Forum - View topicNEWS: Japanese Poll: 87% Accept Manga Child Porn Regulation
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Moomintroll
 Posts: 1600 Location: Nottingham (UK) |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
You only believe it to "some extent"? What kind of an argument is that?
I was asking for evidence when a couple of posters said their view had been "scientifically proven" - why would I need to provide counter-evidence in order to get a sensible answer?
What I would have taken seriously is something that was peer reviewed and from a respectable source. If you can't find a respectable academic source, why bother citing anything at all?
I think the fact that it's about an entirely different subject would be grounds enough for most people not to have bothered citing it, even if it weren't junk populist pseudo-science of the worst kind. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Moomintroll
Posts: 1600 Location: Nottingham (UK) |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Amasa -
Given that people argued when Steroid made that statement, I'm at a loss as to how you can say that this is a point nobody can argue... People have political beliefs. Two intelligent people can come to entirely different conclusions based on the same data purely because of those beliefs. Saying that politics isn't a matter of belief makes zero sense whatsoever. Indeed, my copy of the OED specifically uses the word "beliefs" in defining "politics". I'm not sure what dictionary you and Steroid are using.
That also makes no sense. If we were to follow that reasoning there would be no restrictions on live-action child porn either (because all of the arguments against it are moral ones) or on anything else either. I'm not following your reasoning.
Regulating and banning are not the same thing. There are (a great many) regulations on the sale of food but I still manage to eat. Furthermore, you don't think morality should play a part in legislation so why would you ban it even if it were proven to inflict "long-term damage" on the community? The idea that things shouldn't be allowed if they damage the community is...wait for it...a moral one. I won't bother arguing with the rest of your post since it's all based on the same lack of understanding (i.e. that politics and laws exist in a vacuum seperated from ethics and morality and that this is a discussion about banning something rather than regulating it). |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Anymouse
 Posts: 685 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
I think there is an attitude nowadays to define morality as ethics that don't have immediate practical purpose. To these people, the Catholic confessional woul be an example of morality, but a trial for crime would be an example of practicality and/or ethics. It's not how I would use these words however.
My opinion is that comic book child porn should not be banned, nor will it be banned. Perhaps regulation of shops might happen, but I don't think it should be the governments job. It should the job of storekeepers. The thing we must remember is that the old pre 1945 morality which demanded penalties for individualist and free attitudes towards men, women and sex has come to an end in Japan. I wonder how there could really be a resurgence of that. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Mohawk52
 Posts: 8202 Location: England, UK |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
What good timing that THIS report came out today here in the UK which might bring some more information to this thread and more info to ponder.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
britannicamoore
 Posts: 2618 Location: Out. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
But if the person behinnd the avatar is of age on both sides who cares if they're playing with child like avatars? Or what they're doing? I've seen a lot worse in WOW. Hell, it even goes back to those charcters in different anime/games who look 12 but are in that reality 1,000 or older. Also- I see the charcters dancing but can they even carry out these sexual acts online? I see the toddler in a mans lap but can he actualy do anything? Besides type naughty words? Policing the internet is tough. These guys are saying just like with anything esle- just because one person does it doesn't mean all will. In complete unrelatin to this topic, i'm going to check this site out. it looks fun. Last edited by britannicamoore on Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:36 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
MokonaModoki
 Posts: 437 Location: Austin, Texas |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
FYI, no researcher has mapped sexual paraphilia to a human genome, and that article doesn't really support what you were trying to assert. Some people do believe that pedophilia may have biological/genetic causes, but no evidence exists to prove it. It's hardly relevent though, so you don't even need to try to prove it. You are still talking about about a psychosexual disorder that imprints at a very early (pre-adolescent, certainly), that usually manifests at the onset of adolescence, and that has a very poor record of treatment. The very stigma associated with the disorder makes those affected reluctant to seek treatment, and the fact that the most effective treatment is castration (coupled with the possibility that they may be arrested for merely seeking treatment) probably doesn't help to encourage them to seek it. The bottom line is that it really doesn't matter at all whether it is genetic or not: the disorder exists, it's not their fault that they have it, and the end result is the same. They might as well be werewolves for all the difference it makes. You can sympathize with their plight in theory (or not), but you know for sure that you don't want them in your neighborhood.
Actually it is almost utterly false and easy to argue. It is a virtual certainty that Japan would impose no limit on the act of creating the materials, nor on the possession of them (even 'mere' possession of 'real' child pornography is still legal there), but they would likely draw the line at distribution and could easily do so within the framework of any existing legal system. What would probably be considered would be national versions of the laws regarding materials harmful to minors that already exist in Osaka and Kyoto. In that case it would make it unlawful to sell such materials to minors. Also the penalties would likely be fines, not jail.
Which, of course, completely ignores the fact that censorship laws are usually exclusively concerned with moral issues. You can argue (and rightly so, certainly) that you don't want some politician's morality imposed upon your own, but the only way to avoid having that happen is to successfully elect politicians who share your world view, who agree with your beliefs, and who share your morals. If you are in the victorious majority then you may feel that subsequently enacted-laws are right and just and independent of moral-bias. If you are on the losing side then it will be abundantly obvious that laws need not be any such thing. All laws are based on someone's morality and ethics, whether you share them or not, and associated findings of fact are usually incorporated in law for the sole purpose of justifying the desired result.
Laws aren't based on proof, Ever. Tthey are based on consensus. That consensus might result from the examination of evidence ("proof"), or it might result from mass hysteria. By the time you know which it was, it's too late. Some laws are bad. That's why any right-thinking citizen with any libertarian sensibility at all should ask candidates not "what laws would you create" but "what laws would you repeal". All that is required to create a law is that the majority of a legislative body believe that a law is justified (for whatever reason) and write it in such a way that the legislation include that finding. Legislators may vote their conscience, or they may vote with constituent poll data, or they may vote blind-drunk, but no "proof" is necessary. After that (in the US at least), the courts may decide that the implementation of a law is unconstitutional in its trampling upon individual rights (abuse of the commerce clause has elimated most other valid grounds against federal laws), but they will never dispute the incorporated findings of the legislative body that resulted in the law in the first place (nor do they have authority to do so). In the US, findings of Congress are findings of fact as far as the courts are concerned.
I'm not disagreeing with anything you said here, but I'd like to point out a fundamental aspect of the 'debate' since you are unsure of your stance. Pedophiles do tend to 'act out' at times of heightened psycho-social stress. If access to virtual child porn would allow them to sate their desire to act out at those times, then like any other masturbatory aid (gross though it may be) it is certainly possible that it could defer the need to seek sexual gratification more 'realistically' by alleviating that same psycho-social stress. If they're looking at teh pr0n, the urge is already there. The alternative viewpoint, that it would inspire them to action, seems to spring primarily from the fear that could be the case rather than reasoning. Nor do I dispute that fear-based reasoning is justified - the parental impulse is a powerful thing.
Remember that you are talking about Japan... what's being discussed probably actually would just end up being age regulation. That's exactly what it is in Osaka and Kyoto. I'm not aware of any similar age-restricted access to any type of manga or anime anywhere else in Japan (and certainly not on a national scale). You are fundamentally talking about the sale or distribution of material harmful to minors to those same minors. The issue doesn't have to be about pedophiles at all. A sexually-explicit manga for young girls about young girls working as prostitutes via a cell-phone dating network so that they can afford Louis Vuitton handbags is harmful to minors too.
What would it change? . If the point is that you don't accidentally create a pedophile after a certain stage of development, how does it matter whether it developed while they were in the womb or at some other stage of pre-adolescence? Whether it is bio/genetic or not it is something they are stuck with.
Wow. That's just... freaky. The first thing that I thought of was this:
I'm actually at a loss to know whether "Wonderland" is a good or bad thing, which only serves to further disturb me that I'm giving this subject so much thought. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mohawk52
Posts: 8202 Location: England, UK |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
What's interesting is the statement by Mr. Gamble of the UK Child Exploitation & Online Protection Agency.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
sanbyaku
 Posts: 34 Location: london, england, uk |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Ultimately i think it comes down to wether they use the virtual abuse for motivation or suppression. Either way theres not much you can do about it. Personaly i dont like the loli-hentai things but i find the perverted anime/manga (ecchi?) amusing, i found Amaenaideyo, Tonagura and simillar animes were much to my liking.
I mention that because the word 'child' can have ages spanning from toddler age to 17. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
MokonaModoki
Posts: 437 Location: Austin, Texas |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
I'm not sure how that's actually interesting, or what truth it exposes. It would have been interesting if they had said "We need to shut down these interactions tracking them down by IP address and putting non-virtual bullets into their non-virtual brains", but what they actually said was merely what people in those positions could be expected to say. I applaud the work the work that these people do, but it's not social science or mental health care, is it? Part of their job is protecting kids from pedophiles, and the first line of defense should naturally be "don't permit pedophiles to exist". There's nothing earth-shattering about those quotes, which parse just a few steps above "Pedos bad! Smash pedos!" Seriously..."Virtual crime has real victims"? What is that even supposed to mean? The victims are real, but the crime isn't (or didn't occur)? It's like a catchphrase for what they really should say which is that there is a high likelihood that someone in the "wonderland" is likely to act out in the real world (which is probably true) wrapped up in a convenient package suggesting that everyone in the "wonderland" will act out in the real world (equally probably not true), and that "wonderland" is somehow the cause of it all (huh?). Unless, of course, you think it was ever possible that they might have said "Oh the perverts have found a place to play with each other and leave the real children alone? That's great!", because I can't really imagine that someone in their situation is really going to be open to that possibility (not until the bullet/brain thing has been fully explored anyway). |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Anymouse
Posts: 685 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mohawk52
Posts: 8202 Location: England, UK |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Update. Second Life has wiped Wonderland from their server and allegedly banned all those who were operating as a child sex avatar as a result of that Sky News report.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
MokonaModoki
Posts: 437 Location: Austin, Texas |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
I guess this eliminates the bullet to the brain solution. 
Waaaaaaaaaay off-topic, but I still want to say it. Mainly since my posts have shown more 'rational' sympathy for the pedophile condition than I could ever emotionally sustain. To the extent that I might support access to loli-hentai material in any way, or even online virtual pedophile playgrounds with no real children involved, it is only from the hope that it might help keep a pedophile from acting out with a child, not because I give a shit about them coping or anything like that. For the 'innocent' people who find it 'fun' (and I'm not talking about KnJ or it's ilk, which are still just funny in a suggestively offensive way - I'm talking about the stuff actually depicting children engaged in sexual activity), I personally think that you're playing with fire by nurturing any such thoughts and should consider getting some help to explore why you'd be interested in such themes. This is especially true for you adolescents who favor lolicon, since adolescence is when pedophilia begins to manifest. No healthy person indulges in any type of fantasy about children having sex. And no, I don't care at all if you think I'm being preachy or trying to suppress your individualism, it's just my opinion after all. You do have rights, we all know it, but sick is sick. When I was 10, I was asked by the faculty at my school to escort a pair of recent Vietnamese immigrants (an 8-year-old boy and 10-year-old girl) to and from school. This was a daily routine, and even though they spoke very little English we became good friends. As time passed, we began splitting up along the way when we reached my house, after which they would proceed the remaining 1/4-mile or so via a shortcut that I had shown them through some undeveloped property (some wooded, some not). As if you couldn't tell where this was leading, one day the girl was assaulted in that wooded 'shortcut' and brutally raped. Her little brother was with her, but I don't know what fate he suffered. I never saw either of them again. The culprit was a neighborhood "emotionally disturbed youth" @ 15 years old (we still just called kids like him 'retards' back in 1975). To this day I still carry a lot of guilt about not being with them that day - my inner child mind still thinks I could have stopped it without getting beaten unconscious or killed. If I had access to the punk responsible right now I don't know what I would do, but I'm pretty sure I'm better off not having to make that decision. If a pedophile were to seek treatment, to seek androgen-blocking therapy, or to seek castration, then I'd wish them happiness and success with their endeavors. If they don't, then "bullet + pedophile braincase = problem solved" is also perfectly reasonable to me. I know that their urges are not their fault, I just don't really care that much. Some problems still need solving. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
britannicamoore
Posts: 2618 Location: Out. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Opinion is fine and all and no one can please everyone. Speaking for myself: I just refuse to live my life according to someone elses morality. You (and this is to anyone) don't like my hobbies tough sh*t. Sick to you doesn't equal sick to everyone else. I read what I like- and I'd never do anything so heinous and I don't like it being applied that I will. I won't go into a deep rant but thats what I gotta say. And on a side note...i'm sorry for what happened to you but face it- most of these news items are about adults trying to touch or harm kids. That person was just a kid himself... and if he was retarded then he apparently doesn't have the mental capabilitiy to know right from wrong. (I know there are different levels to retardation...just assuming the basics) Maybe his cargivers should have watched him better. Its just...and entirely different situation. 
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Amasa
 Posts: 340 Location: Japan |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Honestly, I don't know where my stand is on this. I think that lolicon should not be banned, regulation to keep away from under-18-year olds should definitely be enforced. On the internet anybody can get access to anything pretty much and unfortunately lolicon is getting more and more popular.
This biggest problem I have with the whole subject is that soft-core child porn is seeping into regular non-adult anime. I find that disgusting and it should very definitely be stopped or regulated at least. I can't watch the second season of Higurashi now because it's pretty much getting a little too insanse for me with pantyshots of Rika, Satoko injecting her upper thigh, and then children wearing frilly panties violently murdering each other with cute childish voices. Umm, no thanks. Lolicon should be limited to lolicon and adult material only. I also believe that any pornography showing unwilling participants makes society a more dangerous place. I think the world would be healthier if porn industries would completely erradicate forceful fetishes. This is all getting a little offtopic anyway. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Keonyn
 Subscriber Posts: 5567 Location: Coon Rapids, MN |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Yes, yes it is. Let's try to keep that to a minimum folks. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group