Rape games will be banned in Japan

Visual Novel Community Visual Novel Talk
#281

I’m not twisting your words: they speak for themselves. Not everyone needs counseling, because not everyone reacts the same. There are people who see one dead body ¬ñ military or not ¬ñ and spend their entire lives in therapy. There are people who see an ocean of slaughter, and get on with their lives the next morning. The difference in individuality is what defines each person from another. Your idea insinuates that EVERYONE needs therapy after a traumatizing incident, when in fact the majority of experts on human psychology would argue otherwise. Therapy is only needed if there is damage done. It’s no different than the human body. Not everyone needs intensive care after getting exposed to an illness, and even a terrible disease like AIDS has people who are immune to it.

Your argument is still fallacious, and it’s disturbing you don’t see why it is. You assume everyone who enjoys fictional violence is deranged, or everyone who’s been to a violent warzone is touched with mental illness. Something so absolute and so definitive, collapses upon itself for being so wrong.

All four of the videos show someone ACTUALLY committing a crime. What’s your point? Of course they should be charged. Here are videos that have more to do with what you’re trying to argue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOOzVd4Mur8 <---- I so love this game BTW!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0-WkFrIvb0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6jkAwuwW4E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYROWHCr7eo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Utq8LZVmr_8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZJtjuNHD1g

What now? Deranged mass murders and genocidal war criminals? Given that tens of millions have played these games, and if only 10% of them have done vicious deeds (a rather low number), you’ll need to boost the number of prisons and mental institutions in America by an insane number. What a proposition. And exactly what proof do you have, that the abundance of these are increasing violence and crime? Because they’re not (Too biased? Here’s another then). OLF already posted the proof that the abundance of sex media in Japan, and the correlation of a drop in sexual offenses, so I won’t bore you with that. Remember when it was D&D that was destroying society?

Not only is your proposition on shaky ground: the evidence proves it. Wanna save the world? Go after smokes and alcohol first: will save more people and health care money. Of course you might wanna look up a history book and see what happened when people tried that. The results weren’t pretty, to say the least.

#282

If the majority of military people enjoy murdering people, then yes.

What is military discipline? I would argue that it’s not the kind of self discipline taught by martial arts (and that your words seem to suggest), but rather a powerful combination of two social factors: patriotism (i.e., nationalism) and (blind?) obedience to authority. Both factors tend to interfere with or suppress individual thought and expression, not promote it. I would argue that these same factors that promote unity and efficiency (in a group setting) are responsible for tragedies like World War I and the Holocaust, as well as lesser evils such as urban gangs, religious cult fanaticism, and terrorism. It’s all fine and good if the established authority is well-grounded in the moral right (as we like to think the American military is). But what about when that established authority is or becomes corrupted?

#283

And since it’s quite obvious that the majority of military people don’t enjoy murdering people, or else America would have long drowned in a sea of radioactive blood by now (NORAD alone has been presented with several great opportunities to annihilate the world), you’ve answered the question in agree with me: that people can think bad thoughts and still be normal. :stuck_out_tongue:

Hardly convincing though. What is civic duty and cultural morality? The same thing you argue, applies to everyday society as well. The answer is simple, and no more different than when civil order falls apart in everyday society: total anarchy. Historically though, a military base pulls itself out of internal chaos a LOT faster than your typical city - the advantages to having a rank system that clearly defines seniority, positional authority, and career specialization: you immediately know who’s going to be in charge, why they’re in charge, and what you’re expected to do. After most natural disasters, it’s the areas around a military base that organize and reestablish civilization first - largely because of the military’s discipline and training, even when the military base is not native to the region. Hence the reason why governors and survivors are more elated to see the National Guard show up, than they are FEMA (on foreign soil, I’ve been to areas where they’re happier to see the Army Corps of Engineers, than they are the Red Cross or UN).

Also anyone who believes the military lacks individualism, fails to understand how it ticks. There’s so much individualism it’s bursting at the seams: hence the need for discipline and unity. The lack of it, would allow the individualism to overflow and cause more havoc than good. The modern military is so diverse, adherence to the system is tantamount for it to function. This is why the military has it’s own “culture and language” - because there has to be something singular to follow. Otherwise you’d have confusion and disorganization: that’s automatic defeat for an army or navy.

#284

This is as good an opportunity as any to refocus on the issue at hand rather than personal experience (which is making this seem like an argument rather than a discussion). “People can think bad thoughts and still be normal.” I think what you want to say is, “People can think bad thoughts and not translate that into action that harms others.” Let’s define a “pedophile” as a person who has persistent sexual thoughts of (real) children (under 13, just for the sake of argument). Just because a pedophile isn’t harming any children doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be seeking psychiatric help. Neither does it mean he’s “normal.” We don’t consider pedophilia healthy, so we say that a pedophile should seek psychiatric help, regardless of whether he’s harming society or not. The general reasoning is probably something like “obsessing over something you can’t have is harmful to yourself, even if it doesn’t harm others.”

#285

OTOH, what business is it of ours if he’s thinking these thoughts, so long as he is not harming anyone?

What would the psychiatric help be meant to accomplish?

Psych has a terrible track record when it comes to trying to make people not be attracted to what they’re attracted to. The best they’re usually able to do is give you drugs to kill your libido entirely (and/or, in some locations, try to talk you into castration).

Someone who has already come to terms with “You know, these thoughts of mine are not a good idea in the real world. I shouldn’t carry them out.” doesn’t really NEED more help. Unless they’re disturbed by their own thoughts and want them to go away entirely, in which case they don’t really need you telling them to seek help, they can do that on their own.

#286

To be convicted a pedophile you have to have molested a child (and the same with rape to be a rapist). One cannot be charged a pedophile or rapist without doing the crime ¬ñ just like I can’t be charged as a thief if I didn’t steal anything. You can’t say a pedophile is just someone who thinks pedo thoughts. It doesn’t work in a court of law or medical diagnosis.

Medical Definition:

Legal Definition:

Now if a guy likes pedo games, but doesn’t lay a finger on real children, nor goes out of his way to play pedo games everyday because he can’t get enough pedo games (which would arguably be more of symptomatic of compulsion disorder) - he neither medically or legally a pedophile.

If I’m frequently imagining myself stealing my neighbor’s Corvette, daydreaming of driving it around the city, that doesn’t make me a car thief. Even if the cops break into my house, and find a room full of Corvette photos plastered on the wall and a collection of GTA saves with me stealing Corvettes, that doesn’t make me a danger to my neighbor. I have a crazy desire for a Corvette ¬ñ but I’ve done nothing wrong, and have the self control to do nothing wrong. Not acting on desire, because you know it’s wrong, is absolutely normal for humans.

The function of pedo laws are to protect children from being molested. If you lock away a person who has a pedo comic collection, exactly what proof do you have that society is now safer? You have none, other than the assumption that a person with a pedo collection is already a pedophile. How do you know if he liked them or not? Maybe he just wants to have an extensive collection of everything. Even if a person admits to enjoying pedo comics, if he has shown ZERO signs of malicious intent to actually molest children, you have ZERO proof to convict him of wrongdoing. It’s prosecuting for a crime that DOES NOT exist. Behavior may not be irrelevant, but it certainly is subjective to the extreme. The idea that people who collect pedo comics are automatically villainous, is like assuming a priest is automatically sinless. It’s obvious they are not.

Not only is it irrational to believe such a crazed idea: it spits in the face of the Law and innocence. You have to PROVE that man who collects pedo comics/games, will molest a child, without ANY certain of doubt. Otherwise, you open the flood gate of false accusation for every crime that’s possible. Needless to say, same applies to fictional rape, or fictional murder, or fictional war crimes, etc.

On your second point, about preemptive conditioning and treatment: what proof do you have, that such a thing works and will not cascade into something much worst? And why stop at just pedo and rape? Again (and one reason why I brought it up): the military has a HEAVY screening process to find deviants. It obviously fails to weed them out. Given what rights are surrendered for the military to function as it does - ranging from a loss of privacy to adherence to following orders without question - exactly how far are you willing to go, to create a false sense of security? You’re not going to stop rape, murder, or pedophilia with invasive screening and constant monitoring. The military is proof of that. Rather you’re creating an incredibly stressful and authorization regime: again proven by the military. The concept reeks of, “the ends justify the means” which has been proven to be a quite consistent first step to a long and dangerous fall.

Prosecuting people who were otherwise productive and law abiding, as someone who is not productive and law abiding, is the kind of thing you expected in dystopian dictatorships. Next we’ll all be taking medication that suppresses our emotions, because if we all thought like logical machines, there wouldn’t be crime or disorder. You see where that is going? It would be a crimeless world, but is it even a world worth living?

Both the Law and psychological evaluation work (and should always work) on the same principle: the decision you make based on freewill.

#287

@Narg: Not once did I say a pedophile (as I defined it) should be threatened with legal action (nor am I promoting any sort of authoritarian control of what people are allowed to think or experience–the “seeking” of psychiatric help I alluded to was completely voluntary).

Your own quoted medical definition admits that criminal action is not required:

The problem with your car analogy is that it probably doesn’t meet that second criterium. Pedophilia tends to (well actually, it does by definition :P).

If someone has “come to terms” with it, then I suppose the APA would argue that person no longer meets the second criterium. As for the rest…a person can have a problem but not want to admit it or do anything about it. Just look at alcoholism. Sometimes you do need outside pressure to get the help you need. Admittedly, there’s surely a lot less a psychiatrist can do for a pedophile than an alcoholic. But the mind is a fairly malleable thing. If you can ring a bell and make a dog’s mouth water, you should be able to re-associate the figure of a child with something other than sex–or at least keep the pedophile’s lust from interfering with his ability to interact with children.

#288

And yet the very scenario you painted, requires the accused to surrender personal rights and freedom that can only be achieved through legal action (forcing someone to see a psychologist or take medication against their will; not letting them collect pedo comics and games).

Exactly. That’s why I gave it. Criminality can only occur AFTER a crime is committed. Diagnosis of a problem can be done without a crime. You also exactly point out what dictates pedophilia WITHOUT criminal action:

experiences recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children [color=red]that cause distress or interpersonal difficulty.[/color]

Thus you can enjoy looking at naked children, and NOT be a pedophile, so long as the desire for looking a naked children does not interfere with your everyday activities. Again the distinction of freewill and the normal ability to divide intent from imagination.

The reason why real photo’s of naked children are illegal, is because children are exploited to make them possible. Allowing legal photos of naked children, creates a market and demand for them. We can see the slippery slope that slides down and how dangerous it is, as children do not have self authority under the law, and so an adult is exploiting them for such photos. I don’t question that: just how an adult can’t do EVERYTHING and ANYTHING they want with their child (there are naturally limits). However DRAWINGS of naked children? No child is exploited. No problem then.

Liking how a naked child looks is not a crime or problem. Molesting a child is a crime. Having your life ruined because you want to see naked children is a problem. Very distinct things.

Same applies to rape games. :wink: Because I really could careless about lolicon, given I have no desire to see fake naked children. But then I see no reason to punish or deny someone who does like lolicon when no laws are broken and no child is harmed. I’ll still fight for and with them though - because they’ll come after me next… or first if CNN airs something funky. :stuck_out_tongue:

#289

We’re not even disagreeing anymore. We’re just mincing words / taking each other’s comments out of context. Mission successful?

The truth comes out. I know the name of a good psychiatrist.

ducks and runs

#290

Well generally the current US laws agree too. Supreme Court ruled that owning lolicon in of itself, cannot be punished, as it violates the First Amendment. Our comic book friend, was found innocent on those accounts. Fictional rape too: one can find rape porn in America, made in America, and by an American porn company. The problem is the supposed Constitutionality of obscenity (which he pleaded guilty to). I strongly believe obscenity is too objective and personal to be a blanket enforced law.

Case in point: because of American culture it’s not obscene to show someone getting hanged. If I show photos of dead hanged man to children, I cannot be prosecuted for exposing them to obscenity. Of course forcing a child to view pictures of the dead, is just as traumatic as exposing them to mindless hardcore brutal guro (which is obscene). Either way that kid is probably going to have some problems sleeping from now on, but that’s under another set of criminal acts. The other issue is that people have different indicators of what’s obscene and what’s merely disgusting. I think seeing someone being crushed to death is disgusting and unsettling, but not obscene. Someone else, and rightfully so, might see it as obscene. I’ve got no problem with that.
What I do have a problem with, is being told it’s obscene when I don’t think it obscene. Heaven forbid that I tell them what I find obscene: might give them a heart attack. :lol:

Now exposing things to people who have no interest in seeing it, should not be allowed. If a man doesn’t want to see two men having sex, I respect his wishes. Don’t show him men having sex. However if someone WANTS to see them - well let him see it. That’s my same take on obscenity. Don’t want it? Don’t buy it. Unfortunately that’s not how it works in America: you’re told what you can see and what you can’t see, whether or not it bothers you - or if you’re in the secure privacy of your home.

And of course there’s absolutely no evidence that the abundance of obscenity, destroys the moral health of society. After all, what was obscene 100 years ago, is now everyday way of life to us (like a sexy woman in a revealing bikini).

Note I didn’t say, “even twincest.” There’s always exceptions to the rule. :wink: :stuck_out_tongue:

#291

Wandering even further off-topic… Imagine you tried to ‘fix’ a pedophile by causing him to experience pain and nausea whenever he sees a child. Is this really going to make his interactions with children better? I suspect many people would get quite angry at whatever kept causing them such pain and discomfort. Imagine you tried to ‘fix’ a pedophile by instilling huge heaping piles of guilt and shame upon the sexual feelings. Do you know how many people are turned on by doing things that they know to be ‘naughty’?

Clockwork Orange aside, we’re really not that good at reprogramming minds in a safe and sane way. There certainly are things that can be tried. To the best of my knowledge, though, they tend to be unreliable, unethical, or both. However, I don’t have an in-depth knowledge either of cult (de/)programming or the ex-gay movement, so I’d need to look things up to have more to say on that.

#292

Wanting to steal a car and wanting to main and torture another human are two different things entirely.

Most people have entertained thoughts of stealing things in the past.

Most people have also had violent fantasies, like killing a bully or boss.

But when the urges are frequent, detailed, violent, then it’s a cause for concern, even more so if sexual pleasure is derived from the acts.

I’m not talking torture as in S&M play. I’m talking the sadistic traits of someone who thrills in harming others.

The Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs would have been caught a long time ago if people had picked up on the clues they gave, back when they were just torturing small animals.

http://www.bestgore.com/murder/dneprope … uff-video/

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2ec_1228 … o_friend=1

#293

You’re missing the point entirely. The good or bad of something is entirely in the decision of whether to act or not. If we start punishing or forcing people to do things simply based on a thought, where does it end? I agree with Narg: it is truly frightening that you can’t see the danger of what you are suggesting. Your arguments completely fly in the face of the concept of free will. If you can’t even think about something without being punished, what is to stop the idea of being punished for not thinking something?

#294

Will you concede that there is a difference between fleeting thoughts and harmful obsessions?
I’m not suggesting thought crime. I’m saying that there is a small number of people that need help, and other people should be able to pick up on it.

If someone wanders around for months acting depressed, withdraws from society, and has a major change in personality, then later commits suicide, do you really want to say, “Well, there was nothing I could do, he should have told someone.”?

On a related note, if someone suddenly starts collecting guns, downloading bomb making guides, and starts talking about a revolution, have they broken a law? No. Should a closer eye be kept on this person? Or would that be enforcing “thought crime”?

There is a difference between the thought crime you refer to and the sociopath behavior that I’m saying should be monitored.

Reread my last post, and view the video of the Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs at http://www.bestgore.com/murder/dneprope … uff-video/. If you can’t watch it all, watch as much of it as you can.

Now, there are people online that brag about obtaining erections and sexual pleasure from the footage. I really don’t understand why you feel people with that mindset shouldn’t seek some form of mental help. Really, I can’t. If you can make a good argument as to why it’s mentally sound for a person to sexually enjoy that footage, please tell me.

#295

While it seriously enters the gray zone, there’s nothing illegal in monitoring someone who is suspected of committing a crime or becoming a danger to themselves and others. The government does it all the time - they’ll tap the phones of people they suspect to be terrorists, follow them around, read their mail, etc. Of course no one has to point out how dangerous this is… Edgar Hoover and the CIA have a dirty history of abusing this system. There’s also the fact that once authorities start monitoring someone, they NEVER stop monitoring them: even when a person hasn’t done anything illegal for years. “You never know,” is the justification given. Then they’ll get them on something unrelated to the crime their monitoring them for. Maybe he download three music CD’s via BitTorrent or order lolicon from Japan (you can’t mail certain obscene material, despite being able to own it… a Catch 22). BAM!!! He’s in jail. That’s witch hunting.

The other issue is doing a “preemptive strike” on fixing the problem. If you see a guy who has the depressed negative outlook on the world, naturally there’s nothing wrong with talking to the guy about it. If he wants to open up and it solves the problem - great. You can’t fault anyone for trying to help. However if the guy DOESN’T want your help, you can’t immediately throw him in an institution because he turned it down. Maybe the guy is just a goth… or maybe he really is considering suicide. However until this person does something illegal, or something highly dangerous like loading his car full of guns and explosives: they’re isn’t anything you can do but keep watching. Even if this depressed guy was putting a small arsenal in his trunk, if the dude has the paperwork and license, doesn’t look like he’s under the influence, or being incoherent ¬ñ you can’t do anything. Maybe he’s going to sell his collection at the gun store or something.

You’re innocent until proven guilty.

However the problem with this method of monitoring is that it creates type casting. For example if the US wants to prevent Islamic terrorists, they’d be monitoring all the Arab looking people. If they wanted to cut down drug trade in Texas, they’d be monitoring all the Hispanic people. If they wanted to cut down on crime in a major urban city, they’d be monitoring all the Black people. Etc, etc, etc. There’s a huge negative image - and it fuels paranoia, prejudice, and vigilantism with those who aren’t being monitored. It subjugates and can go terribly wrong in an instant. It also creates negative bias, which is huge problem when they go jury hunting. People simplify things, and lawyers win cases easily with fallacies: All terrorists are Arabs, that guy is Arab, he’s a terrorist. Sounds dumb, but it works (Gitmo is proof enough).

Of course no one really knows when someone is going to be a crazed killer, rapist, or pedophile¬Ö so if you REALLY want a safe society, everyone should be monitored. For the greater good… and of course that wouldn’t be illegal either. Naturally people aren’t keen on that idea. Ministry of Love and all that. If I can’t trust my fellow man, I sure as hell won’t trust my government. :stuck_out_tongue:

Also the entire notion of being watched can cause perfectly normal people to crazy, so it can easily become manufacturing a crime. That’s what the FBI did in their corrupt days (they probably still do it): monitor someone, give enough hints to the guy so he knew he was being watched, then play mind games so they actually went crazy. Go in and arrest them. Hard as hell to disprove in a court. They say you were going crazy, and you did. They naturally don’t reveal playing mind games… and who believes what crazy people say?

#296

You avoided my main question. Qoute: "View the video of the Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs at http://tinyurl.com/6hxckx. If you can’t watch it all, watch as much of it as you can.

Now, there are people online that brag about obtaining erections and sexual pleasure from the footage. I really don’t understand why you feel people with that mindset shouldn’t seek some form of mental help. Really, I can’t. If you can make a good argument as to why it’s mentally sound for a person to sexually enjoy that footage, please tell me."

You’ve been arguing that these kinds of people don’t need mental help. I’d like to know why.

#297

Does someone who is sexually aroused by looking at rusty springs need mental help?

There’s clearly something extremely strange about someone’s brain if they are turned on by rust. It’s not ‘normal’, it’s not evolutionarily advantageous, it’s a sign of something having gone wrong in their head.

But so what? No one is harmed by it. Unless they actually want help changing their minds, what business is it of anyone elses?

Now, if this person starts breaking into people’s houses and tearing open their sofas in order to hump their rusty springs, then this person needs help.

#298

facepalm

Great, so we’re going to compare being turned on by snuff films to being turned on by springs. How perfectly logical.

If you view the footage and then can honestly say to yourself, “Well, it’s okay for people to get aroused by this…” then I’m sorry. I really am. You go ahead and decide it’s okay for others to find sexual pleasure in watching others kill and torture people. If you haven’t seen the footage, then you can’t give an opinion on it, so don’t even try.

#299

if the next batch of rules hit
eroge will just be boring and barely worth buying

#300

I thought I did. My fault then. It’s going to be another wall of text though. :o

tl;dr - I honestly have zero problems with the weird thrills people get, so long as no crime is committed.

Now I don’t agree with real murder snuff, for the same reasons I don’t agree with real child porn. It inevitably creates a demand that requires exploitation of innocent people. However Hollywood can make things look real, so they can make fake movies. Obviously if the actor or actress in a torture film is still walking around with all her body parts intact, she didn’t die. Sylvester Stallone really didn’t kill hundreds of Communists during the production of Rambo.

As for why I don’t criticize people for getting horny when they’re watching others suffer?

I don’t like watching people burn. I had an unfortunate opportunity to watch someone very close to me burn to death, and even seeing cheap war movies with people getting hit with a flamethrower is rather unsettling for me. If you get the chance to see someone literally char in front of your own eyes, I’m sure you’d feel the same. Now in the The SIMS you can burn people to death. It’s rather horrific to be honest. When they’re screaming, it even sounds authentic. Quite nasty. Makes the hair on my skin stand on end. Personally I can see no reason why burning someone - even in a virtual world - is fun. Before I saw it in real life? I thought it was cool. But now in my mind, anyone who thinks watching someone agonize away as they’re lit aflame, has no idea what the real thing is like (and they most likely don’t). To see the real agony in people as their engulfed in searing pain, then several seconds later notice they stopped screaming because they’re not feeling pain anymore because the nerves are gone (or they went into shock)… the unquestionable and distinct smell of cooking human flesh… the look of horror in the eyes before they explode and melt from the heat…

Now if people like setting their SIMS on fire - and if YouTube is any indication, there’s whole lot of them - I think they’re disturbing. I do and that’s the truth. Should they see a mental institution? No. They haven’t done anything wrong. They just like something I find disturbing. I wouldn’t even wish upon them, that such people should witness someone burning to death in real life - even when I’m absolutely certain the vast majority of people would realize how horrible it is after such a trauma. Sure… they like something I find highly disturbing, but I am NOT going to deny someone’s personal freedom without absolute proof they’re dangerous and will go out and start burning people.

So going back to these guys and gals who get a thrill from watching others in pain: that’s their prerogative. Just like it’s my prerogative, if I think it’s hilarious to run people over in GTA. Is vehicular manslaughter immoral and disturbing? Yea. I know it is - CNN has the parents complaining about it each time a sequel is released. I’m sure the parent of a child who was murdered by a drunk driver who suddenly started driving on the sidewalk and killed dozens of children going to school, would find GTA the most disgusting filth on Earth. However that same person might not bat an eye when setting fire to SIMS, or wouldn’t care about GTA if the running over people part wasn’t in it.

You see, what people find obscene is individual. Now as for that video posted in the article you provided¬Ö Do I like it? No. Do I find it obscene? Loaded question. Because someone REALLY suffered, I find it obscene. Were it depicted fictionally in a movie, I would not. There is a clear distinction in reality and fantasy.

There are hundreds of millions who ENJOY horror movies. Why? It goes against the grain of evolution - the fight or flight mechanic - to willingly seek the sensation of fear and terror. This is NOT normal behavior in the animal kingdom - some psychologists have suggested we’ve forcefully “conditioned” ourselves through culture into enjoying it. Now there are some horror movies ¬ñ Hostel comes to mind ¬ñ that are especially horrific. You might want to read this article after this post. Why? Because people who enjoyed Hostel, are EXACTLY the sort who probably would enjoy that video. Do I want Hostel censored or people who admit they want more Hostel movies (and there was a sequel… part 3 will be direct to DVD this year) to be institutionalized? No. Not unless they’re committing a crime or there’s enough proof to prove they’re going to commit a crime (not pure assumption).

People enjoy things others find horrifying. Just how I like GTA car killing and eroge with Stockholm Syndrome. That does not mean I’m so deranged, I’m going to drive on the sidewalk or kidnap the neighbors twins and lock them in my basement. Just how people enjoy setting their SIMS on fire, but I’m not worried their suddenly going to try and do it to me. There’s a name for people who do think every weird fetish or interest is dangerous to society, without proof of it being dangerous to society (or evidence proves the contrary): It’s called being paranoid. :wink: :stuck_out_tongue: