Sankaku Complex Forums » Anime

Contra "Catharsis": Why A Flawed Argument Against Censorship Must Not Be Used

Started 6 years ago by Artefact, currently has 28 posts - latest post is by Mika the Banned

Tags:
- Censorship
- loli
- Lolicon
- Rhetoric
Feed for this topic

12 Next »

Artefact

A comment I feel should be reposted here for the benefit of our less able rhetoricians:

http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2010/02/18/save-the-children-ban-loli-manga/#comment-438047

The "catharsis" argument that loli manga serves as an outlet for lolicon who might otherwise be drawn to real children is deeply flawed and you should not propagate it.

If you are making this argument, you have just conceded that lolicon fans are actual potential child rapists and the only thing stopping them from attacking children and fulfilling their disgusting lusts is a supply of vile pornography. All this suggests is that they should be locked up to prevent them committing crimes when they run out of manga. It singles them out as immoral perverts held in check only by fictional proxies.

Similar arguments for violent games are never used. Playing violent games or watching violent media do not, it is said, predispose people to violence, nor do do they prevent violence by those who might otherwise do so. Defenders go to great lengths to point out there is no link at all between the two.

"GTA helps prevent murder by keeping killers off the streets and letting them sim-kill at home" - I think not.

You should stick to similar arguments to those used in similar debates, based on freedom of expression and there being no demonstrable causal link between media exposure and behaviour. Otherwise you are simply propagating a harmful fallacy which only harms the people you are clumsily attempting to defend.

Please note that I am only addressing the subject in terms of rhetorical tactics - the scientific question of whether fictional media predisposes people to action (it may well do, else how can we explain religion?) is not relevant to opponents, so it should not be relevant to defenders intent on winning a debate and putting the enemy to flight.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
Vicious

The straw man argument is the main logical fallacy used by proponents of moral arguments.

whatca gonna do against people who think with their fear :P

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
Artefact

Use a better argument than one which validates their opinion of the people you're supposed to be defending. Also attack them for being enemies of liberty only interested in some unseemly concern you've previously smeared them as being in thrall to.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
Mugen

Artefact said:

"GTA helps prevent murder by keeping killers off the streets and letting them sim-kill at home" - I think not.

I agree with this comment, however, prohibiting something humans desire has dire consequences, whether realized or not.

Many social problems have been attributed to the Prohibition era. Mafia groups limited their activities to gambling and theft until 1920, when organized bootlegging manifested in response to the effect of Prohibition.[15] A profitable, often violent, black market for alcohol flourished. Powerful gangs corrupted law enforcement agencies, leading to racketeering. Stronger liquor surged in popularity because its potency made it more profitable to smuggle. -Wiki

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
Sorrior

thx for the repost Artefact. I myself have used it a few times though my primary one is why should it matter if it's fantasy. I also think that it's also used to show those VERY RARE cases when they overlap. I also tend to point out how NO research has been done involving lolicon hentai and so any claims that it is an evil that feeds pedo's has no grounding in scientific fact or research at least as of this time. Sadly it seems some people have a stick up there ass no matter what though. Heh it seems anime and manga are the new rock/metal/video games/comics if ya know what i mean. Lucky for us we have a little bit to wait though soince it seems stateside at least anime is in one of it's "fad lulls".

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
ゆっち

Artefact said:
Please note that I am only addressing the subject in terms of rhetorical tactics - the scientific question of whether fictional media predisposes people to action (it may well do, else how can we explain religion?) is not relevant to opponents, so it should not be relevant to defenders intent on winning a debate and putting the enemy to flight.

That's probably because the scientific proof regarding fictional media and behavior hasn't been proven sufficiently and conclusively. So, it's still possible to defend against moral activists using logical arguments that weaken your opponent's argument or strengthen your position.

That is, until someone decides to force a group of children to play violent video games until they become adults, but even that is against scientific ethics.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
Sorrior

MugenZetsubou said:

I agree with this comment, however, prohibiting something humans desire has dire consequences, whether known or not.

Many social problems have been attributed to the Prohibition era. Mafia groups limited their activities to gambling and theft until 1920, when organized bootlegging manifested in response to the effect of Prohibition.[15] A profitable, often violent, black market for alcohol flourished. Powerful gangs corrupted law enforcement agencies, leading to racketeering. Stronger liquor surged in popularity because its potency made it more profitable to smuggle. -Wiki

Criminals also found quicker easier ways to smuggle liquor and scapegoats were found such as adding labels that gave warnings like "DO NOT MIX WITH ----- AND THEN EXPOSE TO --- DEGREES OR AN ILLEGAL BEVERAGE MAY RESULT". It was foolish why i'm also for legal drugs and hookers. At least then people will have a safe option for both parties. BTW the ONE report for history class i actually really bothered with was the speakeasies the special mafia run liquor houses so it's one thing i know a fair amount about. BTW sry for the double post for some reason i feel like this thread is almost holy ground with Artefact himself starting it.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
Sorrior

Yucchi said:

That is, until someone decides to force a group of children to play violent video games until they become adults, but even that is against scientific ethics.

Where are the Lloyds of our world really. We need some amoral scientists to progress it seems who don't care about morality or that barrier. Then we can get some real science done. BTW i'm only half joking.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
Vicious

You can't make a better argument because it's based on psychological disposition.
Criminal psychology is a circular logic, in that people who have sex are not predisposed to rape, but you can certainly prove that people who like sex are more likely to rape.

There's no pyschology in that it's an emotional appeal for situtations.
just as easily as you can prove that you can easily disprove it.

While i agree that there is a better argument than accepting the oppositon's logic that, interest leads to criminal activity. Thus allowing the existence og non violent material/"simulation" prevents cases of illegal activity.
that legal path is a temporary solution to emotional appeal but has no future.

It is possible to manipulate psychological data to build upon the idea that interest does not necessarily lead to criminal activity.
Which should be their main point. Criminal activity.

you can't accurately prove or disprove human urge, lapse in judgment etc. because not all cases are because because of mental deficiency or abject lifestyles
there a difference between those situations and connecting them to criminal activity.

But when we have two sides that agree that interest leads to criminality. And their solutions are: The Catharsis of Censorship Vs. Substitution prevention

well you're not gonna be able to prove anything, those foundations will not be able to support accurate logic.

Interest vs Criminality. if interest is already accepted as a gateway for criminal activity. then what are you gonna do.

Rape, Assault, Murder, Espionage, Terrorism is not legally defined by interest.
You convince a jury on an individual basis because of interest among other things
Buy you certainly are not arrested, convicted because you were proven to have interest.

Now if we start with the real issue Criminality: Access, intent, Evidence, relation

now you can prove those things, you have use psychological data to back you up on likelyhoods

but thats not our starting point. we're at
"We'll he'll be less likely to commit the actual crime if he has an outlet for his "possible criminal" urges.
and
"Censorship will increase his chances of becoming a criminal, so dont censor"

i mean c'mon

"Can't Play with it, Can't Win with it, Can't do it"

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
Mika the Banned

Sorrior said:

Where are the Lloyds of our world really. We need some amoral scientists to progress it seems who don't care about morality or that barrier. Then we can get some real science done. BTW i'm only half joking.

Actually I would be one of those :/ I was seriously thinking wat would happen if that experiment happened, it would reveal many things I suppose but now I guess Im more curious as to doing that but with hentai manga but concentrating more on loli manga. Would the kids as adults hav pedosexual tendencies? Would they be aware that its just fantasy and in no way is it ok to do so IRL? I reeeeally wanna know now...

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
sifian

The thing is, I think there is real basis to the catharsis argument, however it's in indirect application, not direct.

I'll draw parallel here to drug trafficking rather than videogames. Consider the ludicrous notion that Marijuana is a "gateway drug". I'm not aware of anyone of real intelligence who believes this notion, but there is some truth to it.
-By creating laws which for which the general populace feels no obligation to respect, it degrades the value of a law which should be respected. A person who is accustomed to breaking a law to obtain a harmless narcotic is far more likely to break a law to obtain a harmful narcotic.
-By making a highly popular item illegal, you create access and connections to vendors of illegal goods. If I were to try scoring cocaine, I would have no idea where to go- but the fact that I have pot smoking friends means that I probably know a guy who knows a guy.

By using similar logic, I think it's a good thing to have a realm of pure fiction for outlet of those people unable to find sexual stimulation amongst their peerage. By demonizing fiction and limiting its access, those people are more likely to fantasize about children of propinquity, or worse, seek out photographic material.

I do firmly believe that people viewing actual child abuse are highly desensitized and more likely to commit similar atrocities. I recall when I was in high school there was a huge wave of school shootings within about a year that culminated with Columbine. I don't think that fiction really inspired anyone to do that, however after the first guy did there was a cascade effect. If a real person had the gall to so something atrocious, then there is comfort in conceptual company when considering a similar heinous act. If my train of thought it inconsistent here, what I mean is that by seeing real cp, one might think, "Hey, that guy did it, maybe I can too!" That's an association that rarely jumps the fiction to reality border. By the opposite argument, people are rarely inspired to do great things by hearing of fictitious characters doing great things, they're inspired by real people who do great things. (although I suppose I have heard people claiming that marvel and DC characters were important role models growing up)

I will leave with three caveats here.
1) This is my personal thought process, someone whom I would like to believe is an intelligent and rational person. I happen to know two people who have gotten in trouble for molestation or near-molestation behavior. One person was brain damaged in a car accident as a child, and he has highly diminished reasoning abilities. The other person had obvious signs of fetal alcohol syndrome; I thought him a general dumbass and he frequently made broad sweeping statements and generaliztion with backup that I not only disagreed with ,but had trouble understanding how that was even supporting evidence. My personal experience leads me to believe that child predators may in fact have fundamentally unorthodox reasoning, making my arguments moot.

2) Apologetic justifcation does little to promote freedom of expression. I think the slippery slope argument is more valid. That by making one artistic expression prohibited, it creates a void zone surrounding it that few people are willing to touch, limiting potential high quality artistic expression. Furthermore, it estabilshes a precedent whereby it is easier to ban and prosecute existing content.

3) There is real merit in not lumping people who like neatenous features found in lolicon material (for legitimate reasons discussed here at length) with those who are potential abusers.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
Sorrior

Mikage-sama said:

Actually I would be one of those :/ I was seriously thinking wat would happen if that experiment happened,

Same here why i mentioned it. Too many scientist get emotions involved. Sucks dosn't it. But then i could see using myself as a guinea pig for genetic experimentation if no one else would step forward so meh.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
GTR

i wonder if we should use the same 'style', 'substance' and 'sound argument' that NRA uses so to keep you guys ahead when it comes to pro/anti lolicon debate

NRA's 'style', 'substance' and 'sound argument' are their core strenghts that prevents anti-gun measures (from states and FEDS) from being passed in all 50 states

imo I think we can learn a thing (or more) from NRA

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
nocturne

sifian said:

wall of stuff

Wait, wait, wait. Back it up. The analogical equivalent of relationships with people near your age is marijuana? The narcotics relationship is that of intensity. Age difference isn't. I thought the SATs would've taught people about how to use analogies by now. Unless the new SATs removed them or something.

Also, you can't make a reasonable case that a first recorded incident is a precursor for all successive and similar incidents. The only thing you can firmly establish is that the initial incident is the one that happened first; you'll have to explain why and how it's a precedent -- without resorting to correlation. There's also the glaring question of what caused the first incident to begin with.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
GTR

Artefact said:

http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2010/02/18/save-the-children-ban-loli-manga/#comment-438047

The "catharsis" argument that loli manga serves as an outlet for lolicon who might otherwise be drawn to real children is deeply flawed and you should not propagate it.

err Haven't you sneak a peek in at least one volume of COMIC LO? Do you know that their purpose is to encourage lolicons to release their 'urge' through their publications?

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
Mugen

sifian said:

I'll draw parallel here to drug trafficking rather than videogames. Consider the ludicrous notion that Marijuana is a "gateway drug". I'm not aware of anyone of real intelligence who believes this notion, but there is some truth to it.
-By creating laws which for which the general populace feels no obligation to respect, it degrades the value of a law which should be respected. A person who is accustomed to breaking a law to obtain a harmless narcotic is far more likely to break a law to obtain a harmful narcotic.
-By making a highly popular item illegal, you create access and connections to vendors of illegal goods. If I were to try scoring cocaine, I would have no idea where to go- but the fact that I have pot smoking friends means that I probably know a guy who knows a guy.

These are personal choices. I like marijuana, however, other drugs are unappealing because of their harmful effects. In general, if you hang out with people who do drugs, you may be introduced to other kinds of drugs, but it is still that persons choice. Succumbing to peer pressure shows a lack of willpower or self confidence.(as if I had any) And if any drug was truly "gateway" it would be legal ones such as alcohol, because the legal one is most likely the one you abused first.

My opinion, no more, no less

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
sifian

nocturne said:

The analogical equivalent of relationships with people near your age is marijuana?

Perhaps my argument was flawed in that I used actual examples, so let me try framing it in more abstract terms:

It is easier to defy authority when one has become accustomed to defying that authority. Therefore, setting too many restrictions that are likely to be broken actually hampers the respect one might have for greater and more important restrictions.

In this case, someone who cannot find his peerage appealing is more likely to resort to illegal activity should there be no legal outlet available.

Is that still a flawed argument?

nocturne said:
without resorting to correlation

Alright, fair enough. I guess both sides of any argument can come up with correlating evidence. It's just at the time it seemed awfully suspicious that such things went from unheard of to happening on oven every couple months.

In all, the above post was too much stream of thought. I had a couple ideas kicking around in my head and wanted to get them out before going to work, but the form is bad. If the window of edit opportunity were still open, I'd delete it save for the final points 2 & 3.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
Ukonkivi

Artefact said:
If you are making this argument, you have just conceded that lolicon fans are actual potential child rapists and the only thing stopping them from attacking children and fulfilling their disgusting lusts is a supply of vile pornography. All this suggests is that they should be locked up to prevent them committing crimes when they run out of manga. It singles them out as immoral perverts held in check only by fictional proxies.

Thanks, I'd been meaning to say this for a while.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
Sukunai

Kiddie porn doesn't make lolicons predisposed to child abuse. That argument is so lacking in intellect I couldn't discuss the matter for inability to lower my IQ far enough to reach the necessary level.

My only concern is Pavlov.
If I smack you in the head and offer a stimulus, eventually you WILL link the smack in the head with the stimulus. Anyone wishing to refute that proven fact, please leave your IQ at the door, you don't seem to need it.

If we make loli 100% acceptable long enough, it WILL in time eventually lose much of anything 'unacceptable' about it.
No one cares much about something no one else cares about.

Want proof?
Porn.
When I was a kid, they couldn't show actual married couples (TV show married couples that is) actually sleeping in the same bed on the show. Err they're married eh, of COURSE they sleep together, and they fuck each other in that same bed and conceive their children in it.
But today porn is nothing special. We even joke about it.
The internet is for porn.
Now I can watch what are considered ordinary TV shows that have ordinary sexuality in them. We don't mind single parents and gay parents and all manner of lifestyle situations being openly acknowledged.
We got used to it, and now it is 'acceptable'.

Not everyone likes loli though.
And for those of us that think popping a hardon for kids under 12 be it in person, in picture, or fictional drawing, is sick, it's likely going to stay that way.

I think lolicons, as defined as liking images of kids under 12, are fucking sick.
And I am not in a hurry to see it ever get made 'acceptable'.
And no fucking method of rhetoric is going to change that.

But that's freedom fer ya.
I hate lolicons, I also hate religious people.
Actually I likely hate the religious a great deal more.
Lolicons while repugnant, have nothing on the religious for being dangerous bastards. 9/11 wasn't a lolicon attack eh.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
Artefact

GTR said:

err Haven't you sneak a peek in at least one volume of COMIC LO? Do you know that their purpose is to encourage lolicons to release their 'urge' through their publications?

A large number of these Japanese loli fans are still outraged that 3D child pornography was recently outlawed, so if you are trying to persuade people of the need for artistic freedoms to be protected they are perhaps not the best people to invoke. And in general modern Japanese are pretty hopeless at proper political "public relations" - taking rhetorical cues from them is likely not helpful.

Much better to look at successful lobbying efforts, like the gaming industry or, indeed, the NRA.

And forget about "arguing" or "proof." Persuasion and perception is all that matters in such matters. It's at least as important to demonise and ridicule your opponents as it is to bother defending yourselves.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote

12 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.