Precursor Games Founder Arrested For Child Porn

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

knight steel:
Are we talking about actual child porn or Lolicon because there is a difference [one uses real children the other drawing/cartoons] depending on the answer my opinion will change.

Wasn't cartoons ruled to not be child porn because, being a drawing, there is no child being exploited?

the antithesis:

knight steel:
Are we talking about actual child porn or Lolicon because there is a difference [one uses real children the other drawing/cartoons] depending on the answer my opinion will change.

Wasn't cartoons ruled to not be child porn because, being a drawing, there is no child being exploited?

Not in every country there are still many countries which consider Lolicon child porn.

the antithesis:

knight steel:
Are we talking about actual child porn or Lolicon because there is a difference [one uses real children the other drawing/cartoons] depending on the answer my opinion will change.

Wasn't cartoons ruled to not be child porn because, being a drawing, there is no child being exploited?

He lives in Canada, which still deems lolicon (and most hentai) illegal.

Headdrivehardscrew:

Desert Punk:

wombat_of_war:
apparently its fashionable and cool to find a way to defend pedophiles these days

Better than throwing them under the bus before they are convicted.

Also being a pedophile isnt a crime, abusing a child is a crime, pedophelia is a sexual orientation no different than being straight, gay, or bisexual.

Most pedophiles are able to control their urges and are never a harm to anyone, some cant though and they are called child abusers.

Edit: As for the OT, it wouldnt surprise me if this was some group of retards arresting him over lolicon or some shit.

While none of us know what's what and what will eventually stick, I'd like to chime in here real quick.

I find myself unwilling to accept that pedophilia is 'a sexual orientation no different than' any other. Whatever happens between consenting adults is one thing. When someone faps over images, thoughts, souvenirs of or with actual underage children present, party's pretty much over and I am absolutely unable to even want to generate any compassion or sympathy.

"I am only willing to accept a sexual orientation if it doesn't personally disgust me". When someone faps to the idea of a child, it's happening between consenting adults: one consenting adult is masturbating, there are no children involved. Or are you adverse to a sexual orientation that causes harm to others? Plenty of people have rape fetishes but would never actually rape anybody.

Xiado:

Headdrivehardscrew:

Desert Punk:

Better than throwing them under the bus before they are convicted.

Also being a pedophile isnt a crime, abusing a child is a crime, pedophelia is a sexual orientation no different than being straight, gay, or bisexual.

Most pedophiles are able to control their urges and are never a harm to anyone, some cant though and they are called child abusers.

Edit: As for the OT, it wouldnt surprise me if this was some group of retards arresting him over lolicon or some shit.

While none of us know what's what and what will eventually stick, I'd like to chime in here real quick.

I find myself unwilling to accept that pedophilia is 'a sexual orientation no different than' any other. Whatever happens between consenting adults is one thing. When someone faps over images, thoughts, souvenirs of or with actual underage children present, party's pretty much over and I am absolutely unable to even want to generate any compassion or sympathy.

"I am only willing to accept a sexual orientation if it doesn't personally disgust me". When someone faps to the idea of a child, it's happening between consenting adults: one consenting adult is masturbating, there are no children involved. Or are you adverse to a sexual orientation that causes harm to others? Plenty of people have rape fetishes but would never actually rape anybody.

I do not intend to discuss this, as I find it absolutely beyond discussable. If someone really does naturally grow into being a pedophile, with people now seriously discussing that pedophilia is love like any other, I say fuck the DSM-5 and whatever pure chaos might follow.

Look, people with these urges might turn into Miyamoto for all I know, and that's fine - AS LONG AS IT IS UNDER CONTROL. Any lapse in control, and I'll gladly find myself in the same camp with plenty of people I hate because our lack of accepting pedo-rape-bear unites us and makes us pretty darn human. That's that in a nutshell for me.

Headdrivehardscrew:

Xiado:

Headdrivehardscrew:

While none of us know what's what and what will eventually stick, I'd like to chime in here real quick.

I find myself unwilling to accept that pedophilia is 'a sexual orientation no different than' any other. Whatever happens between consenting adults is one thing. When someone faps over images, thoughts, souvenirs of or with actual underage children present, party's pretty much over and I am absolutely unable to even want to generate any compassion or sympathy.

"I am only willing to accept a sexual orientation if it doesn't personally disgust me". When someone faps to the idea of a child, it's happening between consenting adults: one consenting adult is masturbating, there are no children involved. Or are you adverse to a sexual orientation that causes harm to others? Plenty of people have rape fetishes but would never actually rape anybody.

I do not intend to discuss this, as I find it absolutely beyond discussable. If someone really does naturally grow into being a pedophile, with people now seriously discussing that pedophilia is love like any other, I say fuck the DSM-5 and whatever pure chaos might follow.

Look, people with these urges might turn into Miyamoto for all I know, and that's fine - AS LONG AS IT IS UNDER CONTROL. Any lapse in control, and I'll gladly find myself in the same camp with plenty of people I hate because our lack of accepting pedo-rape-bear unites us and makes us pretty darn human. That's that in a nutshell for me.

You might find it beyond discussable, but studies have found that 1 in 4 males have tendencies toward pedophilia and 1 in 10 have masturbated to such a fantasy. 4% of respondents claim that they would have sex with a child if they faced no repercussions, and this is without considering the vast amount of nonresponse likely in a survey where these responses carry a huge burden of social undesirability. It's a legitimate and likely genetic sexual identity that currently has no way to be fulfilled legally.

Doug Stanhope sums up how difficult it is to find child porn here:

My point is, if they have enough evidence to arrest you for child porn, you're more than likely guilty. Especially in this case where this guy was charged with having child porn and accessing child porn.

And to the lolicon defenders here.

I personally don't even think lolicon should be acceptable in the slightiest. In my opinion its just as bad a child porn. The point that no children are harmed with lolicon is combated with the reason that such people look at lolicon in the first place. Its for sexual arousal caused by children, and I can't abide by that. There's too much of a slippery slope in lolicon for me to find it ok.

That's my opinion and you're free to disagree, but you have to acknowledge the fact that its still involves a person who is sexually attracted to children.

I'm also not calling for a witch hunt either. Any way society can help rather than demonize is ok with me, but in this case I highly doubt that its lolicon due to the charges involved.

And even if it is lolicon, he's still going to jail due to Canadian law.

Xiado:
You might find it beyond discussable, but studies have found that 1 in 4 males have tendencies toward pedophilia and 1 in 10 have masturbated to such a fantasy. 4% of respondents claim that they would have sex with a child if they faced no repercussions, and this is without considering the vast amount of nonresponse likely in a survey where these responses carry a huge burden of social undesirability. It's a legitimate and likely genetic sexual identity that currently has no way to be fulfilled legally.

Yeah... I want to see some verifiable sources on that before I even begin to come close to believing it. Those number seem extremely inflated.

This is the guy who wrote the script for Blood Omen: Legacy of Kain, one of my most treasured games.

Weird.

Headdrivehardscrew:

Xiado:

Headdrivehardscrew:

While none of us know what's what and what will eventually stick, I'd like to chime in here real quick.

I find myself unwilling to accept that pedophilia is 'a sexual orientation no different than' any other. Whatever happens between consenting adults is one thing. When someone faps over images, thoughts, souvenirs of or with actual underage children present, party's pretty much over and I am absolutely unable to even want to generate any compassion or sympathy.

"I am only willing to accept a sexual orientation if it doesn't personally disgust me". When someone faps to the idea of a child, it's happening between consenting adults: one consenting adult is masturbating, there are no children involved. Or are you adverse to a sexual orientation that causes harm to others? Plenty of people have rape fetishes but would never actually rape anybody.

I do not intend to discuss this, as I find it absolutely beyond discussable. If someone really does naturally grow into being a pedophile, with people now seriously discussing that pedophilia is love like any other, I say fuck the DSM-5 and whatever pure chaos might follow.

Look, people with these urges might turn into Miyamoto for all I know, and that's fine - AS LONG AS IT IS UNDER CONTROL. Any lapse in control, and I'll gladly find myself in the same camp with plenty of people I hate because our lack of accepting pedo-rape-bear unites us and makes us pretty darn human. That's that in a nutshell for me.

Naturally grow, like a pod person! Except it only eats children. It is very picky.

Xiado:

Headdrivehardscrew:

Xiado:
"I am only willing to accept a sexual orientation if it doesn't personally disgust me". When someone faps to the idea of a child, it's happening between consenting adults: one consenting adult is masturbating, there are no children involved. Or are you adverse to a sexual orientation that causes harm to others? Plenty of people have rape fetishes but would never actually rape anybody.

I do not intend to discuss this, as I find it absolutely beyond discussable. If someone really does naturally grow into being a pedophile, with people now seriously discussing that pedophilia is love like any other, I say fuck the DSM-5 and whatever pure chaos might follow.

Look, people with these urges might turn into Miyamoto for all I know, and that's fine - AS LONG AS IT IS UNDER CONTROL. Any lapse in control, and I'll gladly find myself in the same camp with plenty of people I hate because our lack of accepting pedo-rape-bear unites us and makes us pretty darn human. That's that in a nutshell for me.

You might find it beyond discussable, but studies have found that 1 in 4 males have tendencies toward pedophilia and 1 in 10 have masturbated to such a fantasy. 4% of respondents claim that they would have sex with a child if they faced no repercussions, and this is without considering the vast amount of nonresponse likely in a survey where these responses carry a huge burden of social undesirability. It's a legitimate and likely genetic sexual identity that currently has no way to be fulfilled legally.

That is really high, but then I thought, hmm, a certain major religion really pushes it as legitimate. Because all that sacred dude did is holy, and he did children. This is considered legitimate and followed in certain gulf states, as the increase in Syrian child slavery demonstrates. There it is supply trying to meet demand.

The truth (and identity) is out there.

dragongit:

knight steel:

Antari:
This was just one arrest of many involving a country wide investigation which saw about 22 people being arrested. Two children were saved during the search and seizures. Something tells me this wasn't just anime.

Well in that case:
Did the children consent?[yes I know that they don't have the knowledge needed ect ect but I'm still curious on if they were willing]
And how old are we speaking, toddlers or young teens?
These things will affect my judgment but so far it's not looking good for him.

I don't think it matters. in the United States any person under the age of 17 is not legally declared an adult, and thus are dubbed to not be legally able to "consent" to sexual acts with anyone. We hear of teens having sex all the time, but it's harder to pin the blame on two teens then say, one teen, and an adult. If this is legitimately the case then this company had one hell of a dark cloud cast upon it.

You do know there is a difference between children pornography and underage pornography. the difference is sexual maturity of the "child" involved. if the "child" is sexualy mature, it is underage pornography and if he is not then it is child pornoggraphy (and/or paedphilia)

Elf Defiler Korgan:

Headdrivehardscrew:

Look, people with these urges might turn into Miyamoto for all I know, and that's fine - AS LONG AS IT IS UNDER CONTROL. Any lapse in control, and I'll gladly find myself in the same camp with plenty of people I hate because our lack of accepting pedo-rape-bear unites us and makes us pretty darn human. That's that in a nutshell for me.

Naturally grow, like a pod person! Except it only eats children. It is very picky.

Naturally grow as opposed to being a deformation and defect due to either external stimuli or generally something going wrong on a psychological/neurological level.

I actually like your pod people analogy, as it is not quite as anal as intended.

Every once in a while one of these stories pops up, and sometimes it turns out to be just to be a drawing of what "appears"to be a child and even then I would argue that the drawing does not harm anyone, let alone just having the drawing.

If however this is infact a kid or a picture or video of kids engaging in sexual acts, then this is legitimate and you can throw him under the bus then.

Not much details have been given here, so I don't know what to think.

DugMachine:

Jarimir:
and hoping that they have some outlet for their sexual energy that ISNT harmful to all parties involved.

Like Lolicon? A drawing?

Look, I am not going to pretend to know what is best or appropriate for these people, so you go on and have your pedophile pride/acceptance/attempt at understanding parade with out me, ok?

Jarimir:

DugMachine:

Jarimir:
and hoping that they have some outlet for their sexual energy that ISNT harmful to all parties involved.

Like Lolicon? A drawing?

Look, I am not going to pretend to know what is best or appropriate for these people, so you go on and have your pedophile pride/acceptance/attempt at understanding parade with out me, ok?

It's not pedophile acceptance. It's knowing that it's a fucking drawing made of colors and lines. Somebody shouldn't be drug through the streets or put away for years because they have some drawings.

Desert Punk:

Jarimir:

snip

I wouldnt know if rape or murderes are mentally wired to do such thing the same way Straight folk or Pedophiles are wired to like what they like.

I dont have any rapist/murder friends and havent done the research to check out what they have told me.

And I suppose it speaks a lot to you as a person that you are willing to throw someone under the buss just based on your own biases and without anything like a persons guilt to back it up. Bravo, the Westboro Baptist Church would be proud of you im sure.

And yes, it is a sexual orientation, and if you cared to read above I wasnt endorsing it, I was pointing out that it is hardwired into some unfortunate folks the same way that being straight or gay is hard wired into people. Its not something you can change, unlearn or anything like that, just control.

So, are you straight or gay? Because either way I am sure you see people fairly often that you find attractive. Does that mean you jump all over them and damage them by raping them? No? What makes you think a paedophile is any different other than the imagined monster you have built up in your head?

There is a reason the law differentiates between child abusers and paedophiles. But thats right, you dont care about law or guilt and such..

So, far as I know they haven't definitively pinned down the root and mechanics of sexual orientation. Until then, I will remain skeptical of any attempts to add to that list. However, Your love for hyperbole is sufficient enough to call IT another sexual orientation.

You are not going to guilt or shame me into having a lot of sympathy for pedophiles, and believe you me I have MORE than many other people. So, go ahead, I would rather be guilty.

I already explained the difference between heterosexuals, homosexuals, and pedophiles. You should re-read that section. And, there are rapists and murders that have become so because of one or more conditions hardwired into their brain. Until we learn more about the brain and more importantly how control these troubling tendencies, we have no choice but to rely on our less-than-perfect legal system to try to maintain order and security in our society.

I am not a cop, a judge, or even a lawyer, so I am free to think what I want about this, and it wont affect anyone.

7 billion people on this planet, 7 billion people to think differently than you do about things = 7 billion people to drive you nuts because they don't think exactly like you do on a given topic.

DugMachine:

Jarimir:

DugMachine:

Like Lolicon? A drawing?

Look, I am not going to pretend to know what is best or appropriate for these people, so you go on and have your pedophile pride/acceptance/attempt at understanding parade with out me, ok?

It's not pedophile acceptance. It's knowing that it's a fucking drawing made of colors and lines. Somebody shouldn't be drug through the streets or put away for years because they have some drawings.

First of all you (or really the prosecutor in this case) have to prove that was the only thing he had. Secondly I am still not the person that makes that call, so you are going to have to convince someone else.

Personally I am not outright opposed to stuff like lolicon, though it creeps me out. My skeptical nature demands proof that it can suppress these urges and not make it more likely that someone acts on them.

captcha - face the music

Jarimir:

DugMachine:

Jarimir:

Look, I am not going to pretend to know what is best or appropriate for these people, so you go on and have your pedophile pride/acceptance/attempt at understanding parade with out me, ok?

It's not pedophile acceptance. It's knowing that it's a fucking drawing made of colors and lines. Somebody shouldn't be drug through the streets or put away for years because they have some drawings.

First of all you (or really the prosecutor in this case) have to prove that was the only thing he had. Secondly I am still not the person that makes that call, so you are going to have to convince someone else.

Personally I am not outright opposed to stuff like lolicon, though it creeps me out. My skeptical nature demands proof that it can suppress these urges and not make it more likely that someone acts on them.

captcha - face the music

Agreed. We don't know all the information here and this is most likely actual child pornography which is a crime. It was just that specific quote from you that kind of bothered me but I apologize if it seems like I'm trying to persecute you here. The whole lolicon argument has just always reminded me of the "Violent videogames" argument.

AzrealMaximillion:

And to the lolicon defenders here.

I personally don't even think lolicon should be acceptable in the slightiest. In my opinion its just as bad a child porn. The point that no children are harmed with lolicon is combated with the reason that such people look at lolicon in the first place. Its for sexual arousal caused by children, and I can't abide by that. There's too much of a slippery slope in lolicon for me to find it ok.

That's my opinion and you're free to disagree, but you have to acknowledge the fact that its still involves a person who is sexually attracted to children.

The problem is, try replacing instances of the word "lolicon" with "violent videogames", or, heck, anything that could be deemed offensive or objectionable.

And to the violent videogame defenders here.

I personally don't even think violent videogames should be acceptable in the slightiest. In my opinion its just as bad as real killing. The point that no people are harmed with violent videogames is combated with the reason that such people play violent videogames in the first place. Its for fun caused by killing, and I can't abide by that. There's too much of a slippery slope in violent videogames for me to find it ok.

That's my opinion and you're free to disagree, but you have to acknowledge the fact that its still involves a person who finds pleasure in killing.

Duncan Belfast:

AzrealMaximillion:

And to the lolicon defenders here.

I personally don't even think lolicon should be acceptable in the slightiest. In my opinion its just as bad a child porn. The point that no children are harmed with lolicon is combated with the reason that such people look at lolicon in the first place. Its for sexual arousal caused by children, and I can't abide by that. There's too much of a slippery slope in lolicon for me to find it ok.

That's my opinion and you're free to disagree, but you have to acknowledge the fact that its still involves a person who is sexually attracted to children.

The problem is, try replacing instances of the word "lolicon" with "violent videogames", or, heck, anything that could be deemed offensive or objectionable.

And to the violent videogame defenders here.

I personally don't even think violent videogames should be acceptable in the slightiest. In my opinion its just as bad as real killing. The point that no people are harmed with violent videogames is combated with the reason that such people play violent videogames in the first place. Its for fun caused by killing, and I can't abide by that. There's too much of a slippery slope in violent videogames for me to find it ok.

That's my opinion and you're free to disagree, but you have to acknowledge the fact that its still involves a person who finds pleasure in killing.

You do realize that all you're point is a perfect example of apples to oranges arguing right?

Violent videogames isn't the same as animated child porn in terms of offence. The former has been scientifically proved to have no endangering effect on people, and the latter is an expression of wanting to have sex with children.

I can't throw those two into the same boat because they are both offensive.

People play violent video games when they get bored. People look at lolicon to get off. Major difference. Lolicon being illegal in Canada makes sense because of the reason it exists.

AzrealMaximillion:

You do realize that all you're point is a perfect example of apples to oranges arguing right?

Not really. All of the arguments you made against lolicon can also be (and have been) applied to videogames.

Violent videogames isn't the same as animated child porn in terms of offence. The former has been scientifically proved to have no endangering effect on people, and the latter is an expression of wanting to have sex with children.

People play violent video games when they get bored. People look at lolicon to get off. Major difference. Lolicon being illegal in Canada makes sense because of the reason it exists.

People play violent videogames for fun, which implies that they find violence fun. Even if they have no endangering effects, playing these games is still an expression of wanting to inflict violence. Violent videogames exist as a means to act out said desire.

I can't throw those two into the same boat because they are both offensive.

I'm not throwing both in the same boat because they are both offensive. I'm throwing them in the same boat because they are both ways of living out socially unacceptable behaviour, and stem from a desire to do so; the former being violent behaviour, and the latter being the sexualization of children.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate to illustrate a point and ask questions:

Why is it okay to live out some socially unacceptable desires in a controlled environment where no one is harmed, but not others?

Why can a person drive through Liberty City gunning down old ladies, and still drive safely in real life, but a person can't look at lolicon without then abducting a child?

Why can people have some fantasies, yet know better than to try and live them out, but not others?

I like how he's being charged with possessing AND accessing child pornography. Presumably if you possess child pornography you must have accessed it at some point.

Anyway, I'm not going to defend OR indict him until I know more.

DugMachine:

Jarimir:

DugMachine:

It's not pedophile acceptance. It's knowing that it's a fucking drawing made of colors and lines. Somebody shouldn't be drug through the streets or put away for years because they have some drawings.

First of all you (or really the prosecutor in this case) have to prove that was the only thing he had. Secondly I am still not the person that makes that call, so you are going to have to convince someone else.

Personally I am not outright opposed to stuff like lolicon, though it creeps me out. My skeptical nature demands proof that it can suppress these urges and not make it more likely that someone acts on them.

captcha - face the music

Agreed. We don't know all the information here and this is most likely actual child pornography which is a crime. It was just that specific quote from you that kind of bothered me but I apologize if it seems like I'm trying to persecute you here. The whole lolicon argument has just always reminded me of the "Violent videogames" argument.

I was trying to show more more sympathy and understanding than most people seem to have when pedophilia is brought up. I do understand that tone and intent aren't always easy to asses over the internet. AQlso, it I s easy to get lost in the emotional response to all or part of an issue.

Many people here seem to be concerned about this guy facing harsh persecution for JUST lolicon. I offer my apologies for not seeming sympathetic to that particular scenario.

I am glad we can find some common ground despite this emotionally charged topic.

If this man was truly involved in the actual abuse of children or the distribution of such abuses, then this is an individual with both a mental and physical problem requires both proper investigation as well as monitoring and psychological evaluation. As for what reasons why would it occur in individuals to perform such acts? Victims of past-child abuse themselves? An unbalanced chemical within the brain? Are we clearly missing a step here in the PREVENTION of child-abuse by going into a mob-like frenzy instead of questioning why the abuses occur in the first place? Are there stages which occur? And if so, what is the best possible early detection to avoid these circumstances? Prevention is the act preventing, not the after-effect after all has been said and done. More than often I believe we as a society push the opposite in our witch-hunt process, rather than getting these type of individuals help for their conditions, we often automatically put them in a forced state of isolation. This I believe results in a many of those who are struggling with these issues with no way of getting proper help end up having to deal with their issues on their own, which can result in isolation and further increase of bad behavior. This does not provide a healthy environment for Recovery and Prevention, but instead enforces the "caged animal" "back against the wall" ideology. In other words, these individuals are less likely to actually seek help for their illness and instead it results in that illness growing to a point that the individual becomes involved in an abuse(either as the partaker, or the actionare). Are there different stages? And what stages are the ones that actually lead to harm of an individual? What about other issues, such as consensual relationships where the younger marries the spouse? What about the Romeo and Juliet Laws? What of the stereotypes that assume that only men can abuse, while there have been cases ranging from relatives to actual mothers abusing children? I think there are many things that we, as a society, have a tendency to "gloss-over" as it doesn't fit this visual of the pre-defined Little Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolf definitions.

If this was an individual who was drawing artwork, making a 3D CGI Model or simply fashioning his work in the cultural artwork inspired from Japan, then I do not support the prosecution of this man. I have read cases through the years of individuals or groups who have hurt children, but in in the case of fiction NO child, absolutely no such children are hurt or harmed by the production of a cartoon or CGI models. While I am full In support against the abuse of children (individuals who kidnap kids, hurt kids, actual involve a victim, etc) I am not in the support of thought-police propaganda against artists or game-developers for creating fictional characters of cartoon drawings or 3D models.

If the clothes of Tera Online can garner in it's censorship of the elin-race in USA, then why are not the same standards applied to Naughty Dog's Last of Us where Ellie is violently stabbed and killed before the viewers and players eyes? Is it because violence is much more acceptable and defined form of entertainment?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zszU6NyKpw (Last of Us Link Here)

If cartoons and 3D models are treated as actual citizens of society, than the same lawships that have been applied to Loli should also be applied equally across the board for any entertainment that involves a 'young' character. Developers who make scenes of children's deaths, the ability of players to kill a child-like character, or the reference of child death should also be examined under the law as potential child-murders, passages of books should be ripped out that even mention scenes of sexuality like SPEAK and authors charged as conspiring CP. Any artist drawing, no matter the founding of religious roots it may have or how old the actual paintings are, should be censored and or promptly destroyed if even an inch of skin is shown. If society is going to examine the issue, then it very well should examine the entirety of it(including tracing it back to its decade roots).

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here