Pointing out that crimes still occur in a country with a low rate of them proves nothing. None have insinuated that Japan is devoid of problems, merely that they seem to have fewer of them than others who censor more.
Larry the crux of your argument in reply to AnonCow seems to rest upon unsupported assumptions, assertions you have made about the thinking patterns of others.
I can only assume you've because a semi-omniscient telepath able to see into the minds of all humans, or else you understand cognition to such an extreme level that you can define someone's opinions and desires based upon their having seen a picture.
Here are the quotes that represent your cognitive distortions, all-or-nothing condemnations which are not supported by any logic or science.
"A drawing of horrifically disturbing acts would be sought only only be people who find nothing wrong with contemplating child molestation."
I would like to point out: contemplating means thinking about. Not as in "planning", but as in "comprehending." You yourself contemplate child molestation because it's an issue you have thought about in objecting to its depiction. Police officers and child protection advocates also contemplate it, because they must understand a problem if they are to combat it.
"A society that tolerates depiction of child molestation is probably going to tolerate it."
On what statistics do you assert such a probability? Tell me something: how many depictions of such a crime existed in the middle east when child brides such as Aisha were more common? How many depictions existed in the middle ages when people also married and impregnated pubescents?
Now, conversely, what is the rate of rapes in Japan, where such depictions are allowed in lolicon magazines? I do not think your assumption has any ground to stand on. Your "Japan has less crime, period" argument holds no water, you are confronted with a society whom you say should ban media because you blame crime on this media, yet the crime does not exist, so there's no actual statistical evidence supporting you.
You do have a valid point about the shame culture, but this would only invalidate using Japan's low crime as evidence for someone arguing that lolicon prevented child abuse. The core argument is actually that you did not present evidence proving a causal relationship between your idea that such media would increase abuse. I don't at all see the difference between this and saying depicting violence increases violence. Nor would such a correlation validate the idea that we should censor the idea of depicting travesty for fear that someone shall commit it, because travesty has always predated imagery depicting the idea. Child abuse existed before people decided to write or draw about it, just as harlots existed before pornography.
You also relate this issue to racism/slavery/incest, yet it is not illegal to depict these. Indeed, if it were illegal to depict racism, we would actually have to deny that racism ever happened. I couldn't make a film about Harriet Tubman, because I'd break the law by depicting her being enslaved.
Trying to make an argument about females/wives is sexist, you seem to be making some kind of point that only men oppose censorship? That would be flawed. Or perhaps, that only pedophiles would disagree with you and that only men are pedophiles? That would also be flawed, so probably neither of these is what you meant, but what do you mean by making this sexist observation Larry?
Very insightful point sir, I think it is incredibly silly. It makes me think, if I see Hannibal Lecter killing an innocent prison guard, will I want to do it? Of course not! Seeing it would only make me more determined to capture him and save Clarice!
You are a liar, calling me a representative of a movement to normalize pedophilia. I neither represent nor am I part of nor do I even accept/believe in/promote/support such movement(s) you have discovered.
I do not move to normalize pedophilia. It is abnormal and I neither wish to label the abnormal as normal nor to make it the norm. Pedophilia is a biased fixation on pre-fertility, I do not wish for people to be fixated on such things. I wish for people to be unbiased and healthy balanced individuals who do not obsess over physical trivialities in such a way. I oppose it for the same reason I oppose gerontophilia, monosexuality and other paraphilic mental defects.
I have reported your post for your lie and personal attack levied against a commenter. You are engaged in the very ad hominem you accused others of, unfounded personal insults not based on anything I've said.
He`s got plans for this, as soon as we take down the paintings, we are going to get in the Delorean and go interrogate the guy who drew them in 1905 and make sure he didn`t base it on anything real.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by tyciol.
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
Disney signed with this bill?
Re: Re: Re:
Re:
It almost seems like you are insinuating "I got a degree in logic therefore I am incapable of being illogical."
I guess that's the same reason someone with a degree in English never makes a spelling mistake.
Re: Larry Sanger's thoughtcrime
I can only assume you've because a semi-omniscient telepath able to see into the minds of all humans, or else you understand cognition to such an extreme level that you can define someone's opinions and desires based upon their having seen a picture.
Here are the quotes that represent your cognitive distortions, all-or-nothing condemnations which are not supported by any logic or science.
"A drawing of horrifically disturbing acts would be sought only only be people who find nothing wrong with contemplating child molestation."
I would like to point out: contemplating means thinking about. Not as in "planning", but as in "comprehending." You yourself contemplate child molestation because it's an issue you have thought about in objecting to its depiction. Police officers and child protection advocates also contemplate it, because they must understand a problem if they are to combat it.
"A society that tolerates depiction of child molestation is probably going to tolerate it."
On what statistics do you assert such a probability? Tell me something: how many depictions of such a crime existed in the middle east when child brides such as Aisha were more common? How many depictions existed in the middle ages when people also married and impregnated pubescents?
Now, conversely, what is the rate of rapes in Japan, where such depictions are allowed in lolicon magazines? I do not think your assumption has any ground to stand on. Your "Japan has less crime, period" argument holds no water, you are confronted with a society whom you say should ban media because you blame crime on this media, yet the crime does not exist, so there's no actual statistical evidence supporting you.
You do have a valid point about the shame culture, but this would only invalidate using Japan's low crime as evidence for someone arguing that lolicon prevented child abuse. The core argument is actually that you did not present evidence proving a causal relationship between your idea that such media would increase abuse. I don't at all see the difference between this and saying depicting violence increases violence. Nor would such a correlation validate the idea that we should censor the idea of depicting travesty for fear that someone shall commit it, because travesty has always predated imagery depicting the idea. Child abuse existed before people decided to write or draw about it, just as harlots existed before pornography.
You also relate this issue to racism/slavery/incest, yet it is not illegal to depict these. Indeed, if it were illegal to depict racism, we would actually have to deny that racism ever happened. I couldn't make a film about Harriet Tubman, because I'd break the law by depicting her being enslaved.
Trying to make an argument about females/wives is sexist, you seem to be making some kind of point that only men oppose censorship? That would be flawed. Or perhaps, that only pedophiles would disagree with you and that only men are pedophiles? That would also be flawed, so probably neither of these is what you meant, but what do you mean by making this sexist observation Larry?
Re: AnonCow
Re: Re:
Re: Larry Sanger
I do not move to normalize pedophilia. It is abnormal and I neither wish to label the abnormal as normal nor to make it the norm. Pedophilia is a biased fixation on pre-fertility, I do not wish for people to be fixated on such things. I wish for people to be unbiased and healthy balanced individuals who do not obsess over physical trivialities in such a way. I oppose it for the same reason I oppose gerontophilia, monosexuality and other paraphilic mental defects.
I have reported your post for your lie and personal attack levied against a commenter. You are engaged in the very ad hominem you accused others of, unfounded personal insults not based on anything I've said.
Re: Re: Re: Looks like somebody cracked under federal pressure
Re:
Listen to Larry
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by tyciol.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt