Where is the justice?

[MassiveGeek]

Well yes, I think in this case the situation is rather clear.
While the existence of such pictures feels somewhat "wrong" to me, I would not advocate to make them illegal, as my reaction is based purely on emotions, not on anything else, seeing how those picture take no part in harming anyone.

And legislation based purely on moral outrage tends to be a rather shitty idea,
generally speaking.

... Yes, that is what I've been saying for the whole time.

Of course you do,
as you at least seem to be a somewhat mature, non-insane person.
Did not mean to contradict you in any way.

Just meant to point out that many people are simply unwilling to take a step back and reflect on their feelings. Which brings us such enjoyable debates as "Rock & Roll: Satans Theme song ?" and "Video Games: How fast will they turn your kid into a mass-murder ?".
I apologize if that seemed redundant.

Ah, thanks for clarifying, I got really confused with what you were trying to achieve with this exchange.

Yes I agree, this is just like those things you mentioned a process that will take a while to resolve. If it won't be accepted, perhaps it will at the very least be understood and left alone.
And for the cases where the people who embrace lolicon actually have issues not acting on actual attraction to children, they shouldn't be pushed away and pushed down by society, but helped.

 

[Kortney]

Because again, the images themselves aren't actually harming anyone

This issue is nowhere near as cut and dry as what you are making out here.

I think that illustrated child pornography can harm people. It's a depiction of a criminal activity for the purpose of arousing people. That can definitely be harmful. It may not be a lot of the time, but don't discount the whole thing just because it doesn't involve real people. The ideas can be just as real.

 

[MassiveGeek]

Because again, the images themselves aren't actually harming anyone

This issue is nowhere near as cut and dry as what you are making out here.

I think that illustrated child pornography can harm people. It's a depiction of a criminal activity for the purpose of arousing people. That can definitely be harmful. It may not be a lot of the time, but don't discount the whole thing just because it doesn't involve real people. The ideas can be just as real.

Yes, and when those ideas or images inspire people or somehow prompt them to acting on it then that's a seperate case.
And nothing is clean cut, there's always another side of the coin, and the cases in question should be treated appropriatly for the situation at hand.
Blaming the images though is reversing the cause and the effect.

 

[TheAmazingHobo]

Yes I agree, this is just like those things you mentioned a process that will take a while to resolve. If it won't be accepted, perhaps it will at the very least be understood and left alone.
And for the cases where the people who embrace lolicon actually have issues not acting on actual attraction to children, they shouldn't be pushed away and pushed down by society, but helped.

I agree with the helped part. Those who realize they have a real problem and might actually be a danger to children need (because they are a real danger to someone, as opposed to the nebulous and "potential" danger ascribed to pictures) and deserve help.

As opposed to those who actually HAVE acted on their impulses.
Those people might also need help, but I would prefer if they get help AFTER a thorough punishment. Preferably involving large, blunt instruments.
And there goes my ability to seperate emotions from actual judgement, which is why I should not and will not ever be a judge ^^

 

[TheAmazingHobo]

First off, sorry for the douple post. I simply did not want to just edit an unrelated post in my already existing one.

I think that illustrated child pornography can harm people. It's a depiction of a criminal activity for the purpose of arousing people. That can definitely be harmful. It may not be a lot of the time, but don't discount the whole thing just because it doesn't involve real people. The ideas can be just as real.

But, following this argumentation, could not somthing very similar be said about video games ?
"Depiction of criminal activity for the purpose of entertaining peolple.".

Why is this then generally not considered equally worse ?
Is it because of the nature of the activity shown (most often violence, as opposed to sex) or because of the nature of the reaction (entertainment as opposed to arousal. Though I would argue that, as with most porn, arousal could well be substituted for "relieve".).

By the way: I´m not being rethorical here. I´m genuinly interested in where this discrepancy in moral judgement comes from.

 

[mrwoo6]

(snip)


But yes; Thinking of sex with children is sick; thinking of outlawing harmless depictions for no other reason than offence over such thoughts equally so.

but see the depictions aren't harmless, as they highlight thoughts of sex with children. if you draw/enjoy images of children naked, you probably think they're arousing in some way or another, making them not harmless

Quite, Just as in the same sence that when i enjoy stabbing someones face off in manhunt i enjoy stabbing people in real life, or perhaps enjoying fire spells in magicka makes me a pyromaniac, or even thinking that the undead mage looks oddly hot makes me a necrophiliac, or only using melee kills in fallout and chopping everyones limbs off makes me a psychopath murder who enjoys cutting peoples limbs off. Perhaps if i think of gay sex i will catch "the gay" and enjoy being a homosexual! dear god! That is one rather silly statement. Rethink what you have said, good sir.

People can be turned on by real girls, but not be turned on by hentai why does this not work the other way around? why can't people enjoy the hentai version but the real version? If a half wolf half man beast appeared in real life do you think furries would try had have sex with it? no.

I think we can all agree that we don't touch ourselves when we kill things in video games. I think we can also agree that straight males aren't looking for drawings of two guys sucking each other off.

Very valid points, although i would argue that killing in games gives us enjoyment, pleasure. and that, really masturbation changes nothing. your still gaining enjoyment one way or another. That's another argument though.

Yes, they are not seeking these pictures out. but seeing it does not make you gay, seeing it for long periods of time does not make you gay, you agree with this i assume. thus seeing lolicon can't be harmful to see, it wont turn you into a pedophile just in the same sense playing manhunt wont turn you into a mass murder. If you enjoy lolicon it wont turn you into a pedophile, just in the same sense enjoying manhunt wont turn you into a mass murder. these are merely things you enjoy doing that harm no one.

 

[Kortney]

But, following this argumentation, could not somthing very similar be said about video games ?
"Depiction of criminal activity for the purpose of entertaining peolple.".

Well I can't speak for you, but when I play video games the fact that my character is doing illegal things isn't the draw for me. The draw is character development, emotional investment, polished gameplay mechanics and creativity.

I don't sit there thinking "Wow! This is illegal in real life! How thrilling!" or "Wow! This is really entertaining me because I'm doing illegal things!".

Why is this then generally not considered equally worse ?

For reasons above. There is more to it. Whilst there is an element of art in illustrated child porn - there isn't much more to it other than it makes people with a fetish horny. That is, undoubtedly, it's main draw.

Also, the fact that it is a child makes this even worse. Children aren't hurt in video games (at least they aren't in any of the ones I have played). I would feel incredibly uncomfortable killing or hurting children in video games. Many of the violence depicted in violent video games (at least the ones I play) is justifiable. Character X is being violent to character Y because _____. You can't justify crimes against children.

Is it because of the nature of the activity shown (most often violence, as opposed to sex) or because of the nature of the reaction (entertainment as opposed to arousal. Though I would argue that, as with most porn, arousal could well be substituted for "relieve".).

That may come into the equation, although I'd say the whole child aspect is the main reason.

I think that gaining entertainment from being violent to children in video games should be discouraged if not illegal too. You didn't draw actual parallels for your example.

 

[yundex]

(snip)


But yes; Thinking of sex with children is sick; thinking of outlawing harmless depictions for no other reason than offence over such thoughts equally so.

but see the depictions aren't harmless, as they highlight thoughts of sex with children. if you draw/enjoy images of children naked, you probably think they're arousing in some way or another, making them not harmless

Quite, Just as in the same sence that when i enjoy stabbing someones face off in manhunt i enjoy stabbing people in real life, or perhaps enjoying fire spells in magicka makes me a pyromaniac, or even thinking that the undead mage looks oddly hot makes me a necrophiliac, or only using melee kills in fallout and chopping everyones limbs off makes me a psychopath murder who enjoys cutting peoples limbs off. Perhaps if i think of gay sex i will catch "the gay" and enjoy being a homosexual! dear god! That is one rather silly statement. Rethink what you have said, good sir.

People can be turned on by real girls, but not be turned on by hentai why does this not work the other way around? why can't people enjoy the hentai version but the real version? If a half wolf half man beast appeared in real life do you think furries would try had have sex with it? no.

I think we can all agree that we don't touch ourselves when we kill things in video games. I think we can also agree that straight males aren't looking for drawings of two guys sucking each other off.

Very valid points, although i would argue that killing in games gives us enjoyment, pleasure. and that, really masturbation changes nothing. your still gaining enjoyment one way or another. That's another argument though.

Yes, they are not seeking these pictures out. but seeing it does not make you gay, seeing it for long periods of time does not make you gay, you agree with this i assume. thus seeing lolicon can't be harmful to see, it wont turn you into a pedophile just in the same sense playing manhunt wont turn you into a mass murder. If you enjoy lolicon it wont turn you into a pedophile, just in the same sense enjoying manhunt wont turn you into a mass murder. these are merely things you enjoy doing that harm no one.

I agree with what you've said except, "If you enjoy lolicon it wont turn you into a pedophile". Violent entertainment in games is irrelevant because we are not masturbating to it. Yes, they both give some people "pleasure" but it isn't the same kind of pleasure, so I think that does change things.

No, just seeing gay hentai isn't going to turn me gay, but what straight male will seek it out and masturbate to it? Thing is, I believe you are already a pedo if you masturbate to drawings of naked 5 year olds, and it's really hard to convince anyone otherwise.

 

[TheAmazingHobo]

snip
(seriously, the post is directly above.
Keep up people.)

So I suppose you would say the reasons are the overall importance of the illegal element in question to the proceedings and the difference in "target" ?

Okay, that´s legitemate.

I do feel the second point is somewhat sketchy (judging the "wrongness" of an action based on who it is done to, always seemd a bit relativistic to me. Though I suppose the whole "Children as more helpless than most people and therefore harming them is especially wrong"-thing plays into it.), but I won´t start an argument as I was really just interested in your take on this.
So thanks for elaborating for me.

 

[Kortney]

"Children as more helpless than most people and therefore harming them is especially wrong"

Not only that, but there is no reason to ever hurt a child. You can't justify it. The only examples I can see are in self defense. Children are still developing and should be treated differently to adults. They definitely shouldn't be the target of illegal activity. That's why I am completely against illustrated child pornography.

No problem.

 

[Olrod]

I've not read all pages of this thread, but has anyone brought up the case where a guy was convicted for having child porn because of The Simpsons images?

Apparently having sexually graphic images of Bart & Lisa Simpson is actually, legally, child pornography.

That's a skull-fracture level of headdeskery right there.

 

[mrwoo6]

"Children as more helpless than most people and therefore harming them is especially wrong"

Not only that, but there is no reason to ever hurt a child. You can't justify it. The only examples I can see are in self defense. Children are still developing and should be treated differently to adults. They definitely shouldn't be the target of illegal activity. That's why I am completely against illustrated child pornography.

No problem.

But a child will never see those drawings, it harms no child. Like hardcore S&M A child can't see that, it should never be show to a child, but should we ban it because a child COULD see it? no. Real children are not the targets of the lolicon industry. there drawn, not real, thats the entire point.

For the record i find lolicon horrible, i do not enjoy it. but i understand and agree with those that do enjoy it.

 

[Kortney]

"Children as more helpless than most people and therefore harming them is especially wrong"

Not only that, but there is no reason to ever hurt a child. You can't justify it. The only examples I can see are in self defense. Children are still developing and should be treated differently to adults. They definitely shouldn't be the target of illegal activity. That's why I am completely against illustrated child pornography.

No problem.

But a child will never see those drawings, it harms no child. Like hardcore S&M A child can't see that, it should never be show to a child, but should we ban it because a child COULD see it? no. Real children are not the targets of the lolicon industry. there drawn, not real, thats the entire point.

You've missed my point bud. I'm not worried about children seeing the pictures, I'm worried because children are depicted in the pictures.

 

[Eri]

Okay.... let me get this straight. This guy had drawn CP. But he still had CP. Seems as though he should go to jail. Problem solved.

No. A company hired him to translate their drawn manga. That's it.

 

[mikev7.0]

"Children as more helpless than most people and therefore harming them is especially wrong"

Not only that, but there is no reason to ever hurt a child. You can't justify it. The only examples I can see are in self defense. Children are still developing and should be treated differently to adults. They definitely shouldn't be the target of illegal activity. That's why I am completely against illustrated child pornography.

No problem.

But a child will never see those drawings, it harms no child. Like hardcore S&M A child can't see that, it should never be show to a child, but should we ban it because a child COULD see it? no. Real children are not the targets of the lolicon industry. there drawn, not real, thats the entire point.

You've missed my point bud. I'm not worried about children seeing the pictures, I'm worried because children are depicted in the pictures.

Let's put this argument in a legal context. And since you seem dedicated to it we'll say you are the prosecutor. The defense asks you to identify the actual child portrayed in an image. You can't. There is no ACTUAL plaintiff.

What I'm arguing, while you tell people how THEY have missed the point, is that your solution to this problem is NOT legal. The law is NOT on your side as the defense would just point out that yes depiction of A (Key word there) child is prosecutable, but there is not A child that has been harmed. The attorney would probably even add something snarky like "What is their address? Where is the birth certificate of the aggrieved? What we're defending the rights of polygons now?? In that case your honor we have one heck of a backlog....."

The real solution? Better Parenting. Period.

Honestly as a parent who is also a gamer, how much control do you have over how much/what your kids play and what they are exposed to as a result? Do you let them watch the videos from the escapist? I wouldn't. I figured out that this is not a place for kids when I got about 1/3 through my first and last episode of Zero Puctuation. Yet if you look at it from the outside, with all the characters and drawings, it might even look kid friendly. It's not just that show, most of the content here could not be done in places that have established legal guidelines. So places like this are taking advantage of the lack of regulation while it lasts as they do nothing to keep minors away from such content since that doesn't make them money or hype.

Thanks to sites such as these, and recurring discussions such as these, and a looming election year as well, parents (concerned people just like you and me) and politicians (not so much concerned but wanting to get elected.) are now finding a way around what kept games politically safe all that while. Outrage (such as you feel over this topic.) has a way of doing that and if you think they're upset now, you seem to forget that unlike you most parents have NO dog in the race when it comes to games, no reason to protect them. They will think nothing of using arguments similar to yours to convince society that of course for the good of the children, games must be reigned in. Something a growing THRONG of casual gamers will have no problem with. That's right. When they come for Halo and Resident Evil, Wii fit will hardly even notice. All this might happen just as Microsoft decides it's lost enough money and Sony decides that it's corporate revenge against Nintendo has gone on long enough. Sounds like a perfect storm for another re-boot of the industry to me.

Yet if it keeps kids mentally, spiritually, and physically safe and able to find peace and fun again in the games that used to BELONG to them, then maybe that's a good thing.

 

[yundex]

"Children as more helpless than most people and therefore harming them is especially wrong"

Not only that, but there is no reason to ever hurt a child. You can't justify it. The only examples I can see are in self defense. Children are still developing and should be treated differently to adults. They definitely shouldn't be the target of illegal activity. That's why I am completely against illustrated child pornography.

No problem.

But a child will never see those drawings, it harms no child. Like hardcore S&M A child can't see that, it should never be show to a child, but should we ban it because a child COULD see it? no. Real children are not the targets of the lolicon industry. there drawn, not real, thats the entire point.

You've missed my point bud. I'm not worried about children seeing the pictures, I'm worried because children are depicted in the pictures.

You should only be worried if it were illegal. It stops many from actively looking for real CP. Think of the damn children!!

 

[Canid117]

Only in Sweden... wait something similar has happened here? I guess nothing is ever only in X.

 

[Kortney]

What I'm arguing, while you tell people how THEY have missed the point, is that your solution to this problem is NOT legal. The law is NOT on your side as the defense would just point out that yes depiction of A (Key word there) child is prosecutable, but there is not A child that has been harmed.

I do believe you are talking completely out of your backside. That depends entirely on what country you are in. Within that country, it depends on what district/state/province you are in.

In many countries (Australia, New Zealand and South Africa are examples) there does not need to be an actual child depicted in pornography for it to be illegal. Examples of this include adult porn stars dressing up as little girls. It's illegal in lots of countries. It's illegal in mine too. So don't try to patronise me talking about the "law" like it is some blanket term. I'm not ignorant to it.

I don't know about the United States. I don't live there. Never claimed to speak for the legal system either. I simply voiced my opinion on the issue.

The real solution? Better Parenting. Period.

Ugh. Another person who thinks that I am worried about it messing up children's minds. I'm not. Parenting has nothing to do with the topic I am talking about. What I don't agree with is depicting children in illustrated sex acts. You agree with it. Good for you.

Honestly as a parent who is also a gamer, how much control do you have over how much/what your kids play and what they are exposed to as a result?

Excuse me, but what on Earth are you talking about? This has absolutely no relevance to any post I have made in this thread. My issue is not about the worries of exposing children to graphic material. If anything it is more about the worries of legally exposing adults to graphic material involving minors.

Do you let them watch the videos from the escapist? I wouldn't. I figured out that this is not a place for kids when I got about 1/3 through my first and last episode of Zero Puctuation. Yet if you look at it from the outside, with all the characters and drawings, it might even look kid friendly. It's not just that show, most of the content here could not be done in places that have established legal guidelines. So places like this are taking advantage of the lack of regulation while it lasts as they do nothing to keep minors away from such content since that doesn't make them money or hype.

I have no idea why you are telling me this.

They will think nothing of using arguments similar to yours to convince society that of course for the good of the children, games must be reigned in.

My sole position is very, very simple. I think that children should not be depicted having sex with each other. I also don't believe children should be depicted being murdered.

Video games include neither of these things. If they did, I'd support them being "reigned in" too.

Something a growing THRONG of casual gamers will have no problem with. That's right. When they come for Halo and Resident Evil, Wii fit will hardly even notice. All this might happen just as Microsoft decides it's lost enough money and Sony decides that it's corporate revenge against Nintendo has gone on long enough. Sounds like a perfect storm for another re-boot of the industry to me.

If you take "casual games" to mean "not involving children being murdered or being raped" then you bring a whole new meaning to the word hardcore.

 

[mikev7.0]

What I'm arguing, while you tell people how THEY have missed the point, is that your solution to this problem is NOT legal. The law is NOT on your side as the defense would just point out that yes depiction of A (Key word there) child is prosecutable, but there is not A child that has been harmed.

I do believe you are talking completely out of your backside. That depends entirely on what country you are in. Within that country, it depends on what district/state/province you are in.

In many countries (Australia, New Zealand and South Africa are examples) there does not need to be an actual child depicted in pornography for it to be illegal. Examples of this include adult porn stars dressing up as little girls. It's illegal in lots of countries. It's illegal in mine too. So don't try to patronise me talking about the "law" like it is some blanket term. I'm not ignorant to it.

I don't know about the United States. I don't live there. Never claimed to speak for the legal system either. I simply voiced my opinion on the issue.

The real solution? Better Parenting. Period.

Ugh. Another person who thinks that I am worried about it messing up children's minds. I'm not. Parenting has nothing to do with the topic I am talking about. What I don't agree with is depicting children in illustrated sex acts. You agree with it. Good for you.

Honestly as a parent who is also a gamer, how much control do you have over how much/what your kids play and what they are exposed to as a result?

Excuse me, but what on Earth are you talking about? This has absolutely no relevance to any post I have made in this thread. My issue is not about the worries of exposing children to graphic material. If anything it is more about the worries of legally exposing adults to graphic material involving minors.

Do you let them watch the videos from the escapist? I wouldn't. I figured out that this is not a place for kids when I got about 1/3 through my first and last episode of Zero Puctuation. Yet if you look at it from the outside, with all the characters and drawings, it might even look kid friendly. It's not just that show, most of the content here could not be done in places that have established legal guidelines. So places like this are taking advantage of the lack of regulation while it lasts as they do nothing to keep minors away from such content since that doesn't make them money or hype.

I have no idea why you are telling me this.

They will think nothing of using arguments similar to yours to convince society that of course for the good of the children, games must be reigned in.

My sole position is very, very simple. I think that children should not be depicted having sex with each other. I also don't believe children should be depicted being murdered.

Video games include neither of these things. If they did, I'd support them being "reigned in" too.

Something a growing THRONG of casual gamers will have no problem with. That's right. When they come for Halo and Resident Evil, Wii fit will hardly even notice. All this might happen just as Microsoft decides it's lost enough money and Sony decides that it's corporate revenge against Nintendo has gone on long enough. Sounds like a perfect storm for another re-boot of the industry to me.

If you take "casual games" to mean "not involving children being murdered or being raped" then you bring a whole new meaning to the word hardcore.

What do you have against ACCURATELY quoting someone? If you are going to quote don't just take the pieces that you think serve your argument and chop up everything else that was said leaving out whatever parts you feel like.

You're post was quoted in it's ENTIRETY. I suppose equal respect is a bit much to ask eh? Color me shocked.

Well fair is fair then, so let me quote the one thing you said that was completely wrong.

FROM YOUR POST: Ugh. Another person who thinks that I am worried about it messing up children's minds. I'm not. Parenting has nothing to do with the topic I am talking about. What I don't agree with is depicting children in illustrated sex acts. You agree with it. Good for you.

You say here that I AGREE with it? Because I defended the first amendment? Wow that's a special type of interpretation there. However since EQUAL respect during a debate is not possible here this is where this conversation, as well as my re-emergence onto the net ENDS.
I forgot that you "unique" folk have more desire to be right than to do right.

By the way if this is how you treat (or allow to be treated) everyone who peeks in here to see what's going on with gamers these days don't be surprised when there's no one left who really cares what you think. After all you didn't care about listening to them.

Actually I owe you a lot. REALLY. Cuz, to be honest yeah, I'm laid up and bored right now and I can't game, but man, I'm gonna' get better and at least now when that happens I won't be stuck here because right now I can think of about 8000 things more productive than trying to even talk to "gamers". It's what the market decides right? So don't be surprised when the market (which has already changed) decides that whether it's sex or violence we don't need it in our games.