07-30-2014
|
49 | |||||
Hyrule Knights
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: In your head 24/7
Posts: 6,344
|
|
|||||
07-30-2014
|
50 | ||||
The Unwanted Critic
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,639
|
The "exceptions" freedom needs is when exercising it harms another person. People shouldn't be free to kill other people, they shouldn't be free to steal. They shouldn't be allowed to spread lies about others. Point being, Victimless crimes are unjust.
"Freedom needs it's limits." Why, I ask? Because you enjoy taking it away, in cases of things you disapprove of? But, I guess this is where it comes down to opinions. You firmly believe that freedom should only be allowed in the ways that benefit you, and denied for what you dislike.
The first reason is simple economics. When you eliminate a substitute, people are more likely to go for something real. So those without morals may view real images instead, as both are illegal anyways. And since they view real drawings, it contributes to the black market for child abuse. I'd much rather someone look at a drawing than a picture of an actual child being abused. With drawings legal, one is much more likely just to view the drawings so they don't have the fear going to jail and getting killed in prison for viewing the real thing. Secondly, it also helps those with pedophilia control their libido. It allows for a harmless outlet. Without any material for them to address it with, it their temptations may grow stronger. If viewing drawings stops them from harming others, its fine with me. What you believe is that it will cause them to want to commit acts of abuse. My counterargument to that would be that very few people commit acts seen in violent videogames, and those that do are generally mentally unstable, and likely would have killed someone regardless. It's also an extremely rare case. Additionally, videogames are not a substitute for violence, most people play them for the competitive feeling and fun, whereas pornographic content is generally for sexual pleasure.
Last edited by Skill; 07-30-2014 at 07:29 AM.
|
||||
07-30-2014
|
51 | |||||||
Hyrule Knights
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: In your head 24/7
Posts: 6,344
|
supported it? idk if you know but one of the big reason this country was able to get rid of the articles of confederation and establish our constitution was because slavery was left out of it for the most part. I dont know if those are the supporters youre talking about.
Last edited by GOAT; 07-30-2014 at 07:46 AM.
Reason: NPA? waiting for the link
|
|||||||
07-30-2014
|
52 | ||
The Unwanted Critic
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,639
|
The articles of confederation were revamped into the constitution because the AoC didn't provide the government with enough power. It didn't allow for taxation, or anything that would strengthen the US. There were structural issues with the AoC. There was also fear that the constitution would give the government too much power, so the bill of rights was created. If you google "is slavery mentioned in the constitution", you get this:
Your point about proving what can cause harm is a good one; however, there's one flaw with it. Telling someone to commit an act of violence causes fear. When a group is rallying and telling others to lynch a minority, it causes a lot of fear. So even if they actually don't, it causes anxiety and other problems for the particular group thats threatened. It's very direct- its an order to do so. When giving a speech endorsing violence, it is your intention to cause harm to others. Now, I know for a fact you're going to apply the concept of fear to fictional drawings, so I'll go ahead and consider it before you mention it. Fictional drawings do not have an existent person. Additionally, they are not an order to do something. Telling someone to carry out an act of violence is very clear, and intended to persuade someone to do so. Unless a drawing clearly states "Go and do this IRL", and then proceeds to attempt to persuade the reader to do it by gving reasons, it is not an order to do something. The creator of the comics don't do it out of intent to harm ohers. They create them generally either to make $$$ as their job, or because they enjoy drawing them/think people will enjoy them. |
||
07-30-2014
|
53 | ||||
Hyrule Knights
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: In your head 24/7
Posts: 6,344
|
You google slavery in the constitution and then you ask me if i have taken a US history class . I dont know if youre question is insinuating an insult, but to answer your question, Im sure everyone takes US history somewhere between 1-12 grade.
you want to have a serious argument but you went from ccn's article to slavery and the constitution. Even after I explained common knowledge regarding our history youre still going to continue arguing for no reason. Note: what im telling you is coming from the libary in my brain, i dont need google to make my argument. |
||||
07-30-2014
|
54 | |
Uguu~
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Canada, NS
Posts: 1,046
|
No but seriously, it's an American (I think?) news station. Of course they're going to try and find something to blow out of proportion and make it look like it's the worst thing since extreme masochism. |
|
07-30-2014
|
55 | ||
The Unwanted Critic
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,639
|
Hypocrisy, much? I don't think we need to continue talking about the history of constitution/slavery/whatever, it has derailed far too much. Can we just agree that slavery is bad, and humans were selfish to support it? People like to deny rights to others if it doesn't effect them or anyone they care for. The south supporting slavery proved this. I used an example that is hopefully universally accepted(that slavery was morally corrupt and the product of human selfishness) to prove that humans do not care for the rights of others they don't care about. I didn't intend for it to derail.
I don't like the idea of 30% of my paycheck going to Uncle Sam just so they can waste it on things that don't do good. It's a waste of resources. |
||
07-30-2014
|
56 | ||||||
Hyrule Knights
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: In your head 24/7
Posts: 6,344
|
1. Im not making fun of you for using sources.
and FYI citing implies you gave credit to the source of the information. Right? all I see is a quote which I helped you understand more clearly.
Extreme example: Why cant I walk butt naked around the city? I should have the freedom to do that since Im not hurting anyone. Thats one of your victim less crimes. Can I show up at your house butt naked just to say hi? After all if it was that bad they wouldnt allow nudist beaches(not sure if they have nudist beaches in America).
|
||||||
07-31-2014
|
57 | ||
The Unwanted Critic
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,639
|
Because many people take offense to nudity. By walking around nude, you're upsetting others. Children's innocence may be ruined if they're exposed to nudity(I don't want to start a debate on this, I'll just say some people believe it is a problem while some believe nudity isn't anything to be concerned about). There's also cases where people won't want to look at naked bodies for a variety of reasons; religious reasons, because its a distraction, extremely ugly people just mooning others, etc. Point being, it causes an unpleasant experience for many people that have to view it in their daily commute. Nudist beaches are different-they're an "Opt in" location. If you don't like the idea of nudity, don't go to a nudist beach. Plain and simple. I don't really have a choice to avoid the city since I go there for anything: Shopping, work, eating, whatever it may be. But a nudist beach can easily be avoided- and there's far more than enough normal beaches to go to instead. By "harming others", I'm not solely referring to physical harm, but any form of negative effect. If an action causes a negative effect to others, then it should be reconsidered. Obviously, you would need to draw a fair line. For example, I hate when my neighbor's dog wakes me up every morning, but I think they deserve the right to own a pet, as it brings them happiness. IMO that freedom is a more important than my sleep. Society makes this dictation, as any citywide ban on pets would certainly result in a public outage over their freedom, and democracy would never allow that to happen. This is a wonderful example of how your concept of the people deciding what is "right or wrong" being effective. The problem with you applying that principle to fictional drawings is that there's not a negative impact on society resulting from it anyways. There's nothing about it that worsens the lives of others that would provide a fair reason to ban it. But people want it banned, because they do not like its existence. People don't understand the concept of if you don't like something, just don't do it. If anything, I think the drawings need a kind of warning on them. Say what they contain, so there's no shock value. This way you don't have cases of people fooling others to look at it. I see so many people trolling on forums saying "go watch Boku no Pico best anime ever" only to get fooled into watching something rather disturbing. This is the only negative effect of it I can think of. |
||
07-31-2014
|
59 | |||
Hyrule Knights
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: In your head 24/7
Posts: 6,344
|
"Children's innocence may be ruined" lol GG
This post doesn't strengthen your argument, it weakens it. Like I said, all I ask is that you understand what youre saying. |
|||
07-31-2014
|
60 | |
The Unwanted Critic
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,639
|
Meh it's just G O A T and I arguing about something we clearly disagree on. I'm enjoying the argument, I respect him, and I like how it has made me think. Anyways @ G O A T, I think I should rephrase what I meant. An action can be considered bad if it negatively impacts the life of others. If you run around the city completely naked, you're upsetting thousands of people. While you may not cause any lasting harm to them, you're still making their day a lot worse. A lot of people are severely offended by nudity, and they have no choice about if they want to look at it, if you're in the middle of a city.
But just because some people don't like it doesn't mean no one can experience it. Basically its a matter of consent. People shouldn't be FORCED to see something they don't want to. Take for example the original case that allowed for obscenity laws in the US. Some guy was mailing uncensored hardcore porn ads to random people in the town. Some old religious woman got one, and became horribly upset/sued due to the shock value of it. This made it to the supreme court, where they decided obscene speech is unprotected, and punishable by law. What makes me even more upset is that several years later, there was another case where obscene content would only be a crime if provided to minors or unconsenting individuals. It failed 4-5 I believe. The law was to protect people from being forced to see disgusting things they do not wish to see, but ended up becoming a form of censorship. The law fails for a variety of reasons. Because it applies to simple viewership of obscene content, it takes some pretty severe stuff nowadays to actually be considered obscene. Because of this, doing something like running around flashing pornographic images at heavily religious individuals likely won't land me a jail sentence. It would make them extremely upset, but I wouldn't be punished. Now, a guy who simply mail ordered a bit of obscene manga got arrested for it. He didn't make anyone look at it, he didn't inconvenience anyone, people just saw how disgusting what he ordered was(intercepted by the postal service), so they arrested him. He collected thousands of comic books, and only like 4 or 5 of them were actually obscene. It's kind of sad. I'm not really sure how I can describe what I mean. By "harm", I mean any sort of negative impact on others. |
|