAK and authors charged as conspiring CP. Any artist drawing, no matter the founding of religious roots it may have or how old the actual paintings are, should be censored and or promptly destroyed if even an inch of skin is shown. If society is going to examine the issue, then it very well should examine the entirety of it(including tracing it back to its decade roots).