Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Really?!? (Score 1) 1448

Card believes that those he disagrees with, homosexuals, should be incarcerated and stripped of their rights.

That's the first I've heard of this. I thought he was in favour of governments and laws that preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Advocating for the incarceration or curtailing of rights of a whole demographic is a totally different animal, and one that I've not before seen attributed to Card.

Comment Re:LOL (Score 1) 770

What you advocate for is censorship. Freedom is speech and express are fundamental rights.

I am advocating censorship. There's is and has been a lot of bad censorship in the world, but to ban it wholesale would be foolish. Freedom of speech is a guaranteed right in the USA, but not everywhere. I assume that's what you mean by fundamental. But even fundamental rights have limits, and these limits usually occur at the boundary of safety and public health.

I don't believe for a yoctosecond that looking at porn (in this case, pictures of drawn children) will somehow make someone more likely to rape.

You're fixated on rape. I'm talking about sexual dysfunction and deviant behaviour, which have always been associated with the decline of civilisations. To open the door to child pornography (even the animated sort) is to consent to the poisoning of one's own society. There are worse things than metered and responsible censorship.

Comment Re:LOL (Score 1) 770

And this 'safety is more important than freedom' mentality is how we lose our freedoms.

Some freedoms are more important than others, and some safety mechanisms are more effective than others. The TSA (and arguably most or all real consequences of the Patriot Act) is a sham, and it's disingenuous to lump together baby formula and baby porn as being even remotely comparable on the danger scale.

It is also nonsensical to suggest that people will go out and rape children if they view images of drawn children having sex

It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that when you have a bell curve or any other spectrum of dangerous behaviour, sanctioning any activity that is known or likely to push that bell curve in the direction of more dangerous activity is socially irresponsible. We don't have to prove that "people will go out and rape children" as a result of child porn. It is sufficient to show that child pornography, in whatever form it may take, is a contributing factor to child sexual abuse.

Comment Re:LOL (Score 1) 770

Seriously - Google. It's not that hard for such a simple concept

I'm not sure what you're even asserting here. That I should use Google to research the impetus of child pornography laws in nations that include animation or other non-real representations in the ban? No, I think common sense dictates that there is more than the one reason that you state.

Paedophilia was once commonly accepted as late as the 17-18th centuries

Again, your point is not clear. You're saying that the availability of animated child pornography has no demonstrable link with the social acceptability of the practice of paedophilia? I don't see what that has to do with the idea of conditioning and generalization.

you saying (as equivalent) that reading Mein Kampf will make someone conditioned towards becoming a Nazi

That's a really poor restatement of my point, and pretty much a straw man. I'm saying that training oneself to respond sexually to images that look like children will normally increase one's sexual response to children, and that's a bad thing.

Comment Re:LOL (Score 2) 770

The basis of laws surrounding it is that the production of child porn harms a child

Citation needed. No doubt that's one reason, but what about the effects of conditioning people (or leaving the legal door open for them to condition themselves, if you prefer) to respond sexually to minors? There are some very good reasons not to encourage or allow child pornography which doesn't directly involve children.

Slashdot Top Deals

Mathematics is the only science where one never knows what one is talking about nor whether what is said is true. -- Russell