Is Ageplay “Child Porn”?
by Pixeleen Mistral on 22/02/07 at 9:06 am
by Bayesian TextBot
With reports that the Dutch prosecutor’s office is seeking a ban on what it sees as child pornography in Second Life, some may wonder if this is primarily Dutch political grandstanding. With no actual crime or abuse case to cite, legislation may prove difficult. The intention now is to bring some cases to court and establish some precendents.
From The Register:
“Virtual child pornography has been a criminal offence in the Netherlands since 2002. However, there is no litigation related to virtual sex with virtual children. Today, at least four political parties in the Netherlands demanded a ban on virtual child porn roleplay“
Significantly, the term “ageplay” is never used, which may indicate that no actual SL residents are involved in this action.
Unfortunately, while many professional opinions on the likely effects of ageplay have been posited, no formal or empirical study has been made to show its effect either way.
The closest we have come was in 1986 when, over a weekend workshop focus group, the Meese Commission concluded that “exposure to violent pornography increases punitive behavior toward women” and that “children and adolescents who participate in the production of pornography experience adverse, enduring effects” [1].
Case studies in Japan [2] do indicate that ease of access to pornography in general reduces the amount of total sex crimes in a society. Europe has historically had a lower per capita crime rate and higher availability of pornography, although one must point out that no formal study of this correlation has been made.
Even these findings do not support or defeat any current opinions with regards to SL ageplay. The issue at hand – whether ageplay would increase or decrease the tendency of a participant to commit sexual assault against a minor – has yet to be statistically examined. For now, we only have punditry.
At the time of this writing, no formal scientific examination of the issue has been planned by the Dutch prosecutor’s office.
*** [1] Koop, C. Everett. “Report of the Surgeon General’s Workshop on Pornography and Public Health.” American Psychologist. 42 (October 1987) : 944-945.
*** [2] Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html
Nacon
Feb 23rd, 2007
LeBlanc said: “Tell me why it’s perfectly okay to have “virtual” child pornography but it’s bad, bad, bad to have “real” child pornography. ”
So youre admitting that you are a pervert? GOOD JOB!
(yes, you’re also sick, try admitting that. Should go see doctors for mental help.)
Artemis said: “… I could guarentee you that pictures of homicide and pictures of robbery would be illegal too.”
Indeed they are. You can ask any lawyers or police officers about that.
(Unless you don’t have any gut to ask?)
Wayfinder said: “..but I’ll tell you a fact of life: posting such offensive nonsense on a blog or forum gains you no respect, nor does blah blah blah blah..”
Ok first of all… Life is a hard cold bitch. In case you haven’t noticed, life or whatever you want to call it… doesn’t stop around you. Life can’t suddenly stop and be nice and gentle to you and everyone. Life doesn’t come by and tell you a bad news that youre about to be hit by a truck and die in a painful way… does it? FUCK NO.
So… I don’t need to do that for you or anyone.
And second of all… I wasn’t talking to you, was talking to stupid perverts out there to get the damn point. You made an fool out of yourself, Wayfinder.
Any perverts out there, thinking about having sex with toddlers and minors is O.K. …you are retarded, simple as it is. There’s no damn excuses.
Wayfinder Wishbringer
Feb 23rd, 2007
In other words Nacon, you have no respect for other people, have no desire to show respect for other people, you’re going to be as rude as you like to be. That all amounts to one simple thing: Troll. With a capital T.
So excuse me if I have no respect for you in return, and just glitch by your posts as “not worth the energy it takes to read it”.
I will agree that the world is a rough, rude, insensitive place. That doesn’t mean you have to add to it, does it? Your opinion means absolutely nothing when it becomes obvious that you’re just shooting your mouth off. It means less than nothing when it’s appearent you have no respect for anyone else’s opinion.
When you’re ready to grow up and speak with adults as an adult, let us know. Until then, consider yourself ignored, monkey boy.
If this were a forum, most folks would simply mute you. Guess that’s one of the drawbacks of a blog; can’t filter the trash.
Nacon
Feb 24th, 2007
No one cares except you, yet you’re still talking about a troll with my name on it.
(digitally rolls his eyes)
If the blog could mute someone, Prok would win a landslide on that one.
I can’t give any “energy” to sharpen up my manner, pretending to be an tight smartass with an ego of a richie jock. You are doing a good job being an ass to change the topic all about me being a troll with a dry-wit name calling “monkey boy”. Oddly it seem that you can’t take the heat of it for your own mistakes in blogging.
Try to keep it at the topic about Pervert pretending to be a toddler, shall we?
(idiot)
Nacon
Feb 24th, 2007
Wayfinder said: “In other words Nacon, you have no respect for other people, have no desire to show respect for other people, you’re going to be as rude as you like to be.”
..wait, are you saying you DO respect any people… even PERVERTS pretending to be toddler? Huh… interesting.
Seola Sassoon
Feb 24th, 2007
“”"”Artemis said: “… I could guarentee you that pictures of homicide and pictures of robbery would be illegal too.”
Indeed they are. You can ask any lawyers or police officers about that.
(Unless you don’t have any gut to ask?)”"”"
Actually, you’re simply wrong. Most nations, allow depictions of murders and robberies. Why don’t you bring suits against the police officers for watching the tapes to train by?
Faces of death would certainly have been put under years ago too, btw. They quite proudly show Budd Dyer’s public on air suicide, Iraqi killings, death strolls, etc. Rotten.com would have been shut down years ago too. Not to mention the copper reality shows such as World’s Greatest Police Videos that show vehicular homicides and violent armed robberies.
Yes, I look. Yes, I’m curious. Yes, I’m morbid. Sue me. Oh wait, you can’t.
The fact of the matter is, that most of those tapes become public documents when it’s used in any trials and such, not to mention if the act itself happens in public it’s under the same laws that allow newscasts to show whomever’s face they want without blanking them out (many do on bad stories as a courtest but are not required by law)
Only the most celebrity of status judges grant sealed documents (such as the Earnhardt autopsy photo’s which subsequently instated an autopsy photo law in Florida, which is the same law that is forbidding Anna Nicole’s autopsy pics).
I’ll make the same argument I have before: it’s no different than two adults consentually playing in the bedroom. Dress me up in a school girl outfit and I look like a teen. Some girls who are even younger looking than me could pass for 10 (my friend’s ex girlfriend was 4’9 and all of 75lbs by nature). Should we prosecute them for RPing in the bedroom? Of course not, because then moral standards would have to invade privacy and right to privacy comes into play.
As long as no actual children are involved, what kinks people like are none of my business. I certainly wouldn’t want someone busting in my bedroom with a moral stick telling me that tying up my SO is wrong because it is ‘technically’ considered holding against will, since I tie them up well, to where they CAN’T get out.
Wayfinder Wishbringer
Feb 24th, 2007
>..wait, are you saying you DO respect any people… even PERVERTS pretending to be toddler? Huh… interesting. — Nacon<
No Nacon. That’s just more of your trollish babbling– as you well know. That you find it proper to make such an accusation at this point indicates to me I am not speaking to a stable person. I mean, how old are you, 12?
Now Nacon, let me make this easy for you: next standard “troll” response would be– “I thought you said you were going to ignore my messages Wayfinder.” LOL. So predictable.
If you want to argue against pedophelia– I’m all for that. If you want to state that pedophiles are twisted and sick– no arguement here. For you to accuse people on this board of such attitudes just to get your jollies– that’s another matter entirely. If you think such attitudes promote your opinions, you are most mistaken. So please, spare us. We have enough people speaking out against pedophelia on Second Life– people who post thoughtful, respectful, valid messages. Flamerboys don’t impress me.
Wayfinder Wishbringer
Feb 24th, 2007
Seola, I understand the basis of your post about “bedroom role play”. And agreed, no one has a right to invade your bedroom and determine what you do in the privacy of your own home (unless of course, you directly break laws such as those against pedophelia). Add real pictures to that role play, and “personal preference” suddenly becomes federal.
Now mind you, Second Life is a different situation isn’t it? Pedophelia on SL isn’t exactly in their own bedroom (it’s a public board). Unless one owns an island, such activities are likely to be viewed by any newbie who’s suddenly learned how to camera through a wall. Since cameraing through walls is quite common practice on SL (it’s much easier to camera inside a building to see what’s there than it is to walk inside)… then those activities can be “public”, even in the “privacy” of a “bedroom”.
In addition, “ageplay” people on SL don’t limit such activities to their own bedrooms, agreed? That much is clear from the number of such people I had to ban from the Elven sims and abuse report to Linden Lab for making sexual advances to our “children” members (and on a PG sim no less). So I would have to say no, these people are not adults just enjoying a sexual romp in a role play environment. They have the same twisted mentalities of RL pedophiles. Yes, they are not harming RL children (at least, not directly). But the same can be said of RL pedophiles. According to statistics, it is believed that only a small miniority of pedophiles actually enact their desires. Most stay in the closet and many don’t even own photographs of such things or download them on their computers (for obvious reasons). So no children harmed there either… but is pedophelia bad? You betcha.
Mind you, this has to be realized: pedophelia (in its pure form) is a mental illness. All of us enjoy youth and are attracted to the beauty and purity of youth (which is why most people marry young)… but an attraction toward children is bent. Just as with most mental illnesses– it can be treated and controlled (ie, they may not be able to change the fact that they are sadly, attracted to children. But they can change their viewpoint of such and keep such desires under strict control, much as a sociopath, unable to understand “conscience”, can still learn to function in society). Just as with many perversions, MOST potential pedophiles keep it under control and never give in to such inclinations.
That said, providing an “experimental environment” (such as Second Life) where they can carry out their pedopheliac fantasies in a supposedly “safe” environment, may be just the trigger they need to cross the line from fantasy to reality. And that folks, is the real danger. Because crossing that line does harm real children.
If ultra-violent computer games increase levels of violence in their players (and they do)… then we have to understand the same holds true for pedopheliac virtual sex games.
Artemis Fate
Feb 24th, 2007
“Just because some areas are considered “gray” areas doesn’t mean all are. Gray areas of ethics do not in their existence remove areas of black and white ethics. One of the major problems with this world is that people are failing to realize there are SOME things that just plain ARE absolute.”
I think shades of grey (as the name suggests) would run on a spectrum, some parts of it would be extremely close to black (but never fully there), because there’s simply just no such thing as good and evil. Good is defined by evil and vice versa, so what may be good to one is evil to another. The only time “absolute” comes into play, is when someone is so convinced that their view point is the only correct viewpoint, they scream and shout and try to shut out all the other viewpoints and possibilities, condemning them as morally incorrect or evil, (which ironically, to me is fairly evil in itself).
The basis of it is, is no one is evil, nothing is evil, every story and action has two sides to it. Even Hitler is not evil, he believed he was trying to make the world a better place, only problem is the 14 million plus people in the concentration camps, and pretty much everyone outside of germany (and some inside) would highly disagree with that philosophy. But by no means was he “evil”, he just had a wildly unpopular idea on how to make the world a better place. And that’s really it, everyone wants to make the world better, the problem is when they hold their opinion of “what’s better” over others, which is why “moral absolutism” or “i’m right and you’re wrong” is one of those areas in the “close but not quite” area of evil.
“”"”"Artemis said: “… I could guarentee you that pictures of homicide and pictures of robbery would be illegal too.”
Indeed they are. You can ask any lawyers or police officers about that.
(Unless you don’t have any gut to ask?)”"”"
Actually, you’re simply wrong. Most nations, allow depictions of murders and robberies. Why don’t you bring suits against the police officers for watching the tapes to train by?”
I’d just like to state that what I originally said (since it was half cut off and the meaning is partially lost) is that if you could ONLY make pictures of murder and robbery by doing the crime yourself for the sake of the pictures, I would guarentee they’d be as illegal as childporn. Not that any pictures of it would be illegal.
“If ultra-violent computer games increase levels of violence in their players (and they do)… then we have to understand the same holds true for pedopheliac virtual sex games.”
I think the studies haven’t proven one way or another some say it makes them more violent some say it makes them less violent, they haven’t really in a whole conclusively proved anything, which makes me think that violent media just effects people differently, where one person might play a violent video game after being ready to murder someone and release all that tension in there, and another might take tips with it on the proper way to maul someone with a ice pick. However, I don’t think you can compare the effects of sexual media to the effects of violent media, and say that the studies of violent media would apply to sexual media. They’re two different emotions.
Seola Sassoon
Feb 24th, 2007
Wayfinder, just because someone doesn’t do it in an SL private bedroom doesn’t mean that where they do it otherwise isn’t considered ‘private’. That’s like saying if me and my SO go out and I’m dressed to look like a youngin’, and my SO finds me sexy in public, that’s against the law. Now, having sex in public would be against the law, but not for looking like a child, but for committing a lewd public act.
Take the recent allegations in Arizona as an example. Some 29 year old dude was pretending to be 12 and was taken in by two men and they had consensual sex. These two old guys, as perverted as they are, believed this guy to be 12 and even attempted to enroll him in school. They even admitted to cops that they were pist off that this guy really wasn’t 12 years old. They CANNOT be charged with pedophilia, even though they were under the presumption they were committing it, because the other person was NOT a minor. In fact, they are trying to figure out if they can charge anyone for anything and so far, the only thing they were able to do, was fraud on the 29 year olds part for trying to pass off as 12 and go to school.
Pedophilia, whether fantasized or implied, cannot be a crime unless there is an actual child involved.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21158696-401,00.html
(The charges the older men face are not related to pedophilia but fraud as well, for posing as family of the 29 year old.)
I mean honestly, what would you charge people with? Immoral adult consentual roleplay? Pedophilia wishes? You can’t charge someone for a crime, when it doesn’t involve any real children. Indecent turn on?
Artemis, thanks for the clarification. But what I said still stands, simply because there could be someone with a camera phone, hiding behind an aisle taking video of a violent robbery and that isn’t illegal to publish the actual act itself. Now, the line comes showing people’s faces when they haven’t been convicted possibly, or innocent bystanders (which is why you usually end up seeing blurred faces on everyone but the criminal). If the criminal has been found guilty of the act being shown, then the criminal act itself can be published or shown with the criminal’s face, because then it’s considered public information.
An innocent bystander could also film a murder, and have nothing to do with it, and those images are still publicly acceptable to show, as long as the innocent are protected.
Artemis Fate
Feb 24th, 2007
“An innocent bystander could also film a murder, and have nothing to do with it, and those images are still publicly acceptable to show, as long as the innocent are protected.”
Well yeah, it’s just that the act of murder and the act of taking pictures are not intrinsically linked in crime. Whereas you can’t really have child pornography without harming a child (unless it’s virtual) and without taking pictures (then it’s just child molestation). There’s really no “innocent bystanders” who’d be able to have those “accidental I was just on the scene at the time with a camera phone” pictures. There’s no drive-by child pornographers. So really, the only way to make child pornography is to have one person (or one group of people) harming the child AND taking the pictures. Whereas that connection isn’t always existant for murder and robbery (although it CAN Be connected, it doesn’t have to) and that’s the main point of difference between pictures of child pornography and pictures of murder/robbery.
“Take the recent allegations in Arizona as an example. Some 29 year old dude was pretending to be 12 and was taken in by two men and they had consensual sex. These two old guys, as perverted as they are, believed this guy to be 12 and even attempted to enroll him in school. They even admitted to cops that they were pist off that this guy really wasn’t 12 years old. They CANNOT be charged with pedophilia, even though they were under the presumption they were committing it, because the other person was NOT a minor. In fact, they are trying to figure out if they can charge anyone for anything and so far, the only thing they were able to do, was fraud on the 29 year olds part for trying to pass off as 12 and go to school.”
But, isn’t that what cops do ALL the time? I always hear stories about cops prowling chat rooms pretending to be 12 year old girls/boys to try and lure pedophiles into a real life meeting so they can arrest them. So can the pedophile charge the cops with fraud or entrapment or something?
Wayfinder Wishbringer
Feb 24th, 2007
>The basis of it is, is no one is evil, nothing is evil, every story and action has two sides to it. Even Hitler is not evil, he believed he was trying to make the world a better place– Artemis< Now see, that is where we would disagree. No matter how Hitler rationalized his actions-- he was evil. No matter how others may rationalize his actions-- he was evil. He founded his power on hatred, violence and propaganda. There is no excuse for genocide.
>But by no means was he “evil”, he just had a wildly unpopular idea on how to make the world a better place. — Artemis< And no personal offense Artemis, but that's exactly what I was talking about in a prior message. One of the reasons society and the world is in the mess it's in is because people seem to have lost the ability to draw a line and say "That is wrong. It is evil." "By no means was he evil?" I would heartily disagree, as would many others. Perhaps it may help to look up the definition of evil in the dictionary. It leaves not doubt as to whether Hitler was evil or not. He was. Just because every story has two sides to it doesn't mean both sides are valid.
>I think the studies haven’t proven one way or another some say it makes them more violent some say it makes them less violent. — Artemis< Then perhaps you should look into the more recent studies. Two major studies, one done in the US and one done in England, produced almost identical results-- and drew definite correlations between violence in entertainment and enacted violence or violent tendencies. While there was a debate for some time regarding such things, that debate has pretty much been put to rest. There is a definite and absolute correlation between violent computer games, movies and other entertainment, and a greater tendency toward violence in those who mentally feast on such poison.
Again I have to say: common sense should have told the community that long before the actual research was done. You feed the body poison, the body sickens. You feed the mind poison, the mind sickens. It's such a simple concept, yet people still doggedly deny it.
A guy I knew once said that people are opinionated and arrogant. "If God himself came up and kicked them in the butt... they'd later claim it was a hallucination." Oh wait.. that guy was me.
>However, I don’t think you can compare the effects of sexual media to the effects of violent media, and say that the studies of violent media would apply to sexual media. They’re two different emotions. — Artemis< Two different emotions very closely related and very similarly triggerd. Both are triggered by addrenaline and relieved by endorphines. Simple A,B,C.
>Pedophilia, whether fantasized or implied, cannot be a crime unless there is an actual child involved. — Seola<
As I stated above, the question isn’t one of legality. It’s a matter of principle. While the authorities may not be able to charge those people with an actual crime, the 29 year old was a fraud and a liar, and the other two were pedophiles engaged in pedopheliac activity. If the legal system had exercised an brains at all, they would have applied the same law to those men as they do to other pedophiles who intend to engage in pedopheliac activities– when the “child” was actually an FBI agent. That could have been extended to those two men and they could have (and likely should have) been arrested on INTENT to engage in sex with a minor (which yes, is illegal, just as attempted robbery is illegal). The actual age of the 29 year old is irrelevant– they still were engaging in pedopheliac activities. I’m rather surprised the authorities didn’t figure that one out themselves.
Artemis Fate
Feb 25th, 2007
“Now see, that is where we would disagree. No matter how Hitler rationalized his actions– he was evil. No matter how others may rationalize his actions– he was evil. He founded his power on hatred, violence and propaganda. There is no excuse for genocide.”
You know, that’s the whole basis of Utilitarian ethics, would you kill 1,000 people to save 1,000,000? That would be an excuse for genocide right there wouldn’t it?
“And no personal offense Artemis, but that’s exactly what I was talking about in a prior message. One of the reasons society and the world is in the mess it’s in is because people seem to have lost the ability to draw a line and say “That is wrong. It is evil.” “By no means was he evil?” I would heartily disagree, as would many others. Perhaps it may help to look up the definition of evil in the dictionary. It leaves not doubt as to whether Hitler was evil or not. He was. Just because every story has two sides to it doesn’t mean both sides are valid.”
It’s funny you mention that, because that’s the same sort of absolutism Hitler would use, standing up for what’s “right” and that the jews are evil and someone has to stop them. I’m certainly not saying Hitler was right, i’m just saying he’s not evil. Hitler had, in his own head, the best interests of the people in mind, he had deluded himself into believing that the Jews and other classes of people he didn’t like (pretty much anyone not german) were the source of everything wrong in the world, and thus all he needed to do was exterminate them. He probably would have found that he was incorrect in those assumptions if he had managed to do it completely, but regardless he was standing up for what he believed to be right and what he believed would make the world a better place. That fact alone makes him not evil, evil things and evil people don’t care about anyone.
As it says in the song “We Just Disagree” by Dave Mason
“There ain’t no good guys, there ain’t no bad guys.
There’s only you and me and we just disagree.”
“Then perhaps you should look into the more recent studies. Two major studies, one done in the US and one done in England, produced almost identical results– and drew definite correlations between violence in entertainment and enacted violence or violent tendencies. While there was a debate for some time regarding such things, that debate has pretty much been put to rest. There is a definite and absolute correlation between violent computer games, movies and other entertainment, and a greater tendency toward violence in those who mentally feast on such poison.”
Do you have any links or some such to those studies, i’d like to see this, because last I checked there was still no conclusive proof and the studies results were jumping the gamut quite a bit.
Especially since I would say, I myself, am evidence to the contrary. I’ve been exposed to violent video games, movies, books, sexual perversion, since I was probably 12-14 (22 now). I’ve never been in a fight in my life, never hurt anyone, never felt like hurting anyone, it’s uncommon that I get angry, infact i’m a very calm and easy going person, when I do get angry I find that video games especially are wonderful outlets for anger, so I may start playing pissed off and end happy. I’m not into BDSM, D/s, Gor, ageplay, or any sort of “sexual perversion” like that. Infact, all of my friends that i’ve had who played violent video games and watched violent movies have been the same way.
Now to say that “There is a definite and absolute correlation between violent computer games, movies and other entertainment, and a greater tendency toward violence in those who mentally feast on such poison.” it seems that my case alone would disprove that. Of course, the biggest question is how are these cases done? After all, how do you measure “aggression”? Typically I find all of these studies (Whether or not they get positive or negative results) are done in a shakey manner and have results that could be debated on a number of variables, as well as sometimes have political agendas to push the results one way or another.
“Two different emotions very closely related and very similarly triggerd. Both are triggered by addrenaline and relieved by endorphines. Simple A,B,C.”
I would agree that there is likely a correlation between sex and violence. However, I don’t think even with this knowledge that you can apply a study based with the intention of violence to that with the intention of sex. I don’t think any scientist will agree with the validity of results from an experiment that exposes the subject to violent media, asks them questions pertaining to violence, and then tries to obtain data about their sexual behavior from that. Especially since some of these studies i’ve seen have had the subjects be children, and I think any results couldn’t be applied to sex when the subjects probably don’t even know what the word means.
Artemis Fate
Feb 25th, 2007
I’d also like to comment on this statement real quick:
“One of the reasons society and the world is in the mess it’s in is because people seem to have lost the ability to draw a line and say “That is wrong. It is evil.”"
Honestly admist all the conflict I think society is still in one of it’s better times compared to times before, we know now that people aren’t just “Evil” that they usually need help, if you go around a prison and ask murderers and rapists, you’ll likely find most if not all come from broken homes. It’s hard to rehabilitate a person with strong ingrained childhood emotions like that but it can happen, whereas in older times these people would probably be executed or have holes drilled into their heads to bore out the evil demons possesing them (Well maybe not, but I like to think that’s how the catholic church would have worked). Now you look at our wars, and our police, and our standard of living, and compare them to the representative forms of older times, i’d say things have definately improved. This in light of what we were talking about before, how you state that “violent media is correlated to violent nature”, perhaps you’d like to comment on what violent media they were watching in the middle ages, when they were horribly torturing people? Or what violent video games Jack the Ripper was playing when he brutally killed women? Or perhaps the violent movies that the people from the inquisition (an organization that, like yourself, decided to stand up for “what’s right” and draw the line between good and evil), when they decided to burn, incarcerate, torture, and crush to death those they deemed as “heretics”?
Compared to those times and now, yeah i’d say we’re considerably less violent these days, even though we have all this violent media to allegedly get us in the mood for killing and fighting.
Ultimately I think the important thing is a safe development for children, certainly I support the ratings system and keeping violent media away from children, because as alluded to in the “Broken homes” comment, I would say violent media definately affects children’s development. However, I do not believe that once we get to that stage (probably about puberty) where we are able to define “fantasy and reality” and understand that golden rule of “Be nice to people as you’d like to have them be nice to you”, that violent media becomes as much of a danger to psychological development, and no longer effects people so heavily because we’re able to say “this is fantasy, this is not real, and it’s not nice because that person probably doesn’t like being stabbed to death and having their liver eaten”.
Seola Sassoon
Feb 25th, 2007
Point taken on the pics Artemis!
“”"”But, isn’t that what cops do ALL the time? I always hear stories about cops prowling chat rooms pretending to be 12 year old girls/boys to try and lure pedophiles into a real life meeting so they can arrest them. So can the pedophile charge the cops with fraud or entrapment or something?”"”"
“”"”As I stated above, the question isn’t one of legality. It’s a matter of principle. While the authorities may not be able to charge those people with an actual crime, the 29 year old was a fraud and a liar, and the other two were pedophiles engaged in pedopheliac activity. If the legal system had exercised an brains at all, they would have applied the same law to those men as they do to other pedophiles who intend to engage in pedopheliac activities– when the “child” was actually an FBI agent. That could have been extended to those two men and they could have (and likely should have) been arrested on INTENT to engage in sex with a minor (which yes, is illegal, just as attempted robbery is illegal). The actual age of the 29 year old is irrelevant– they still were engaging in pedopheliac activities. I’m rather surprised the authorities didn’t figure that one out themselves.”"”"
Many people have in fact sued and won on entrapment charges, and many people brought before a judge with good lawyers have argued this. If you look at the minute details of the cops luring people to thinking they are a certain age, there has to be certain details involved to cover their rears. Money must exchange hands in sex and drug busts, just like a person has to show up to a rendevous with a suspected 14 year old. Simply talking about it isn’t a crime, because you can’t prove who is on the other end. They can’t catch someone, until it’s explicitly stated that the person is a minor in that state, and that they are meeting to have sex. Unfortunately, many child predators know this, so they use ‘code words’, and will never actually say the criminally chargeable words.
Just like a set up drug deal, they must name the drug by the drug’s name and not ‘candy’ or some code word. They must also have to see the drugs before actually making an arrest, or the criminal can just simply have a lawyer say ‘he may have talked about it, but he didn’t have it, where’s the proof he actually had it with intent to sell?’
The same goes for the Arizona case. Simply stating they had sex, and thought it was a child, there’s no ‘proof’ per se.
Either way though, if you KNOW both people are adults, what their kinks are, are none of my business. Now if someone took advantage of a REAL child – that’s cause for hot tar, feathering, beating, mulling, stoning and be set on fire, and sodomized with a broom handle and a brick.
Alas, though, in this situation where all have reasonable beliefs to be adults, and both consent, who is it hurting?
Maria LaVeaux
Feb 27th, 2007
LaBlanc said:
“Is Ageplay Child Porn?
Ageplay that involves sexually explicit images, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal definitely is child porn.”
BUT, wouldn’t such Images and writings be specificly of, and about ADULTS dressed in childish fashion, and acting as children (Grown man in diapers, Grown woman in Pigtails, and Buster Browns), NOT of Real children? If so, it would fall WELL outside the definitions of Child Pornography.
Age Players don’t seem to get off on children, or Images of children they seem to get off on the whole Idea of ADULTS acting like children.
While my personal Jury is still out on whether or not this Kink COULD lead into pedophile behaviour, The Imagery that we are discussing IS of Adults and doesn’t fall under that description.
IF However, the Age Player Is consuming, or distributing Pictures of Real children, or stories Involving Real Children then YES, that is child Porn obviously, But the distinction Has to be made for accuracies sake.
Maria.
Maria LaVeaux
Feb 27th, 2007
Wayfairer says:
“Pedophelia is wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.
Murder is wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.
Common sense therefore dictates:
PLAYING pedophelia is wrong (ie, fantasy pedophelia and virtual pedophelia).
PLAYING murder is wrong.”
and many others have made Very similar sweeping statements with regards to Violence as well, without qualifying the Types of Violence they are discussing. They simply say “ALL VIOLENCE IS WRONG!” period, end of statement.
By wayfairers logic “Playing Murder is wrong” Every actor since the beginning of time is engaging in aberrant behaviour because they are in thier various roles Simulating the act of Murder FOR THE PLEASURE OF THIER AUDIENCE.
All Prime time TV is wrong, all plays are wrong, all books are wrong where any act of Violence or Murder or Rape, or Torture is depicted for the pleasure of the reader.
Ok, that isn’t what he really meant, he just meant Actual acts of Violence in such depictions, Not simulated Violence.
So, Books and Movies and Plays and Prime time TV is Ok.
BUT
Football is wrong, Hockey is wrong, Boxing is VERY wrong. Karate, Wrestling (Greco Roman OR WWF)Each and every one of these sports Involve acts of violence Committed by one player, or team upon the other player or team. There is Blood, there are Injuries requiring Treatment or Hospitalization, there are even ~GASP~ Deaths of REAL Human Beings. ALL of whom Know the risks, and are more than willing to take them for Two reasons. Money, and Fame.
I Understand the Outrage that Child Porn elicits among Reasonable People. But when equating it to Violence in Our (Or most any) culture, you Have to use some very Broad qualifiers there because Violence as entertainment, and Competition is a HUGE part of our Culture AND many peoples religion as well (Being Nailed to a Cross is Hardly a Humane act but it Is considered to be a Deeply spiritual Moment in the Bible).
SHOULD it be some other way? Probably, But I’ll bet Not one of you here Posting these broad sweeping anti Violence statements here Hasn’t taken in some form of Violent entertainment in the Last week (If not the last 24 hours)
Child Porn is odeous enough on it’s own, it doesn’t need any Unsupportable comparrisons to emphasize it.
Maria.
Wayfinder Wishbringer
Feb 28th, 2007
>He probably would have found that he was incorrect in those assumptions if he had managed to do it completely, but regardless he was standing up for what he believed to be right and what he believed would make the world a better place. That fact alone makes him not evil, evil things and evil people don’t care about anyone. — Aretemis< EVIL: 1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful:
1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction:
1. morally objectionable behavior
2. that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune;
Hitler was evil.
>I myself, am evidence to the contrary. I’ve been exposed to violent video games, movies, books, sexual perversion, since I was probably 12-14 (22 now). I’ve never been in a fight in my life, never hurt anyone, never felt like hurting anyone, it’s uncommon that I get angry, infact i’m a very calm and easy going person, when I do get angry I find that video games especially are wonderful outlets for anger, so I may start playing pissed off and end happy. I’m not into BDSM, D/s, Gor, ageplay, or any sort of “sexual perversion” like that. Infact, all of my friends that i’ve had who played violent video games and watched violent movies have been the same way. Now to say that “There is a definite and absolute correlation between violent computer games, movies and other entertainment, and a greater tendency toward violence in those who mentally feast on such poison.” it seems that my case alone would disprove that.– Artemis< One person's personal experience does not invalidate case study. There can always be an exception to the norm. However, (and not to be personal), you have repeatedly stated you do not believe Hitler was evil. How are you to say for certain that your exposure to such things as you mentioned above have not jaded your perception so that you are unable to discern true evil? I'm not saying that is absolutely what has happened. I'm saying it is something to think about. Because if that is the case-- oddly enough you would be the last person to know it-- and the last person to realize it.
>Compared to those times and now, yeah i’d say we’re considerably less violent these days, even though we have all this violent media to allegedly get us in the mood for killing and fighting. — Artemis< I think historical record would disagree. Mankind has indeed always been a violent race, since the beginning of time. Individuals may not be any more or less violent, but society as a whole? Sociology studies indicate that our society in the 20th & 21st century is far more violent than that of the 18th & 19th centuries. And we certaintly have greater means for destruction these days than ever before in history. While the violence of individuals may be no worse-- our society indicates a strong tendency toward violence to the point of perversion. I don't think our grandparents would have tolerated such movies as the Texas Chainsaw Massacre-- and they never heard of any incident rivaling Columbine. That incident shocked even our current-day society-- but now kids killing kids is somewhat a common incident.
Oh, I think society today is FAR more violent than that of the past. We no longer watch I Love Lucy for entertainment-- we watch CSI.
>y wayfairers logic “Playing Murder is wrong” Every actor since the beginning of time is engaging in aberrant behaviour because they are in thier various roles Simulating the act of Murder FOR THE PLEASURE OF THIER AUDIENCE.– Maria<
That’s the whole point Maria. Doesn’t it occur to anyone that such things just might BE wrong? When did it come to be a fact of life that depicting grizly murders on a television screen is a beneficial or proper means of entertainment?
That’s exactly the point I have been making. People have become so jaded that graphic depictiosn of someone being murdered or raped doesn’t phase them. “It’s just a movie. It’s just TV.” And they don’t realize that the more they view such things, the more jaded they become… until people will literally stand by and watch someone being beated or raped and take no action to stop it (there are such recorded cases).
I am not advocating blanket censorship. Neither am I advocating enforcement of personal morality. All I’m doing is encouraging people to stop, to think, to examine themselves and society around them– and not be so quick to accept as fact that all these things are ‘OK’ just because they are adults and supposedly capable of deciding for themselves what is bad or not bad.
No matter whether we’re adults or not, if we eat poison, we will suffer. No matter whether we’re adults or not, if we feed our minds poison, our minds WILL be affected. We may deny it. We may claim we’re just fine. But poison corrupts, regardless.
The Romans thought they were just fine. They had their orgies (all adults after all) and their collusseums (what’s wrong with sacrificing Christians and criminals to the lions– they deserve it!) and they had their drunken gluttonous feasts and all other manner of things. And the nation became so morally degraded and sloppy that they lost an empire. (Resource: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire). I’m sure that just like people today, the Romans would have claimed they were adults and nothing was wrong with what they were doing. I’m sure the Mayans would have claimed nothing was wrong with their human sacrifices (after all, the sacrifices were willing adults). I’m sure the Christians of the Dark Ages would have claimed there was nothing wrong with the Crusades.
But they were wrong. Our society today is not unique in this aspect. There are many, many similarities between the U.S. and the Roman empire. Everyone claiming nothing is wrong, we’re fine, we’re all adults.
You know though, the only problem with that reasoning, is that no one wakes up to the reality of the situation until it’s too late.
Call this moralism if ya want– but those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it.
Maria LaVeaux
Feb 28th, 2007
Good points Wayfairer, But i would add one of my Own. Since the 1970′s Childrens entertainment has undergone closer, and closer scrutiny. Acts of Violence have been attenuated More and More in such entertainment, and it has on an eqivalent scale also been infused with social, and Moral messages specificly designed to Take youth farther and Farther from the Paths of Violence BUT the Instances of youth Violence and the severity of such instances has been steadily Increasing.
Right ideas, Right messages, supposedly aimed at the right audience at just the right time in thier lives and yet the Numbers point to it as being a spectacular failure.
Why?
Simple, because we are NOT the sum total of the Entertainment that we Watch. There is so much MORE contributing to who, and what we are, that to point solely at Violent entertainments as the Cause of increased Violence is Ridiculous.
People Often point to the Jaded entertainments of the Roman Empire as the cause of thier Downfall. In that, people are siting the more, shall we say Juicey aspects of an extremely complex Geopolitical Upheaval. The Romans Possessed a Huge Empire (One i might point out that Took Ten times the length of time to make a Mess out of it’s self that the USA has done) They had enemies on all sides. They had Conquered lands to administrate, and control, Resources to allocate. Taxes, and National Debt. Foreign aid, and Welfare. In short they had ALL the complex social and Political Issues that the US Faces today. Add to that the fact that they Were a Monarchy First, who’s heredetary leaders routinely Wed Sibling in order to maintain “Pure” bloodlines. In short, you had the Least able to Rule, Ruling an extraordinarily difficult Political arena.
What happened to Rome was Far more complicated, and Far more Mundane than the Games of the Coluseum, or the Orgies of the Ruling classes. That was a simplistic answer,for a More Moralistic age.
Maria.
Artemis Fate
Feb 28th, 2007
“EVIL: 1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful:
1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction:
1. morally objectionable behavior
2. that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune;
Hitler was evil. ”
Two things:
1.) Evil is an intangible concept that can’t very well be defined in the dictionary, as we’ve seen without referencing back to the original word: “an evil tyrant”. Try looking up Love and see if that applies to what you believe Love is.
2.) most of the definitions are based on the word “moral” which is the basis of our debate: to him and those who agreed with him, he was completely moral. Thus, evil is subjective. Obviously if there was simply just “evil” and “good”, then the german people wouldn’t have rallied behind Hitler as they had, unless of course you’re suggesting that the German people were evil too. And mind you before you say they were forced or pushed to it, Hitler’s approval ratings were overwhelming and he was ELECTED into office, and became dictator through popularity just as much as fear.
So as far as I see it with this dictionary entry, it proves my point, it doesn’t say anything that points Hitler himself out as evil, it just says “morally wrong” which is subjective, and then it says “Causes harm” which everyone did in WWII.
“One person’s personal experience does not invalidate case study. There can always be an exception to the norm.”
There’s a scientific saying that you can prove something right a million times, but if someone proves it wrong once, then it’s not true. What i’m saying by this is that violent media effects people differently, you were saying that it ABSOLUTELY is correlated to violent increases, which it’s not for me, therefore that is incorrect.
You still didn’t mention where you saw those studies either
“…you have repeatedly stated you do not believe Hitler was evil. How are you to say for certain that your exposure to such things as you mentioned above have not jaded your perception so that you are unable to discern true evil? I’m not saying that is absolutely what has happened. I’m saying it is something to think about. Because if that is the case– oddly enough you would be the last person to know it– and the last person to realize it.”
Well, I don’t think seeing a person mauled is going to effect my philosophical concept of evil. If anything caused this, it wasn’t violent media, it was philosophy reading and understanding the real world . Either way, you seem to think that if you don’t see the world as “evil” and “not evil” that I can’t have a concept of “right” and “wrong”. In shades of grey, there’s still a concept of Right and Wrong, it’s just more complex than “you are evil” and “you are not evil”. Just because I understand Hitler’s motives, and because I don’t think he qualifies for such a strong concept as “EVIL”, doesn’t mean that I agree with hitler or wouldn’t try to stop him. Take for example a person is hungry and steals bread. In Black and White world, this person is evil and unforgivable. Stealing is wrong, and thus he is evil. It’s ignoring the background facts of “well, he’s hungry”, in the shades of grey world, it’s an understanding that he’s hungry and desperate, and not that he’s evil but has his motives, and we might look the other way on that crime, or we might take him in, it’s understanding the motives and analyzing the situations as they come based on the information you have. Hitler’s case is the same thing except in grey not so forgivable, because regardless of his motives, killing all those people is not a good thing for the majority of people, and while it may create his own utopia, it’ll create everyone elses dystopia. That’s all shades of grey is, it’s deep analyzing motives and values and weighing it with your own. Therefore there’s still a sense of “right” and “wrong” it’s just subjective instead of objective.
So i’ll mention this again, in black and white world, what would be the “not evil” choice in the question “Do you kill 1000 to save 1,000,000?”
Also, I could say the same thing to you on this whole “maybe you’re effected by the media to think this way” and have a better case for it too. In movies and TV shows coming out of America, they often have the same plot of “good versus evil”, all the old comics were like that, lots of TV shows, lots of movies, religion is, pulp fiction, etc. America was obsessed with the concept of “We are good, they are evil, good always wins”. I imagine a large intake with that (especially considering your deep fantasy roots, which always involved the “Evil wizard” and some such) would back you up with a strong belief in a Black and White good versus evil world. To quote you: “I’m not saying that is absolutely what has happened. I’m saying it is something to think about. Because if that is the case– oddly enough you would be the last person to know it– and the last person to realize it.”
“Sociology studies indicate that our society in the 20th & 21st century is far more violent than that of the 18th & 19th centuries.”
Well, considering that Sociology wasn’t even invented as a field of study until the late 19th century, i’d imagine Sociological studies WOULD be better now then they would be in the 18th to 19th century, since they…you know, didn’t exist.
“our society indicates a strong tendency toward violence to the point of perversion. I don’t think our grandparents would have tolerated such movies as the Texas Chainsaw Massacre”
Always has, and probably always will. In Roman days they’d go to the Colliseum and watch people fight to death, in…really most of probably 12th century to 20th century, hangings and guillitines would draw large crowds of spectators, the only thing different now is it’s much easier to see it, which makes people think that we’ve suddenly become more violent which isn’t true, the violent nature has just become more apparent.
Also, if we say Grandparents being people who were probably watching movies in the 1930′s to 1940′s, then they were watching movies like Film Noir, which often involved (As far as a fascist moral absolutist hollywood movie code would allow anyways) incest, murder, torture, death, adultry, etc. Not to mention that they didn’t have so much the technology to produce as much gore (something I personally hate anyways) as they do now, but they managed to fit as much death, murder, and violence as they do in movies now, only difference is they show it in more detail now.
“and they never heard of any incident rivaling Columbine. That incident shocked even our current-day society– but now kids killing kids is somewhat a common incident.”
No, all they had was violent mobsters roaming the streets shooting up places. We have 2 psychopaths shoot up a school and have morally outraged people thinking this is common place or new. In 1927 even, we had people blowing up school children, with the Bath School disaster, where 45 people were dead and 58 injured, mostly 6th graders, more than 3 times as many as columbine.
We’ve ALWAYS been violent and we’ll always be violent, we haven’t really gotten more or less violent, we’ve just gotten less cruel now. Atleast now we can have stuff like after WWII we’ll say “wow, Mustard gas is really nasty, we should all agree to ban that from use”, and for the most part that’s been followed. Whereas in the dark ages they’d happily chuck dead cats into castles to give disease and throw boiling tar on people in war. So i’d say we improved quite a bit in terms of ACTUAL violence.
Wayfinder Wishbringer
Feb 28th, 2007
>So as far as I see it with this dictionary entry, it proves my point, it doesn’t say anything that points Hitler himself out as evil, it just says “morally wrong” which is subjective, and then it says “Causes harm” which everyone did in WWII. — Artemis< I don't believe murdering 6 million men, women and children is "subjective" morality. And while I will agree that everyone did wrong in WWII... it might be considered that some people had better reasons than others. I am strongly against nationalistic war-- but it has to be realized that Hitler wasn't conducting war for the good of Germany. No one was threatening Germany. Certainly not the Jews and Gypsies. Hitler conducted war because he was evil. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one Artemis. According to your philosophy, likely nothing could ever be classified as evil. In my experience, that opinion would be subjective rather than realistic.
>There’s a scientific saying that you can prove something right a million times, but if someone proves it wrong once, then it’s not true.< Which is a bogus plattitude (no offense intended). An aberrant to the norm does not invalidate the norm. Basic psychology 101.
>What i’m saying by this is that violent media effects people differently, you were saying that it ABSOLUTELY is correlated to violent increases, which it’s not for me, therefore that is incorrect.< Again Artemis, I will question that you are an exception to that concept. You fail to recognize the evil of Hitler-- something which is very clear to me. From my standpoint, I would say you have been jaded by what you've been feeding your mind. And again, if that were the case, you would be both the last to know that and the last to admit it. That's how it works. It's very difficult to convince a schizoprhenic that his fantasy world isn't real. (Not saying you're a schizoprhenic, of course. Just using an illustration). The problem is that the only way to guage the affect of such things Artemis, is to compare the viewpoints and mentality of people who engage in such things with those who do not. And unfortunately, those who engage in such things will scream the loudest that there is nothing wrong with them.
>You still didn’t mention where you saw those studies either< I read of them in the newspaper, which provided bibliographical information. Naturally, I don't hang on to every bit of trivia that comes my way each day. So I'll say the same thing I've said to others Artemis: I've done my research-- you do yours.
The information is as easily available to you as it is to me. You have the net-- do a search. I'm not here to do your work for ya. And since this is a blog and not a scientific research paper-- I'm not required to post a bibliography for every statement I make. If you choose not to believe me-- so what?
>Well, considering that Sociology wasn’t even invented as a field of study until the late 19th century, i’d imagine Sociological studies WOULD be better now then they would be in the 18th to 19th century, since they…you know, didn’t exist.< LOL... are you serious? Artemis, I wasn't commenting on sociology as a field of study. I was comenting on SOCIETY. While sociology as an organized science is somewhat new-- the eras and periods they study are not. Sociologists study both current society-- and past society. And they generally agree that 1914 (World War I) was a major turning point in the violence levels of the world.
>So i’ll mention this again, in black and white world, what would be the “not evil” choice in the question “Do you kill 1000 to save 1,000,000?”< To answer that question-- no, I do not. I spare the thousand under the knowledge that there is no way to know for certain the million will perish. If they do, at least it won't be because we murdered 1,000 innocent people. Murdering those people would be the decision of a sociopath, not a human with an ethical conscience. And that's the kind of decision made by dictators and madmen every day.
>No, all they had was violent mobsters roaming the streets shooting up places. We have 2 psychopaths shoot up a school and have morally outraged people thinking this is common place or new. In 1927 even, we had people blowing up school children, with the Bath School disaster, where 45 people were dead and 58 injured, mostly 6th graders, more than 3 times as many as columbine.<
You totally failed to see the point Artemis. You’re discussing adults killing people in criminal acts. I was discussing sociopathic childen murdering classmates as a direct result of ultra-violent media input.
We could debate like this all day to no end. To be bluntly honest, if you can’t see that Hitler was evil, there’s not much purpose in spending time pursuing this further. If we’re fortunate, neither one of us will ever have to make a major judgement call that will affect the lives of other people. But I know if I were ever a criminal I’d want you on the jury, ’cause dimes to donuts you’d hang it up and I’d walk.
Artemis Fate
Feb 28th, 2007
>”I don’t believe murdering 6 million men, women and children is “subjective” morality. And while I will agree that everyone did wrong in WWII… it might be considered that some people had better reasons than others. I am strongly against nationalistic war– but it has to be realized that Hitler wasn’t conducting war for the good of Germany. No one was threatening Germany. Certainly not the Jews and Gypsies. Hitler conducted war because he was evil. I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one Artemis.”< I think I said, exactly pretty much, that it was the extensive murder that made Hitler unforgivable and wrong even to a shades of grey person. What IS subjective is his reasons. If you're going to say that "Hitler killed those people because he's just evil" then you're willingly ignoring REAL sociological and psychological reasons that you're throwing at me in this post, in favor of "just because", you might as well as "Satan made him do it" there's almost no difference. People aren't "just evil" they're made a certain way by complex sociological and psychological reasons. if Hitler was "just evil" as you describe it, it would have been something that followed him his entire life, he would have been murdering and maiming since he was old enough to hold a knife. But no, he was a painter, a vegetarian painter no less. Until he became political, i'd imagine (outside of his time in WWI) that he'd never harmed a person in his life. Now the problem is with "just evil" is that instead of looking at that past and saying "wow, how'd he go from Vegetarian painter to horrible dictator? We should look into this and try to analyze the throught process so this doesn't happen again", it's "He's just evil! That's it! NOTHING MORE! EVIL! EVIIIIL!!" and we're doomed to repeat it over and over.
>“According to your philosophy, likely nothing could ever be classified as evil. In my experience, that opinion would be subjective rather than realistic.”< Nothing would be classified as evil, because there is no such thing as evil. Good and evil don't exist. There's just people with motives. Is the tiger evil for tearing into the man? No. It's just hungry and those are his instincts. I would say a belief in "good" and "evil" is far more unrealistic than analyzing motives.
>“There’s a scientific saying that you can prove something right a million times, but if someone proves it wrong once, then it’s not true.
Which is a bogus plattitude (no offense intended). An aberrant to the norm does not invalidate the norm. Basic psychology 101.”< Well, I can tell you that if I jumped up a million times and hit the ground, then one time floated up in the air, i'd have to question the law of gravity. Granted this doesn't apply as much to psychology, but you seem to be treating this "violence causes violence" as a scientific norm, that it always absolutely happens. This is the point i'd been making here, is that psychology never quite "always happens", and one thing never effects multiple people the same way. We're all too psychologically diverse to have one thing affect us in the same way like that.
>“Again Artemis, I will question that you are an exception to that concept. You fail to recognize the evil of Hitler– something which is very clear to me. From my standpoint, I would say you have been jaded by what you’ve been feeding your mind. And again, if that were the case, you would be both the last to know that and the last to admit it. That’s how it works. It’s very difficult to convince a schizoprhenic that his fantasy world isn’t real. (Not saying you’re a schizoprhenic, of course. Just using an illustration). The problem is that the only way to guage the affect of such things Artemis, is to compare the viewpoints and mentality of people who engage in such things with those who do not. And unfortunately, those who engage in such things will scream the loudest that there is nothing wrong with them.”< And i'll say again, I could say the same thing to you, especially with your obvious fantasy background which usually involves a strong sense of "good versus evil".
>“I read of them in the newspaper, which provided bibliographical information. Naturally, I don’t hang on to every bit of trivia that comes my way each day. So I’ll say the same thing I’ve said to others Artemis: I’ve done my research– you do yours.
The information is as easily available to you as it is to me. You have the net– do a search. I’m not here to do your work for ya. And since this is a blog and not a scientific research paper– I’m not required to post a bibliography for every statement I make. If you choose not to believe me– so what?”< Well I figured if you had some indistinct 2 studies that i'd never heard of that suddenly had "proved without a doubt" that violent media makes people violent, that you might want to post them.
>“LOL… are you serious? Artemis, I wasn’t commenting on sociology as a field of study. I was comenting on SOCIETY. While sociology as an organized science is somewhat new– the eras and periods they study are not. Sociologists study both current society– and past society. And they generally agree that 1914 (World War I) was a major turning point in the violence levels of the world.”< Exactly, and can you really compare studies on society done before and after organized sociology? Of course things are going to look more violent, we're looking now. It's like living in a room for 10 years and never looking at the painted blue walls, and then suddenly turning over and saying "wow these walls are blue! MORE BLUE THAN EVER!". A sociologist couldn't study past society because there's not even data to compile a reliable idea of what things were like, especially since none of them were written with sociology in mind. They could try to get a vague idea, but it'd likely be wrong. Take for example, a sociologist wanted to study the relationship between Indian tribes and colonial settlers, all they could do is look at the texts written about this, or look at first hand writings written back then. Problem is, everyone is saying different things. Some people wrote the indians were horrible people who tortured and maimed, others wrote about how kind they were and would take you into their tribe, and so on. How can a sociologist derive ANYTHING reliable from this?
Sociology, I might add, can be defined in one question: "What's really going on?". So whereas before Sociology we might just say "Hitler is evil, that's all" now we can go "Well, there's all these reasons and problems in Hitler's upbringing that influenced his behavior", because we ask "what's really going on here?"
>“To answer that question– no, I do not. I spare the thousand under the knowledge that there is no way to know for certain the million will perish. If they do, at least it won’t be because we murdered 1,000 innocent people. Murdering those people would be the decision of a sociopath, not a human with an ethical conscience. And that’s the kind of decision made by dictators and madmen every day.”< Congratulations then, by your standards you're evil. You murdered 1,000,000 people. I never said anything about "not knowing" it would happen, I said "Do you kill 1000 to save 1,000,000?", doesn't seem like there's any room for doubts in there.
It's what they call Utilitarian ethics, maximizing the ultimate good. We need dilemas like this, because while this particular situation isn't likely to encounter (though certainly it's not impossible, the 9/11 planes come to mind, "would you shoot them down?"), there are other situations where no matter what choice you make, something bad will happen, and to discern a choice, utilitarianism says "you just choose what gives the most good concequences". This kinda stuff is necessary because choices are rarely as simple as "black" and "white", good and evil, the world is just not like that.
I wish the world was as simple as "good" and "evil" I really do, but it's a fantasy to think like that, in light of the staggering amount of evidence that says "people aren't evil, they just have motives and reasons that differ", but as I said before, this doesn't mean that there's no such thing as right and wrong, that's what the law is for. If Good and Evil was so clear, we wouldn't need laws. But since it's not, we have pages and pages of complex "if and else" situations to deal with the complex nature of right and wrong.
>“You totally failed to see the point Artemis. You’re discussing adults killing people in criminal acts. I was discussing sociopathic childen murdering classmates as a direct result of ultra-violent media input.”<
Well, I figured the death of a ton of school kids would be bad either way, but if you want to discuss kids killing kids, you might look at Sierra Leone, where there’s entire squadrens of kids with AK-47s, who’ve never had the money to own a TV. Or Brazil’s Cidade de Deus, which regularly had kids in gang wars, again most of these kids hadn’t the money to be regularly exposed to violent media. Or in the middle east, with child suicide bombers, who only have “THIS IS RIGHT AND THIS IS WRONG” moral absolutism spoon fed to them before they blow themselves up for the “ultimate good”
Now ultimately here’s what I point out. Since Columbine, America has had 2 more school shootings, none of which perpetrated by children. Now, where exactly is this “kids killing kids” common? Especially considering that, where America has had in it’s entire history 4 incidents overall of kids shooting kids at school, how many incidents, how many times have kids gone to school and NOT killed all their classmates? Now, compare that entire history of days in school where no one got slaughtered to the 4 that did, and I think you’ll find that these 4 days well qualify into that, as you mentioned earlier, that abnormality that doesn’t effect the whole of studies. Certainly if violent media effected our minds and made children want to kill as much as you say, we’d have more than 4 school shootings by kids (under 20) in the entirety of our nation’s history.
“We could debate like this all day to no end. To be bluntly honest, if you can’t see that Hitler was evil, there’s not much purpose in spending time pursuing this further. If we’re fortunate, neither one of us will ever have to make a major judgement call that will affect the lives of other people. But I know if I were ever a criminal I’d want you on the jury, ’cause dimes to donuts you’d hang it up and I’d walk.”
Again, you’re assuming that because i’m analyzing Hitler’s motives and saying that he’s not infact “just evil” but had a complex set of motives, that I somehow agreed with him. Just because I say “Hitler isn’t evil” doesn’t mean “I agree with Hitler’s reasons”, I think he was a psychopathic douchebag.
Also, hate to break it to you, but criminal law is much more “Shades of grey” then it is “black and white”, which is why there’s things like insanity pleas and self-defense pleas. And yet, we still manage to get people convicted just fine (more than fine really with our overcrowded prisons). Again, and I can’t believe i’m having to stress this over and over, just because “black and white” is absurd and criminal law and myself don’t run on it, doesn’t mean that there’s no such thing as right and wrong for us, there’s the law and there’s ethics, and of course values of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, and so forth. This is infact WHY there are large books on ethics, defining opinions on how to deal with right and wrong, like utilitarianism. Rather than just a book that says “this is evil this is good, if you do anything in the evil list you are then evil, if you do anything in the good list, you are then good, please try to keep to one side or another, we don’t want to muck things up and make it complex.”
Just out of curiousity, who would you classify as “evil” and who as “good”? I mean, that sort of worldview only allows for two types of people so everyone has to fall into one category or another, no exceptions, so what kind of famous historical people fall into which category for you? I know we have Hitler already, who’s an easy target because no one likes Hitler. But who else?
Wayfinder Wishbringer
Feb 28th, 2007
>Congratulations then, by your standards you’re evil. You murdered 1,000,000 people. I never said anything about “not knowing” it would happen, I said “Do you kill 1000 to save 1,000,000?”, doesn’t seem like there’s any room for doubts in there. — Artemis< Which points to why this discussion is useless. Artemis, from my viewpoint, you’re discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I tend to be a down-to-earth, logical person (despite my love of fantasy concepts). I’m a realist, a business analyst and consultant by trade, and I have a knack for walking into a place, evaluating it, and fixing it. That doesn’t come from having one’s head in the clouds.
The hypothetical situation you listed above is just that– hypothetical. One does not become a “murderer” nor “evil” because he decides to save one life rather than another. You presented a Catch-22 platform with no way out; either I’m a murderer for choosing to kill 1,000 people– or a murderer by saving those thousand people and supposedly letting 1 million people die. Either way, I’m condemned. Such a scenario is excessive, unreasonable, and slanted to achieve a specific pre-determined agenda. (Yeah, I was actually trained to recognize such tactics.
Arguing such things is futile. You can argue Hitler’s “reasons” for murdering 6 million people all you wish– that does not alter reality. You can apply philosophy and psychology to him all you like– that doesn’t change the fact that he was personally responsible for the murder of 6 million people. Mafia leaders donate vast amounts of money to the Church while at the same time running drugs, prostituting women, selling “protection” and murdering those who don’t bow to their will. At the same time, they rationalize that they’re “just doing business”. They’re “providing for their families”– totally ignoring the fact that their victims have families too. Their rationalization and self-deception does not change the evil of their activities, nor the evil within them that moves them to do such things.
It’s not that they are inherently evil Artemis, nor does it mean they can never change. That’s a whole nuther issue called remourse and repentance… which is a different topic altogether. So long as they continue their evil path– they are generally considered evil.
You say there is no “good” or “evil”. You’re welcome to your opinion. I strongly disagree. And to be honest, pointing out that Hitler had hobbies doesn’t change my opinion of him one bit– nor the opinions of the families of the 6 million people he murdered during his evil regime.
Artemis Fate
Feb 28th, 2007
“Which points to why this discussion is useless. Artemis, from my viewpoint, you’re discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I tend to be a down-to-earth, logical person (despite my love of fantasy concepts). I’m a realist, a business analyst and consultant by trade, and I have a knack for walking into a place, evaluating it, and fixing it. That doesn’t come from having one’s head in the clouds.”
The last terms i’d ever apply to anyone who believes in black and white concepts and good versus evil are “down to earth”, “logical”, and “realist” although there is a term for someone who thinks they are these things while believing wholy in good versus evil: “delusional”
“The hypothetical situation you listed above is just that– hypothetical. One does not become a “murderer” nor “evil” because he decides to save one life rather than another. You presented a Catch-22 platform with no way out; either I’m a murderer for choosing to kill 1,000 people– or a murderer by saving those thousand people and supposedly letting 1 million people die. Either way, I’m condemned. Such a scenario is excessive, unreasonable, and slanted to achieve a specific pre-determined agenda. (Yeah, I was actually trained to recognize such tactics.
”
No, it was to point out that Black and white doesn’t work. And that you’re not evil by making hard decisions, this isn’t unreasonable, i’d imagine in wartime a general has to make these sorts of decisions (at a lower scale) all the time “Do I run a rescue mission to save the soldiers and risk losing more or let them stay out there to certain death?” or Presidential, such as the 9/11 situation “Should I shoot down the plane full of innocents that might crash into another large target?”. These aren’t “excessive, unreasonable, and slanted” they’re reality, and it’s just a proof to why “This is good and this is evil, there’s nothing else” doesn’t work.
“Arguing such things is futile. You can argue Hitler’s “reasons” for murdering 6 million people all you wish– that does not alter reality. You can apply philosophy and psychology to him all you like– that doesn’t change the fact that he was personally responsible for the murder of 6 million people. Mafia leaders donate vast amounts of money to the Church while at the same time running drugs, prostituting women, selling “protection” and murdering those who don’t bow to their will. At the same time, they rationalize that they’re “just doing business”. They’re “providing for their families”– totally ignoring the fact that their victims have families too. Their rationalization and self-deception does not change the evil of their activities, nor the evil within them that moves them to do such things.”
Evil is an absolute. You’re either evil or you’re not. The fact that a person has to rationalize what they do automatically makes them not evil, because an evil creature doesn’t rationalize. It’s evil it doesn’t need to weave a complex string of reasons for what it does, it just does it. Satan in the bible, doesn’t have a complex string of reasons for torturing people, he just does it cause that’s what he does, he’s Satan and he’s evil. Same with your fantasy, an evil sorcerer wants to destroy middle earth or whatever because he’s evil, end all. It’d be nice if real life was like that, where you could just categorize someone as “evil” and all you had to know was they needed to be stopped because you’re good. Unfortunately it’s not. No one is evil, we just sometimes do “evil” things, we don’t do them for no reason, we do them because we have too, because we want too, because we’ve lost a few bolts, or because we think it’s the right thing to do. Nobody thinks they’re evil (unless of course they’re insane), we just have our reasons for doing what we do. For a person who has “a knack for walking into a place, evaluating it, and fixing it.” you seem to be more than willing to discard entire volumes of data on what makes a person a certain way and why this happened for a simple “he’s evil” answer.
“It’s not that they are inherently evil Artemis, nor does it mean they can never change. That’s a whole nuther issue called remourse and repentance… which is a different topic altogether. So long as they continue their evil path– they are generally considered evil.”
So let’s take your “evil path” metaphor. So let’s say, hypothetically, we have a person who cold heartedly murders someone, but also saves the lives of a number of people, donates to charity, spends time at the homeless shelter, you know, whatever. Therefore, he has (at the same time) taken 1 evil path, and 3 good paths. How do you apply a label to this person? Evil? Good? Or just “Man”. This is the point i’m making, you can do “evil” things for one reason or another, but that doesn’t make you evil or good, it just makes you a person doing a good thing or an evil thing. Maybe as a race, if we dedicated our lives entirely to one path of action all the time (i.e.: if we decided to give to charity, all we could do is give to charity until we stop) so it narrows down to one of these “paths” at a time, but until then, our lives are amaglams of good and bad things done for a variety of reasons.
As i’ve said before, who decides “That’s evil” and “that’s good”? Take utilitarianism for example, one person choses to do nothing and the other person choses to stop it by killing people, which one is good and evil? I would say neither, but others might say killing the smaller amount is evil, others might say letting the larger amount die was evil. Which is right? Now if you’re even thinking out which one you think is right, then you’re using, basically, a large data pile of experiences in your brain to discern right/wrong in this situation. Those experiences are what makes you unique psychologically and in general as a person, why we disagree. But because of this, how can you say what you discerned as right, based on those experiences, is the ultimate absolute right? What i’m getting at here, is that there can be large differences in right and wrong between people, we generally all believe Murder is wrong, but our views on abortion differ greatly. What does that say? Good and Evil are similar to Right and Wrong except Good and Evil are cemented in a belief that “You are good or you are evil, there’s no fuzziness, the criteria for defining one or the other is the same for every situation”, whereas Right and Wrong can come in degrees and the criteria can change based on the situation and person.
“You say there is no “good” or “evil”. You’re welcome to your opinion. I strongly disagree. And to be honest, pointing out that Hitler had hobbies doesn’t change my opinion of him one bit– nor the opinions of the families of the 6 million people he murdered during his evil regime.”
Just because i’m not willing to apply fantasy terms like “evil” to Hitler, doesn’t mean I don’t think he was a mass-murdering psychopathic douchebag.
Wayfinder Wishbringer
Feb 28th, 2007
>it was to point out that Black and white doesn’t work. Evil is an absolute. You’re either evil or you’re not.<
Artemis, I think what we have here is a disagreement as to the basic nature of evil. I could debate that with you. We could discuss the Biblical presentation of Satan and point out that he had all kinds of rationalizations for his acts. We could debate about this until the cows came home… but I do have a real life. LOL.
The above stated viewpoint of evil is your definition. Many people would disagree.
While I respect your opinions… I also recognize that since you view evil as an absolute and claim there are no absolutes in the universe, only gray areas, it is fruitless for me to spend time in further discussion. I consider such to be circular logic for which there is no answer or conclusion. Evil is absolute, and since there can’t be absolutes, there can’t be evil. Very convenient logic– but highly debatable, to say the least. (And no, I won’t waste time discussing whether or not it’s actually circular logic either. LOL).
I respect you have your opinions of these things. I strongly disagree with your opinions. I still believe that Hitler was evil… and that there have been and are evil people on the face of this planet. I believe in good and evil– and shades in between. You’ve been generally respectful in this discussion… so I respectfully continue to disagree and choose to save us both additional time by politely bowing out of further discussion.
Pierre
Mar 9th, 2007
Bloody hell guys, give it a break. Well done on your 15,000 word essays – all very interesting. But seriously, why don’t you just ring each other and discuss it. It would be quicker!
Wayfinder Wishbringer
Mar 9th, 2007
LOL Pierre. Uh… you do realize you’re reading an in-depth commentary blog?
If ya don’t like it… well, there’s always television.
Loves to RP
Mar 10th, 2007
Sighs, i RP a great many things even ageplay, i found out about it on SL, and i play it on SL.
Will i harm someone in real? Hell no!!!
Most of the time i just enjoy running around like a little kid, but to me i look more like a little midget anyhow.
We should be worrying if midgets are getting pissed lol.
Joking aside, i just see it as a game, i have not, will not and can not see myself doing anything i do in SL in real.
I think people are just looking for a reason to talk and join in on something, thats why so many are so upset, im 26 in real, i do not and can not get out of the house but to go get food from the store.
I think we should just live and let live until their is solid proof that someone in real underage is getting hurt from this. TY
Wayfinder Wishbringer
Mar 10th, 2007
>I think we should just live and let live until their is solid proof that someone in real underage is getting hurt from this. TY — Loves to RP<
“The wise man has seen the catastrophe in advance… and avoided it.”
The above advice sounds like a city street planner who waits until three people are killed at an intersection before figuring out that yes, like everyone already knew, we needed a street light there.
It’s possible to look at something, use common sense to examine it, and say, “Hey, this can’t be good.”
As some respectful advice to several: I’ve heard a few people say, “Hey, I do all kinds of dark things on Second Life and I’m just fine.” With all respect, if you all weren’t fine– you’d the the last one to realize it. If I may suggest: an alternative to engaging in “dark side” activities is to scrutinize yourself and find out why such things appeal to you.
It’s hard for me to believe someone who says, “Hey, I engage in ageplay… but I have no RL desire for pedophelia”.
I have to wonder if that person ever looks him/herself in the mirror and asks for honesty. Sometimes, it benefits us all to have a serious talk with the person in the mirror. It’s just like guys who watch martial arts flicks all the time and then tell me they have no violent tendencies. I have to wonder then, if they have NO violent tendencies, that so much violence appeals to them so much. I would be more likely to believe that they don’t THINK they have violent tendencies… but are deceiving themselves. I would suspect that if they were to undergo psyche profile testing… some of those tendencies they think they don’t have would show up.
If we take a delight in “dark side” things… that could well be a dull ember. That doesn’t mean it will ever be fanned into a flame, but I’ve never seen a balanced, well-adjusted person who enjoyed “playing” at having sex with children. I’m sorry, but something in there is twisted– whether they admit it (or know it) or not. The easiest person in the world to decive– is ourselves.
MannyM
Mar 17th, 2007
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Children/SexualAbuse/Default.asp
Here is an extract form the Interpol website.
Basically it discusses the progress of a typical peadophile. You can read the whole page but I will cut and paste some.
Profile of a Peadophile
“In general predatory child sex offenders tend to be male, less than average intelligent and are incapable of undertaking any prolonged period of grooming. They generally fit into a stereotypical offender profile, living alone or with a parent, unemployed or in low paid work and unable to form adult relationships.”
Stage 1 – Passive Interest – Sick stuff on its own – next time you see a sexual Age Player Think about this.
“Their cycle of offending is also typical and begins with the basic attraction and sexual arousal by thoughts of children. He (the vast majority are men) will typically be in possession of either child erotica or child pornography with which he will fantasize and masturbate. At this stage he can certainly be described as, and fits the definition of, a paedophile. However, other than possessing child pornography, which is not an offence in many countries, he does not commit any offences. The reason why this type of person does not proceed beyond this stage is as a result of internal and external inhibitors or both.”
Some definitions:
“Internal inhibitors are personal factors which control a persons behavior. The knowledge that it is morally wrong to sexually abuse a child or that sexual activity with a child can seriously damage the mental welfare of his victim in the future.
External inhibitors are far more basic and evolve around the fear of being caught and going to prison linked with the knowledge that their personal lifestyle would be seriously effected if it became public that they were sexually attracted to children.”
The Move from Passive to Active
“Once the internal and external inhibitors have been removed, possible by a period of stress or boredom then the peadophile moves into the cycle of offending. He begins by going out to places where children frequent, a play park or swimming pool for example.”
Read on from the rest of the article – about the move to hooking up with a vulnerable family unit – ingratiating them selves with the mother and grooming the kids. Wow – if a Sexual Age play was to suddenly meet a single mother on Second Life….
Well thats just fantasy because as we know Real Life does not exist.
My concluding Question?
Now pixelated erotica and sexual role play in Second Life – how does this fit into the equation? I dunno ask Interpol
Artemis Fate
Mar 17th, 2007
This is the same thing that you could apply to violent media though, the movement from stage 1 to stage 2 is the heart of the argument. People like violent movies and games but they don’t go out and kill people, therefore it doesn’t seem like a large jump in logic to say that someone may like child pornography without going out and raping children. The site lists, as you say two inhibitors, which are fairly large ones that means the person has to be not afraid of getting caught and not afraid of doing something morally wrong.
That’s pretty much the jump it takes for a person to see crime and think about crime to doing it.
I think it’s possible if not probable that sexual media effects people differently than violent media, but i’m not sure if exposure to either removes those inhibitors.
MannyM
Mar 17th, 2007
The content that I posted clearly states that there generally needs to be a period of stress or boredom for the shift in psychology and behaviour from passive to active offending. The same goes for violence, drug abuse and suicide. When people go pop its just a matter of how.
Personally, how ever, I just find the thought of supporting men who wank over images of what they would like to do with young children, while hiding behind some shaky (and to many non US people flaky) US interpretations of the law quite gut wrenching – but that’s just me. Some people tend to think that if their family is not at risk then there is no issue.
Lets now get a little more pragmatic from Linden Lab’s point of view.
They are in business to make money and despite a few glitches give a reasonable service quite cheaply.
Part of that service is a net work of servers on which is held all of the content created in secondlife – from a basic box prim to a video of people playing happily.
Lets see how the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children defines Child Pornography:
“What Is Child Pornography?
Under federal law, child pornography1 is defined as a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, photograph, film, video, or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where it
depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or
depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.2 ”
http://www.cybertipline.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=2451
Now this is a rather small snip out of a rather large article.Before you reply I suggest that you study the whole article and look into some of the reference material. I would suggest that this organisation is already barking up the Second Life Tree.
The point that I would like to make is that the line between Linden Labs not getting their servers investigated and getting their servers investigated – which would effectivley close Second Life down for months – is only a very fine interpretation of Fedreal and state laws or one incident where a criminal investigation leads back to Second Life.
The results of course would be disastrous. Kind of like Planet Earth being hit by a meteorite to dumb it down a bit.
Now rather than defend the rights of a few extremists, let’s play it safe for all concerned and go with the flow a bit.
All we have to lose is asome leisure time and in the case of land barons and SL business people a few thousand dollars.
Phil, and his team, stand to lose their livelihood and Executives could end up with criminal convictions. Teen grid of course would be stuffed.
Even if criminal law did not get him, a nice civil suit could break Phil and the more succesful he becomes the much jucier a target he is. And Amazon? we would all like a hare of their reserves.
Second Life belongs to the owners of Linden Labs not the members. Its their Sand Box. Play by their rules or find a new sand box to play in.
Artemis Fate
Mar 17th, 2007
I’m more defending people’s rights to do what they want with their virtual lives, I think Ageplay is pretty nasty, but so is a bunch of other stuff and I don’t have any right to say this or that, because despite whatever “exploited children” definition you pulled up, the American legal definition of child pornography does not include fictional child pornography.
Anyways, LL already reacted on the sexual Ageplayers defining them as “broadly offensive”, and have made it so they basically have to operate in secret by ToS (with that recent anouncement) and can’t advertise in any way, shape, or form. (out of sight, out of mind) But LL didn’t necessarily NEED to do that, certainly the government couldn’t do shit to them, maybe it’d get them bad press, but what does that even mean, even the Nintendo DS got bad press as a “Gateway to child molestors”. Would probably get a spike in users from it.
Ozhika
Jun 6th, 2007
There should be laws against doing things… real, actual, life-based things that involve generating harm. In a culture of personal responsibility (hmmm, perhaps we could develop a sim to that effect, since it’s so hard to find one in RL), a person is always granted the courtesy, dare I say the right, to step back from the brink. To all you people out there who want to leap into people’s minds, to legislate “therapy,” to shape mankind with laws rather than to merely threaten them with punishment, I consider you the evil of the Earth. We have given a leg-up to the mind-controllers, the “intent” readers, and have decided that it’s not enough, not important, to know ourselves. What price freedom? The answer is… Others.