6 ms·

If you're watching game of thrones, you are watching people kill each other. You are committing a crime. See how that's silly? There are people who watch anim

by TheDong 11y ago

If you're watching game of thrones, you are watching people kill each other. You are committing a crime. See how that's silly? There are people who watch animated child porn and they are ruled as criminals even though no actual child was directly harmed. There are people who watch snuff films, where people actually are killed, and the viewers are not breaking the law in most states. Perhaps you would argue that snuff film viewing should be illegal, or that watching Game of Thrones should be illegal because it portrays rape, violence, murder, etc. To me, it's clear that there is a distinct difference between watching that content and in producing it. Sure, if you actively encourage it to be produced you're breaking the law (same as if you try to convince someone to make a snuff film, you're breaking the law). It's really not that simple and the laws are not consistent here.

jplahn 11y ago
Really? I understand the point you're "attempting" to make, but to claim that what is acted on TV is the same as what actually occurs is such a stretch I didn't think anybody would attempt to make it. I don't equate animated child porn with actual child porn, much in the same way I don't equate the beheadings in GoT with the beheadings of IS. But to insinuate that the poster above would extend their 'committing a crime,' in the case of actual child rape, to something that is acted out for TV is an injustice to what they actually said. In essence, you just threw up a strawman and attacked it as a way of validating your final point (which, by most accounts, I agree with).
imaginenore 11y ago
> If you're watching game of thrones, you are watching people kill each other No, you're watching fictional people pretend to kill each other. You would have an argument if you used snuff films as an example. And yes, if watching a child being raped is illegal, than watching a real murder should be.
- asanagi 11y ago
  But simulated CP is illegal too. In many jurisdictions you can get locked away for drawing something on a piece of paper. This is probably what OP is addressing.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  You are assuming that just because the prefrontal cortex sometimes knows the difference between reality and fiction, the rest of the brain must as well. If the argument is that seeing murders causes someone to become a murderer, I'm not certain you can exempt fiction. If you outlaw depictions of murder on the presumption that it would lower the actual murder rate, you have to go whole hog. _O \O/ ...meaning this ASCII art of ' |\+-@- one guy stabbing another guy / \ /| with a sword would be illegal. Believing in such suggests that Ludovico's Technique from Clockwork Orange is real, it works, and that humans can be effectively reprogrammed by presenting the appropriate images to the visual cortex and somehow zapping the limbic system, in exactly the same manner that Pavlov's dog was reprogrammed to salivate at the sound of a bell. So where are the televisions that shoot tiny darts of cocaine into its viewers whenever someone is killed on-screen? At least a violent video game provides some virtual reward for virtual murders, such as glowing green stacks of cash, or mission advancement, or some stupid little thing that produces a squirt of dopamine. That part of our brains does not know the difference between reality, dreams, and Hollywood trickery. Certain mirror neurons in the brain will fire whether you are actually doing yoga, thinking about doing yoga, or watching a yoga instructor do yoga. Your reward center doesn't really care if the image is a product of good photography or good GPU rendering. It doesn't even care that it is a 2D image rather than 3D reality. Fortunately, there appears to be no causal link provable flowing from watching something done to doing the depicted act yourself. Instead, it appears that those who are predisposed to do something, or have already decided to do it, will very often model, simulate, and practice that action--using whatever means they have at their disposal--before going on to do it. If any one tool or strategy becomes unavailable, another would be substituted.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > So where are the televisions that shoot tiny darts of cocaine into its viewers whenever someone is killed on-screen? Rather than direct chemical triggers that stimulate the brains reward system ("tiny darts of cocaine"), they typically use other triggers to the reward system, like music. Same effect, less additional machinery.
majc2 11y ago
Having done a small amount of volunteer work with children, I've had some exposure to child protection issues. Often, its a spiral downwards (IIRC its typically called the spiral of abuse), where the person in question erodes mental barriers so that they see the behaviour as normal. I don't accept the "just watching" argument - it is child abuse. What you must understand is that it normalises the behaviour in that persons mind and then we're onto other barriers to be eroded - i.e. the person moves onto physical acts. The blasé attitude on this thread is beyond belief.
- jules 11y ago
  Is there any actual evidence for this? By the same token you could say that watching Game of Thrones will make you a murderer. I could easily see it being the opposite: relieving sexual pressure could make people less likely to actually harm a child.
  - majc2 11y ago
    As I understand it yes, that the theory is suggested by academics with appropriate experience. See: http://mentorforensics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Dr-Joe-Sullivan-ITM-HANDOUTS.pdf http://mentorforensics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Dr-Joe... for more info.
    - jules 11y ago
      I don't see any evidence there.
      - majc2 11y ago
        It's based on his work with child abusers - he's one of the leading academics in the UK on this issue, I don't know what kind of evidence your expecting.
        jules 11y ago
        Opinion is not evidence, regardless of whose opinion it is. We didn't decide on the existence of the Higgs boson by asking Stephen Hawking's opinion.
akshat_h 11y ago
Just checked. Sansa Stark is 17 in Game of thrones TV series season 5 fictional history. Did I(and millions of other people) watch child porn? Sophie Turner is actually 19.

by TheDong 11y ago

jplahn 11y ago

Really? I understand the point you're "attempting" to make, but to claim that what is acted on TV is the same as what actually occurs is such a stretch I didn't think anybody would attempt to make it. I don't equate animated child porn with actual child porn, much in the same way I don't equate the beheadings in GoT with the beheadings of IS. But to insinuate that the poster above would extend their 'committing a crime,' in the case of actual child rape, to something that is acted out for TV is an injustice to what they actually said. In essence, you just threw up a strawman and attacked it as a way of validating your final point (which, by most accounts, I agree with).

imaginenore 11y ago

> If you're watching game of thrones, you are watching people kill each other No, you're watching fictional people pretend to kill each other. You would have an argument if you used snuff films as an example. And yes, if watching a child being raped is illegal, than watching a real murder should be.

asanagi 11y ago
But simulated CP is illegal too. In many jurisdictions you can get locked away for drawing something on a piece of paper. This is probably what OP is addressing.
logfromblammo 11y ago
You are assuming that just because the prefrontal cortex sometimes knows the difference between reality and fiction, the rest of the brain must as well. If the argument is that seeing murders causes someone to become a murderer, I'm not certain you can exempt fiction. If you outlaw depictions of murder on the presumption that it would lower the actual murder rate, you have to go whole hog. _O \O/ ...meaning this ASCII art of ' |\+-@- one guy stabbing another guy / \ /| with a sword would be illegal. Believing in such suggests that Ludovico's Technique from Clockwork Orange is real, it works, and that humans can be effectively reprogrammed by presenting the appropriate images to the visual cortex and somehow zapping the limbic system, in exactly the same manner that Pavlov's dog was reprogrammed to salivate at the sound of a bell. So where are the televisions that shoot tiny darts of cocaine into its viewers whenever someone is killed on-screen? At least a violent video game provides some virtual reward for virtual murders, such as glowing green stacks of cash, or mission advancement, or some stupid little thing that produces a squirt of dopamine. That part of our brains does not know the difference between reality, dreams, and Hollywood trickery. Certain mirror neurons in the brain will fire whether you are actually doing yoga, thinking about doing yoga, or watching a yoga instructor do yoga. Your reward center doesn't really care if the image is a product of good photography or good GPU rendering. It doesn't even care that it is a 2D image rather than 3D reality. Fortunately, there appears to be no causal link provable flowing from watching something done to doing the depicted act yourself. Instead, it appears that those who are predisposed to do something, or have already decided to do it, will very often model, simulate, and practice that action--using whatever means they have at their disposal--before going on to do it. If any one tool or strategy becomes unavailable, another would be substituted.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > So where are the televisions that shoot tiny darts of cocaine into its viewers whenever someone is killed on-screen? Rather than direct chemical triggers that stimulate the brains reward system ("tiny darts of cocaine"), they typically use other triggers to the reward system, like music. Same effect, less additional machinery.

majc2 11y ago

Having done a small amount of volunteer work with children, I've had some exposure to child protection issues. Often, its a spiral downwards (IIRC its typically called the spiral of abuse), where the person in question erodes mental barriers so that they see the behaviour as normal. I don't accept the "just watching" argument - it is child abuse. What you must understand is that it normalises the behaviour in that persons mind and then we're onto other barriers to be eroded - i.e. the person moves onto physical acts. The blasé attitude on this thread is beyond belief.

jules 11y ago
Is there any actual evidence for this? By the same token you could say that watching Game of Thrones will make you a murderer. I could easily see it being the opposite: relieving sexual pressure could make people less likely to actually harm a child.
- majc2 11y ago
  As I understand it yes, that the theory is suggested by academics with appropriate experience. See: http://mentorforensics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Dr-Joe-Sullivan-ITM-HANDOUTS.pdf http://mentorforensics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Dr-Joe... for more info.
  - jules 11y ago
    I don't see any evidence there.
    - majc2 11y ago
      It's based on his work with child abusers - he's one of the leading academics in the UK on this issue, I don't know what kind of evidence your expecting.
      - jules 11y ago
        Opinion is not evidence, regardless of whose opinion it is. We didn't decide on the existence of the Higgs boson by asking Stephen Hawking's opinion.

akshat_h 11y ago

Just checked. Sansa Stark is 17 in Game of thrones TV series season 5 fictional history. Did I(and millions of other people) watch child porn? Sophie Turner is actually 19.