Rapelay virtual rape game banned by Amazon

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

I am protecting anything as long as it doesn't hurt someone or directly harm another. I have defined harm, psychological damage is also included however that is a tricky one.

I'm asking you - once more

define harm

I won't respond as i defined it several pages back, TWICE. You asked and i replied and i'm getting tired of responding to the same question. Go back and read it, thank you.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


you've given us your opinion of what is and isn't harm

your view

so far, your opinion supports your argument for why this falls under the protection of free speech - which is convenient

give me a definition of harm with which we can all agree

give me a definition of harm that would hold up in court

[edit on 2/17/2009 by Spiramirabilis]

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

That is a definition i can agree with as it's from the dictionary however where it says injury you'd have to also put in psychological. However i'm confused, you asked previously what i considered harm is, me personally, now you're changing that to a definition we can all agree on. So i did what you wanted and you painted me as having not done so. Bit confusing but oh well.

EDIt

ACtually scrap the above definition if you wish and take this one.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

A comprehensive term for any wrong or harm done by one individual to another individual's body, rights, reputation, or property. Any interference with an individual's legally protected interest.

A civil injury is any damage done to person or property that is precipitated by a breach of contract, Negligence, or breach of duty. The law of torts provides remedies for injury caused by negligent or intentional acts.

An accidental injury is an injury to the body caused unintentionally. Within the meaning of Workers' Compensation acts, it is an injury occurring in the course of employment.

One who is injured might be able to recover damages against the individual who caused him or her harm, since the law seeks to provide a remedy for every injury.

I left the other definition up there in case you quote me and post before me, just so there is no confusion and so i can't be accused of being dishonest

[edit on 17-2-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


what I'm after is this -

if it can be proven that these games are harmful - it will influence how much of this is protected speech and how much is not

it may or may not get them banned - banning them might not be the final outcome - regulating other aspects of sales and distribution - marketing - these things could be affected

before it ever gets to that point - it will be harder to prove that they don't do harm than that they do - but either way - eventually this is all going to come around to one thing - what is harm?

it' not going to depend on ethics or morality - certainly not opinion

not what you think is or isn't harmful - or what I think - or what whole groups of people think

we - our society, our culture, our institutions - are going to have to come to some sort of agreement as to what is harmful/what is not harmful

and then the argument will move directly into "and then, to what degree is it harmful"

those definitions and decisions are going to be up for grabs - with all different sorts of groups lobbying for different things - for their own reasons

everyone jockeying for a position

and as soon as we have a working definition - it will be contested

never mind will be - has been

this process is never ending

I was asking you for a definition - knowing full well you can't give me what I'm asking for

I can't give you one either - we are both going to have completely different ideas about what harm really is

how many outraged, angry women would you have to hear from before you began to suspect that there was some kind of harm attached to this game?

what could your definition of harm possibly mean to me - besides nothing?

now do you see?

I'd sooner see it go to court and prove itself worthy of being called free speech than have every single person just roll over because it's too hard - and because they don't want anybody to touch our rights

if it deserves to be protected - what is everyone so concerned about? it should be able to stand up to being tested

if the final decision isn't what you believe it should be - you fight to change it

the boys will be boys - this isn't hurting anybody argument is weak

wondering if this really is or is isn't free speech doesn't hurt the system or weaken our rights one bit - it only strengthens it

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


I gave you a legal definition of harm and that isn'ta definition? Whilst i understand what you are getting at i'm afraid it's a pointless point. It probably wouldn't make it to court because it would be thrown out as it would be classed as free speech.

If it made it into court then a judge would no doubt throw it out because, well it's free speech. If a jury decided it would be banned because people act with knee jerk emotion and don't consider the law, that happens an awful lot.

However as stated earlier, My own female friends were disgusted with it but apparently don't believe in a ban (apart from one). So maybe i just surround myself with people who see the importance of free speech, i have no idea.

The problem with what you are suggesting is that as soon as you start dictating what is and isn't harmful to society, when no one is harmed according to a legal definition then you are limiting what people can do within the privacy of their homes. That will, i promise you open flood gates. This case would be referenced by anyone wanting anything banned.

We need more research on violent media. I promise you that if it were found that this game influenced rape rates, causing them to go up then i would be the first person marching to get it banned and i swear that. Because then its's gone from free speech to incitement.

Until then we have to obey the law, as it has been set out and this game is protected under that law.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


the part you're not focusing on is - we have every right in this world to question what is and isn't harmful to society

I've yet to see someone work so hard at not seeing that

this will not hurt free speech

how can questioning it hurt it? is it on such shaky ground as all that?

do you have any idea how many times the issue of free speech has ended up in the courts?

I don't care what your female friends think - they have no bearing on any of this any more than I do - or you do - so entering their opinion as some sort of evidence - is not evidence of anything - it's just more opinion

We need more research on violent media. I promise you that if it were found that this game influenced rape rates, causing them to go up then i would be the first person marching to get it banned and i swear that. Because then its's gone from free speech to incitement.

this only shows me that you're not reading what people write - you're caught up in the arguing

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

the part you're not focusing on is - we have every right in this world to question what is and isn't harmful to society

I've yet to see someone work so hard at not seeing that

this will not hurt free speech

how can questioning it hurt it? is it on such shaky ground as all that?

do you have any idea how many times the issue of free speech has ended up in the courts?

I don't care what your female friends think - they have no bearing on any of this any more than I do - or you do - so entering their opinion as some sort of evidence - is not evidence of anything - it's just more opinion

Have i at ANY point said questioning is wrong? No i havn't so please don't insinuate it. It can of course be questioned because *drum roll* that is part of free speech. To question is also free speech, to take legal action is also part of a free society and a judge or jury would be required to follow the law.

So to say i'm not focusing on people being able to question it is i'm afraid false and nothing more than you imprinting what you think i believe into your responses. I simply stated that according ot current laws it shouldn't be banned. If a ban occurs then we will see more pressure on free speech as it will be setting a precedent.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis

this only shows me that you're not reading what people write - you're caught up in the arguing

Actually i just wanted to point it out to anyone who thinks i'd support this under free speech even if it were causing harm. I did it because of your continuing questions about how far i'm willing to go. So i simply answered those questions. I am reading what you are putting very intently don't worry.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Have i at ANY point said questioning is wrong? No i havn't so please don't insinuate it. It can of course be questioned because *drum roll* that is part of free speech. To question is also free speech, to take legal action is also part of a free society and a judge or jury would be required to follow the law.

thank you - that's all I needed to hear

:-)

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

Have i at ANY point said questioning is wrong? No i havn't so please don't insinuate it. It can of course be questioned because *drum roll* that is part of free speech. To question is also free speech, to take legal action is also part of a free society and a judge or jury would be required to follow the law.

thank you - that's all I needed to hear

:-)

Then why didn't you listen to it 5 pages ago? Seriously man i said it a very long time ago! You would have though that my utter love for free speech would obviously include the right to question anyway. Really wish you had read my responses before where i said it's fine to question it, would have saved pages of debate!

Ahh well Always good to laugh about a misunderstanding

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


no misunderstanding here

going by your argument with me - our conversation - it consisted of you insisting that as disgusting as you found this game to be - it was just free speech, protected - untouchable

even as I repeatedly pointed out that we're free to question anything and everything

you also made several posts insisting that there is no harm involved in any of this at all - and that questioning that would somehow lead us down a slippery slope (of some sort)

insisting that there is nothing in these games that is harmful - while not really demonstrating that that was at all provable with anything other than your opinion

even as I repeatedly suggested that free speech would not be harmed by putting it to the test

you can't have it both ways

I didn't misunderstand

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

no misunderstanding here

going by your argument with me - our conversation - it consisted of you insisting that as disgusting as you found this game to be - it was just free speech, protected - untouchable

even as I repeatedly pointed out that we're free to question anything and everything

you also made several posts insisting that there is no harm involved in any of this at all - and that questioning that would somehow lead us down a slippery slope (of some sort)

insisting that there is nothing in these games that is harmful - while not really demonstrating that that was at all provable with anything other than your opinion

even as I repeatedly suggested that free speech would not be harmed by putting it to the test

you can't have it both ways

I didn't misunderstand

Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that one i guess. Well it's talked to death and it was fun at least. See you around the boards.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


I would agree to disagree if we were fighting about which is better - cherry or raspberry slurpees

but we're not - this isn't a fun subject or a lighthearted debate - not for me

didn't do this one for fun

but I am willing to let it go for now - since neither of us really has anything left to say

so, see you around...

:-)

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


I meant agree to disagree on what we believe to have happened in regards to what i think is a misunderstanding, not the topic itself. Well look better to end on a positive, frinedly note right? Anyway always good to find another quality debater on the board instead of back and fourth insults!

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Well look better to end on a positive, frinedly note right?

Anyway always good to find another quality debater on the board instead of back and fourth insults!

absolutely - on both

:-)

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Again talking about kids. Not sure if the college students are american or UK based as their ages are different. It is pretty well established that the brain continues to form into the 20's so maybe a ban on violent media until after than is a good idea?

What i find very interesting is this man, Anderson seems to have written for journals on adolescent responses to video games and other violent media an awful lot. Adolescents shouldn't be playing these games and that goes back to my original argument.

College students are generally speaking, 18 and over. In both the UK and the US, this is considered "adult" for most purposes. And yes, there is significant research that shows that frontal lobe development is not complete until the early twenties. Changing the laws to reflect science regarding adulthood is not a bad idea. However, that is not what many here are arguing. They are saying "kids" shouldnt be allowed to play these games and it should be all up to the parents. Apparently, these games have impacts on young adults whose parents could not prevent them buying and playing them if they wanted to.

And yes, Anderson has written quite a bit on the subject. For good reason. He is not a right wing or liberal blogger, or some such, he is a well respected expert in the field of aggression, and a fellow of the American Psychology Association.

www.apa.org...

Craig A. Anderson received his PhD in psychology from Stanford University in 1980. He has been a faculty member at Rice University (1980-1988), Ohio State University (visiting,1984-1985), and the University of Missouri-Columbia (1988-1999). He joined Iowa State University in 1999 as Professor and Chair of the Department of Psychology. He has received teaching awards at both the graduate and undergraduate levels, and has been awarded "Fellow" status by the American Psychological Society and the American Psychological Association. He is currently on the Executive Council of the International Society for Research on Aggression. His research on attribution theory, depression, social judgment, covariation detection, biases, and human aggression has been published in top social, personality, and cognitive, journals. His recent focus on violent video games has led to U.S. Senate testimony, addresses to and consultations with numerous scientific, governmental, and public policy groups worldwide, public policy research awards, and articles and stories in top science news outlets. His published works can be found at his web site.

For your external material, please place a link back to your source. Just a technical detail, but an important one. Who funds the studies is an important consideration. Studies funded by industry tend to support industries desired conclusions. Ie; smoking and cancer, many other substances and cancer, global warming studies done by DuPont, etc. And often these studies stand apart from the less biased work done by other scientists not on a company payroll.

Dont forget at a Senate hearing you have input from both scientists, psychologists and the like, as well as hired guns from industry. Of course the view those in politics are going to hear is a mixed one. Here the more independent science, ( who have no need for a specific conclusion either way) are saying "yes, it does affect people. And not only those already prone to violence."

Although, considering what you yourself posted, that violent games in the hands of people prone to violence has been shown to have a stronger effect. How does that argue for or against what many, (though perhaps not yourself) are arguing about these games giving pedophiles and others an outlet to help them not offend? Wouldnt the studies you are describing seem to indicate that those are specifically the people MOST likely to be impacted negatively by these sorts of games? It seems to me those studies would seem to indicate that those already predisposed to violence are the very ones you would NOT want playing games of this sort.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
If we look at cases where violent offenders blame it on a game, we tend to find past behavioral problems. I'm not aware of a large scale study on that and if there is one i'd be very happy to read it. However reading news stories this does tend to be the case. Aggressive person gets obsessed with an aggressive game and then people blame the game.

How does this argue that these kinds of games in the hands of people already inclined towards pedophilia or rape is a good thing, or desirable at
all?

Besides, the APA's position is not that ONLY the already violent are affected by media violence.

www.apa.org...

Even nonaggressive individuals are consistently affected by brief exposures. Further research will likely find some significant moderators of violent video game effects, because the much larger research literature on television violence has found such effects and the underlying processes are the same. However, even that larger literature has not identified a sizeable population that is totally immune to negative effects of media violence.

And finally,

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
It comes down to whether you believe the majority or minority.

en.wikipedia.org...

In statistics, a meta-analysis combines the results of several studies that address a set of related research hypotheses. This is normally done by identification of a common measure of effect size, which is modelled using a form of meta-regression. Resulting overall averages when controlling for study characteristics can be considered meta-effect sizes, which are more powerful estimates of the true effect size than those derived in a single study under a given single set of assumptions and conditions.

Meta analysis, such as that used by the APA to draw their conclusions, takes into account MANY studies. Not one one, or a few. It is the "majority speaking" not the minority. If by majority speaking you mean the very media outlets that are distributing and profiting from violent media have to agree in great numbers that their products cause harm, then none of us better hold our breath. Because that just isnt going to happen, is it?

Which is why I directed your attention to the military using violent games to train soldiers, and saying how much easier their jobs have become since this sort of game has become available. And why I pointed out that advertisers spend BILLIONS of dollars to inundate consumers with ads, images, and messages. Media does influence behavior. And if you cant believe what comes out of the mouths of industry, then look at their actions. Their actions betray that they know damn well that media does influence people.

And when you put together the actions of industry, and the words of the APA, you get consistency, do you not? You get a consistent argument that media does in fact influence behavior.

I would call that an overwhelming majority vote. Industry, including the military and government propagandists simply vote with dollars, not verbal agreement. Of course they are going to preserve the illusion that your actions are free, thats how they make their money.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by eNumbra

 

Pixels don't feel pain, or fear, or any emotions at all.

unfortunately you're not required to try harder than this

but seriously - if you're going to make an argument for free speech and in defense of these games - don't you think you should try a little harder?

Unless I'm arguing against the fact that some people seem to think these games cause pain and suffering.

Free speech is free speech, and at least here in America it is a guaranteed right of all citizens. As long as it doesn't cause harm like say, yelling fire in a theater, then there is nothing wrong with it.

It looks like all we have to do is wait for the graphics in these games to come up a couple notches and they are already illegal.

www.aftab.com...

The challenged provisions had been added in The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 to address the growing problem of virtual child pornography. They specifically prohibited visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct where "such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" and also prohibited anyone from advertising, promoting, presenting, describing, or distributing visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct in a manner that "conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."

When they were added, Congress noted that new technologies "make it possible to produce by electronic, mechanical, or other means, visual depictions of what appear to be children engaging in sexually explicit conduct that are virtually indistinguishable to the unsuspecting viewer from unretouched photographic images of actual children engaging in sexually explicit conduct." The Senate emphasized that computers could now alter sexually explicit images so that it becomes impossible to detect if the images were created using actual children.

Though I would be equally satisfied if the purchasers and distributers of such games were required to register with the state. After all, in many states gun owners are required to do so, and thats a Constitutionally guaranteed freedom as well. You have to register your car, lots of things. That would be one way for society to show its strong disapproval without an outright ban.

Edit to add; And, it would help provide data for studies of how these sorts of games do impact behavior.


[edit on 17-2-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]

seem to me like more proof that humans have run out of things to shock themselves with in order to feel alive and have now resorted to things like this. i think its sad that people defend games and actions of this sort. how dare some people ask why god would allow such evil to exist in the world if we as humans dont care about our own spiritual development. every day its more of the same, i think its time to build those survival shelters the collapse of the Uncivilized world is close at hand. and it wont be by nature or god but by our very own hands.

reply to post by eNumbra


you want to argue that no one gets hurt - go ahead

but this, to me, is a serious topic - we're not talking about the abuse of cartoons

I might as well add -

what we're talking about here is rape

rape - rape, rape, rape

you think it's fun - fine

you want to argue no one gets hurt - OK - maybe, maybe not

have you been following the discussion at all?

freedom of speech has pretty much gotten a fair shake from everyone involved in this thread - including myself

you want to argue about pixels - argue with someone else - I'm expecting you to come up with better than that

[edit on 2/17/2009 by Spiramirabilis]

reply to post by eNumbra


here's a serious question for you -

Free speech is free speech, and at least here in America it is a guaranteed right of all citizens. As long as it doesn't cause harm like say, yelling fire in a theater, then there is nothing wrong with it.

what happens when you yell fire in a theater?

go ahead - think about it a little bit...