this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2023
163 points (87.2% liked)
/kbin meta
639 readers
1 users here now
Magazine dedicated to discussions about the kbin itself. Provide feedback, ask questions, suggest improvements, and engage in conversations related to the platform organization, policies, features, and community dynamics. ---- * Roadmap 2023 * m/kbinDevlog * m/kbinDesign
founded 2 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The lengths people will go to to defend paedos is striking.
The venn diagram of pedo supporters and alt right is almost a circle.
Paedos should be castrated and thrown into the deepest hole and never leave, as they hurt children. Nobody is defending those people, but drawings are not children, nobody is harmed. That's an important difference
People who seek out sexual representation of people that look underage are paedos, and those that claim "iT's JuSt DrAwInGs" are protecting paedos.
This is your argument:
We should ban violent videogames . Everybody know people who play violent videogames are violent. Peolpe claiming "It'S jUsT a GaMe" are protecting violent people
P.S. I hope you don't like shaved vaginas, btw, people who like shaved genitals are just ill people people who want to see kid-like genitals without any hair i.e. paedos
lmfao, you're reaching so hard to defend paedos.
No, I'm not defending paedos. But, unlike you, I'm not an hypocrite
Nah mate, people liking violent video games does not make them violent. People seeking sexual gratification from underage looking cartoons are definitely paedos, and you're a fucking moron at best if you can't see that. Probably just trying to defend your own proclivities though lmao.
why? where's the difference?
violent videogames are fiction
cartoons are fiction
Just because you enjoy killing hookers in GTA does not mean you are going to start killing hookers in real life as a hobby
Just because you like a cartoon does not means you enjoy its real-life equivalent
it's the same situation, saying one thing is ok and the other is wrong is being an hypocrite.
If you cannot see the difference between these two situations, you need to go see a therapist you fucking nonce.
Are you seriously asking how people getting sexual gratification from underage looking people does not make them paedos? Get the fuck out you absolute shitstain.
Gotcha, finally found the issue.
I can tell the difference between a fictional cartoon character and real people. It looks like you can't. Apply your own advice and go to see a therapist ASAP.
Bro, doesn't matter if they're real or not, if you get sexual gratification from it, you're a fucking nonce. That's why so many countries have laws against it. Fucking hell.
Then I ask again, tell me what's the difference between getting gratification from killing people in a videogame and getting gratification by looking at a cartoon (not people)
you keep avoiding to reply this question.
Paris had a law that forbade women wearing trousers, should that law be applied country-wise first and then worldwide? That law existed for a reason, I guess
Bro, comparing video games to actual sexual gratification from underage shit is nonce talk, fuck off.
Because the link between violent video games and aggression has been scientifically studied and found to not be correlated.
@Gordon_Freeman
@PM_me_your_vagina_thanks
So before those studies came out, you support banning violent video games?
What you are attempting to arrive at is The Gamer's Dilemma, which has also been discussed at a scholarly level.
The normalization of underage imagery, as discussed in the aforementioned dilemma, also discussed scholarly extensively, does have a correlation with increased viewing of imagery that does have victims (correlation does NOT mean that every single person end up viewing the additional imagery, just that there is a correlation statistically).
You asked me if I would have wanted to ban violent video games before the publication of the studies on them, but the thing is that I wait for information and studies before making decisions on things, and the have been studies on this topic.
What exactly is that google scholar search meant to prove? I realize it's been discussed, I just don't have the links off hand.
Yeah there have been studies. They either say "we don't know", or they show it can prevent pedophiles from acting on their urges.
Is exactly the point. There's a correlation between people who look at real child porn to people who look at animated child porn. That's just incredibly obvious, but tells us absolutely nothing about whether it's helpful or harmful.
You are telling me that you do not find it telling at all that there was no correlation between playing violent video games and aggressive/violent behavior but there is a correlation between viewing the animated content (which, as some higher in this thread are meant to represent characters of age - sometimes supposed to be 5000 years old - but appear childlike) to then viewing CP?
A) why should that be obvious? It's different forms of media. Why should anyone assume that those who want to look at real CP want to look at anime/animated CP? Just because anyone looks at any porn, would you assume they appreciate animated porn? Why would you make these assumptions?
B) this is about the comparison between the correlation between viewing of animated images and the lack of correlation of the video games playing. Both of these hypotheses provided situations in which there are victims and searched for a potential warning signs to identify a precursor to the activity. The are many aggressive/violent illegal crimes studied, and many people that play violent video games, but there is not a statistically significant overlap. Those that are violent have other precursors as warning signs. If this were the same for these animated images, those images would have their own audience while those that view CP with real victims would have a completely separate audience without a statistically significant overlap. Instead, there is a correlation, and very vocal defenders that continue to normalize it, which deepens the issue, providing more support to this that view CP and exploiting those harmed even more and normalizing it more.
undefined> You are telling me that you do not find it telling at all that there was no correlation between playing violent video games and aggressive/violent behavior but there is a correlation between viewing the animated content (which, as some higher in this thread are meant to represent characters of age - sometimes supposed to be 5000 years old - but appear childlike) to then viewing CP?
That's not at all what the science shows. There is correlation with violent people liking violent media. There's no correlation or causation that people in general are more violent when they watch violent media. It's the same thing.
Do you really not understand or are you just being purposefully obtuse.
And pedophiles don't?
Why do you assume they don't? You're begging the question here by assuming that people who look at loli are attracted to real children. Do you think people who fantasize about rape are into real rape?
Why are you just making things up? Why does there have to be 0 overlap? People who are attracted to real children are likely going to be into animated children. But people who are into animated children don't necessarily have to be into real children. Are all furries into bestiality? Is everyone who has a crush on judy hopps going to fuck a rabbit? That's the same comparison here. Anime looks nothing like humans, and it's not at all unreasonable to be into fantasy anime bullshit who just happen to be drawn in a manner that somewhat reflects a child doesn't mean anything about real life
You and others keep saying this. Explain this "normalization". What does that even mean in terms of its effect on real life and victims.
EXACTLY!!! That's it being a statistically significant precursor is the issue!
"precursor"? Precursor to what? What's the issue exactly? Not sure how that comment relates to what I posted