4 ms·

> It's really important to separate what someone thinks from what someone does. I agree. That's why I said that people shouldn't be subjected to legal conseque

> It's really important to separate what someone thinks from what someone does. I agree. That's why I said that people shouldn't be subjected to legal consequences for their thoughts. They should definitely not be morally absolved. > Having violent thoughts about people is very common, acting on them far less so. I would argue that a person that looks at paedophilic content is arguably being violent themselves. If you went to a ancient Roman gladiator arena and eagerly watched the bloodsport, or to a current-day dogfighting event as a spectator, then you are participating in the violence, even if you aren't actually conducting any of it. What separates bloodsport from horror movies is that in movies, nobody is actually getting hurt. There is definitely a relative aspect to right and wrong, and we all have ways in which we are wrong. It's important to recognize what is wrong and what is right, and to work to become more right over time.

Retric 10y ago
If someone watches 'gladiator' the movie then real people are not actually being harmed. IMO, it's harder to suggest that watching fake content is also wrong. Now, extend that to fringe Anime and there is now sick content that's was not harmful to create. I don't see how your suggesting there is an actual difference between movie types assuming all actors are adults and blood was faked etc.
- vinceguidry 10y ago
  The difference is of degree and not kind. When you add reality to content it makes it both morally and psychologically worse. In between the real and the completely fake is the very convincing. Snuff films fill this niche. In between snuff films and Gladiator would be your fringe anime. Fake content isolates negative aspects of experience and presents it in a comforting bubble where you don't have to contemplate all of the nasty context surrounding the portrayal if it were real. As content acquires more reality that bubble is progressively burst. I've watched lots of questionable content over the years, but the things I've seen that have left the nastiest impressions were always real or based on the real. The audio of the Jonestown massacre was among the most horrifying things I've ever came across. If you're watching real content of real kids really getting abused, that's probably one of the worst things you could ever do short of actually doing what was in the video. But the difference between enjoying that and the less graphic is one of degree and not kind.
  - Retric 10y ago
    You are making a psychological argument not a moral one. Actual evidence suggests things like violent video games actually reduce violent crime in society. So, your going to need actually evidence to support that line of thinking and I don't think it exists.
    - vinceguidry 10y ago
      The moral argument only works if there's a real psychological component. You can't consider them in isolation. It wouldn't be morally wrong if it weren't also psychologically harmful. Can you make an argument that easily accessible kiddie porn is going to reduce child violence? Even if you could, I would hesitate to make even the fake stuff legal unless the science was very conclusive. I'd argue that with kiddie porn, the default should fall on 'no' and not 'yes'. That said, it's really difficult to draw a line here. Content creators are going to find ways around any laws we pass. That's why we need a moral component, so that we can enforce these things not just legally, but also socially.
      - Retric 10y ago
        Don't move goal posts, has no effect is enough to make it harmless with that line of thinking. So, if you want to use it you need to demonstrate harm. Sure, it's easy to make a counter argument along the lines of "Making things taboo adds to their appeal. Supervised underage drinking seems to have a long term positive impact." However, that's also meaningless unless you study the issue. I really don't know, but I also accept I don't know. PS: This is one of those issue people don't approach rationally. It's as if gathering evidence is already admitting you might be wrong.
        vinceguidry 10y ago
        > So, if you want to use it you need to demonstrate harm. That's a false dichotomy. We cannot have perfect knowledge about everything that could possibly help or harm society. We need to retain the ability to act in its absence. > I really don't know, but I also accept I don't know. Not all things should be treated this way, but in the case of kiddie porn, I'd argue that defaulting to the stance that all conduct in this space being morally wrong, perhaps even criminal, is justified. It's tempting to want an ideological framework that preserves sanctity of thought so that we don't have to consider that we, ourselves might be morally wrong on occasion, but the world doesn't work that way. The mere fact that millions of people want something is enough to create a market in violence and suffering. Whether it's children, rhinos, or slaves. (I use market in a non-economic sense here, any venue for satisfying a desire is a market)
datalus 10y ago
I think it's important to recognize that the violence of gladiatorial combat was both legal and accepted in Roman culture, where as dog fighting isn't today. So, it's a little unfair to compare the two as if they're equivalent moral issues. Of course that hinges on the fact that you accept that morality is a cultural construct and not absolute, which is a philosophical rabbit hole.

Retric 10y ago

If someone watches 'gladiator' the movie then real people are not actually being harmed. IMO, it's harder to suggest that watching fake content is also wrong. Now, extend that to fringe Anime and there is now sick content that's was not harmful to create. I don't see how your suggesting there is an actual difference between movie types assuming all actors are adults and blood was faked etc.

vinceguidry 10y ago
The difference is of degree and not kind. When you add reality to content it makes it both morally and psychologically worse. In between the real and the completely fake is the very convincing. Snuff films fill this niche. In between snuff films and Gladiator would be your fringe anime. Fake content isolates negative aspects of experience and presents it in a comforting bubble where you don't have to contemplate all of the nasty context surrounding the portrayal if it were real. As content acquires more reality that bubble is progressively burst. I've watched lots of questionable content over the years, but the things I've seen that have left the nastiest impressions were always real or based on the real. The audio of the Jonestown massacre was among the most horrifying things I've ever came across. If you're watching real content of real kids really getting abused, that's probably one of the worst things you could ever do short of actually doing what was in the video. But the difference between enjoying that and the less graphic is one of degree and not kind.
- Retric 10y ago
  You are making a psychological argument not a moral one. Actual evidence suggests things like violent video games actually reduce violent crime in society. So, your going to need actually evidence to support that line of thinking and I don't think it exists.
  - vinceguidry 10y ago
    The moral argument only works if there's a real psychological component. You can't consider them in isolation. It wouldn't be morally wrong if it weren't also psychologically harmful. Can you make an argument that easily accessible kiddie porn is going to reduce child violence? Even if you could, I would hesitate to make even the fake stuff legal unless the science was very conclusive. I'd argue that with kiddie porn, the default should fall on 'no' and not 'yes'. That said, it's really difficult to draw a line here. Content creators are going to find ways around any laws we pass. That's why we need a moral component, so that we can enforce these things not just legally, but also socially.
    - Retric 10y ago
      Don't move goal posts, has no effect is enough to make it harmless with that line of thinking. So, if you want to use it you need to demonstrate harm. Sure, it's easy to make a counter argument along the lines of "Making things taboo adds to their appeal. Supervised underage drinking seems to have a long term positive impact." However, that's also meaningless unless you study the issue. I really don't know, but I also accept I don't know. PS: This is one of those issue people don't approach rationally. It's as if gathering evidence is already admitting you might be wrong.
      - vinceguidry 10y ago
        > So, if you want to use it you need to demonstrate harm. That's a false dichotomy. We cannot have perfect knowledge about everything that could possibly help or harm society. We need to retain the ability to act in its absence. > I really don't know, but I also accept I don't know. Not all things should be treated this way, but in the case of kiddie porn, I'd argue that defaulting to the stance that all conduct in this space being morally wrong, perhaps even criminal, is justified. It's tempting to want an ideological framework that preserves sanctity of thought so that we don't have to consider that we, ourselves might be morally wrong on occasion, but the world doesn't work that way. The mere fact that millions of people want something is enough to create a market in violence and suffering. Whether it's children, rhinos, or slaves. (I use market in a non-economic sense here, any venue for satisfying a desire is a market)

datalus 10y ago

I think it's important to recognize that the violence of gladiatorial combat was both legal and accepted in Roman culture, where as dog fighting isn't today. So, it's a little unfair to compare the two as if they're equivalent moral issues. Of course that hinges on the fact that you accept that morality is a cultural construct and not absolute, which is a philosophical rabbit hole.