Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
aquatus1

Thought-Crime in America

358 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

aquatus1
No, Aquatus, it is not a rational request.

Oh, but it is. Your perception of it may not be rational, but the request most certainly is. If a claim is made that this is the trigger for that, therefore we should arrest anyone with this, It is perfectly reasonable to ask for statistically significant evidence that this is indeed a trigger for that.

No 'rational request' should be to see a trend of children being abused and/or murdered before any action be taken on causes/triggers for such acts.

You cannot prove an assumption by assuming an assumption to be true.

You demand that lolicon be considered a cause/trigger for child abuse. We ask for statistically significant evidence of that. You reply that asking for evidence is unethical, because children are dying because it is true. That is not a rational argument.

This person (in the OP) was punished because what he owned was illegal.

And the charges were dropped, because the law was found indefensible.

He appealed and, because the prosecuation failed miserably, in my opinion, to defend the right of children to full protection under law, he managed to get his conviction overturned.

He didn't appeal. He took a plea bargain, because the prosecution was unable to make any link between lolicon and child endangerment. Personally, I feel the failure was on his part. He should not have taken the plea bargain.

I'm not the one throwing a tantrum, Aquatus. If you don't like the truth of the arguments against you, then I suggest you retire from arguing.

That's quite the adult version of "I know you are but what am I?" you've got there.

The rest of your post about the motivations of this child-murderer/abuser are entirely speculative. He said that virtual child pornography triggered his interest (sexual) in young girls. That is as far as the article goes in reporting what he stated and the article does not hint or speculate why. Neither will I and neither should you because speculation cannot support an argument.

There was no speculation at all. I stated, quite factually, that criminals show a trend in blaming other things for their crimes, just as this one did. I also stated, again quite factually, that repression has been shown to be ineffective as a preventative technique (abstinence just doesn't work). And I stated, again factually, that there were many people with equally questionable lifestyles who had an outlet, and there was no statistical connection between them and crimes based on those preferences.

You mistake your arguments for mine. I do not assume, nor do I project. You merely make accusations. I show the links. You don't refute the links, you deny them. If you have an actual counter, something that actually invalidates the argument, by all means present it.

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Leonardo
There was no speculation at all. I stated, quite factually, that criminals show a trend in blaming other things for their crimes, just as this one did. I also stated, again quite factually, that repression has been shown to be ineffective as a preventative technique (abstinence just doesn't work). And I stated, again factually, that there were many people with equally questionable lifestyles who had an outlet, and there was no statistical connection between them and crimes based on those preferences.

You mistake your arguments for mine. I do not assume, nor do I project. You merely make accusations. I show the links. You don't refute the links, you deny them. If you have an actual counter, something that actually invalidates the argument, by all means present it.

No, there was no 'fact' that the criminal said what he did as an attempt to lessen his crime, and I would ask you to show where this was either said or implied in the article linked to. That is what I told you in my previous post. Also, nowhere in this thread have I made any indication of my opinion about anything other than that child pornography (incl virtual child pornogrpahy) should be banned, and have given my reasons why. I have not passed judgement on anyone nor the severity of punishment levied against them, neither have I offered a solution to paedophilia. Such is not in the remit of this thread and your inclusion of it is simply a strawman. Your blindness to your own speculation does your argument no favours.

Aquatus, your 'rational request for a trend' is very clinical, very methodical, but it is not rational. However, I accept that we will not see eye-to-eye on this and so won't bother attempting to show you why it isn't rational by repeating what I have already said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
No, there was no 'fact' that the criminal said what he did as an attempt to lessen his crime,

No one said there was. In fact, I even said it was possible. I then pointed out that it was more likely (you can call that speculation, I suppose) that this criminal was following the same trend as other criminals by trying to place the blame for his actions somewhere else.

and I would ask you to show where this was either said or implied in the article linked to.

Your strawman is defeated. Move along.

That is what I told you in my previous post. Also, nowhere in this thread have I made any indication of my opinion about anything other than that child pornography (incl virtual child pornogrpahy) should be banned, and have given my reasons why.

And those reasons are the topic of this discussion. Not because they are yours, persay, but simply because they present the opposing argument.

I have not passed judgement on anyone nor the severity of punishment levied against them,

You don't call referring to people as potential child-abusers as passing judgement?

neither have I offered a solution to paedophilia. Such is not in the remit of this thread and your inclusion of it is simply a strawman. Your blindness to your own speculation does your argument no favours.

What solutions to pedophilia? I'm countering the argument that cartoon porn triggers child abuse by presenting evidence that cartoon porn is merely a mechanism, like any other, used to avoid repression, which leads to stress, which is a known psychological trigger.

Aquatus, your 'rational request for a trend' is very clinical, very methodical, but it is not rational. However, I accept that we will not see eye-to-eye on this and so won't bother attempting to show you why it isn't rational by repeating what I have already said.

Repeating what you said is the only thing you can do, because you do not have any way to show that it is not rational. You are unable to be clinical, or methodical on this topic, and thus have only been able to present irrational arguments, based almost entirely on personal conclusion and emotional arguments. In turn, you have been presented with arguments that reflect trends in entire populations, and objective arguments that are not based on emotion, but rather on a clinical and methodical analysis of the subject (otherwise known as rational).

I would recommend you steer away from accusations of blindness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
No one said there was. In fact, I even said it was possible. I then pointed out that it was more likely (you can call that speculation, I suppose) that this criminal was following the same trend as other criminals by trying to place the blame for his actions somewhere else.

Aquatus, please read what you wrote... (post #351)

I stated, quite factually, that criminals show a trend in blaming other things for their crimes, just as this one did.

You claimed as a fact that the criminal in the article I linked stated what he did to lessen his crime. You didn't say it was 'more likely', you claimed it as fact - that "he did [it]".

Then you deny you claimed that fact?

Please sort out your argument before you continue responding on this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
Aquatus, please read what you wrote... (post #351)

I read it. You are still wrong.

You claimed as a fact that the criminal in the article I linked stated what he did to lessen his crime. You didn't say it was 'more likely', you claimed it as fact - that "he did [it]".

I said, and I quote: "I stated, quite factually, that criminals show a trend in blaming other things for their crimes, just as this one did."

Fact: Criminals show a trend in blaming other things for their actions.

Fact: This criminal blamed other things for his actions.

Then you deny you claimed that fact?

Absolutely. Heck, even you were calling it speculation, and even then I told you your were wrong.

Please sort out your argument before you continue responding on this thread.

It was already sorted. I even actively denied that it was a fact on three separate occasions. How you ignored that and still claimed that I said it was a fact is beyond me...no, wait...it isn't. I got a pretty good idea why you missed it.

Perhaps a more clinical and methodical approach would help you out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
I read it. You are still wrong.

I said, and I quote: "I stated, quite factually, that criminals show a trend in blaming other things for their crimes, just as this one did."

Fact: Criminals show a trend in blaming other things for their actions.

Fact: This criminal blamed other things for his actions.

Absolutely. Heck, even you were calling it speculation, and even then I told you your were wrong.

It was already sorted. I even actively denied that it was a fact on three separate occasions. How you ignored that and still claimed that I said it was a fact is beyond me...no, wait...it isn't. I got a pretty good idea why you missed it.

Perhaps a more clinical and methodical approach would help you out.

Aquatus,

Please show me, in the article, where this criminal blamed virtual child pornogrpahy for his actions.

Here is the link again, just in case you can't locate it back in this thread.

Here is the part relating to the child murderer/abuser...

Public sentiment against sexual cartoon depictions of minors was revived in 2005 when a convicted sex offender, who was arrested for the murder of a seven-year-old girl in Nara, was suspected as a lolicon.[37] Despite media speculation, it was found that the murderer, Kaoru Kobayashi, seldom had interest in manga, games or dolls.[41] He claimed, however, that he had become interested in small girls after watching an animated pornographic video as a high school student.[42] He was sentenced to death by hanging.
Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
Aquatus,

Please show me, in the article, where this criminal blamed virtual child pornogrpahy for his actions.

We are still talking about the same article, right? The one where you said..

This is the sort of thoughtless argument that has me tearing my hair out (what hair I have left anyway) because you, and others here, cannot seem to grasp that the issue is about individuals going off the rails exactly as in the case I pointed out, by a person being 'triggered' into sexualising children by exposure to virtual child pornography and then acting on those fantasies. Instead you witter on about 'populations' and abstract concepts.

Aquatus, there has been no data posted which shows any link between child pornography and child abuse except for the instance where the Japanese man confessed that his sexual interest in young girls was triggered by watching virtual child porn.

How is a person who has committed child abuse admitting that his sexual fascination in young girls started when he viewed child pornography NOT a link between child pornography and child abuse? How is it that a person has committed child abuse because he became sexually fascinated with young girls after viewing child pornography, yet we "cannot say it does happen"?

You asked for evidence that virtual child pornography (as these lolicon comics surely are) can lead to child abuse. You have it.

Case closed. You lose.

That article?

That was your post #287, wasn't it?

My emphasis.

Public sentiment against animated child pornography was revived in 2005 when a convicted sex offender, who was arrested for the murder of a seven-year-old girl in Nara, was suspected as a lolicon.[37] Despite media speculation, it was found that the murderer, Kaoru Kobayashi, seldom had interest in manga, games or dolls.[41] He claimed, however, that he had become interested in small girls after watching an animated pornographic video as a high school student.[42] He was sentenced to death by hanging

Virtual child pornography does lead to child abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doesnt_matter

In my opinion this sets a very dangerous precident that could be expanded on to include other forms of expression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.