*Your completely true consern isn't a matter of if - it's a matter of ---where.

And of --when of course, I remember  years ago in the 60's there was an advertisement for sunoil company with a drawing of a nice little girl on a beach which panties were pulled down by a cute little naughty dog, exposing her bare white bottoms. I think it was a funny picture, but if in those days the girl was replaced by an adult women, the company would have been accused of making pornography. Today no-one would raise an eyebrow (in the western world) if this advertisement was with an adult women, even if she was topless. But it would be impossible to make it with the little girl.
I don't say there wasn't child abuse in the 50's or 60's, every child (I was one of them) was warned not to go with adult men (!) or take candy from a stranger. But no-one spoke about it and when you asked why, the answer was avoided, because you didn't talk about sex.
Since the sexual revolution in the sixties, people speak  more freely about sex and I think that's a good thing, because sex itself isn't bad. But that revolution also revealed the most darkest and perverted side: the child abuse.
Personally I think that you don't understand the full impact of it as you don't have children of your own. I would castrate the (censored) who touched one of my daugthers with my own bare hands, and I would poke his eyes out if you would have taken pictures of them naked.
But if he would get his kicks of a drawn fantasy, or a poser rendering, I wouldn't care a bit as long as he keeps his hands off my and other peoples children.

regards,

Bopper.

Quote - The defendant does have a legal defence if the material has 'serious literary and artistic value', a determination that can only be made by the jury.

So, hands up all those who think that depictions of children being raped by animals has 'serious literary and artistic value'?

Ask the brothers grimm....nothing artistic there.

I know this will not sit well with a lot of people but personally I think a reasonable amount of time for a person to get reimbursed for the one single idea should be 20 years.  It is stupid that we cannot sing Happy Birthday in a public place unless we pay a family 4 generations removed for the use of it..

It should be enough to recoup, make a profit, and get the atta boys in that much time..  Then it should be a gift to humanity.  That way every bright person could improve on it and we would go into the future by leaps and bounds.

Sorry for my two cents worth, but, the way everything is now we should pay some cave man every time we cook a hot dog for the fire................................

Impressions, methinks you didn't read the thread at all. This has nothing to do with copyright whatsoever.

folks don't like to talk about culture wars here in america acting as if it's just a media creation or something

but that's exactly whats going on.  the (no offense meant to the nice, forgiving, understanding, loving christians) christian warriors who have taken over this state over the last 15 years are desperate in their waning days to take as much victory as they can, to push the line as far as they can in their favor so that their replacements have lost ground.  a lot like football you know.

i saw on a documentary about cults where a psychologist warned that cult leaders control their followers sexuality, because there is no deeper device they can use to bring them into line.  i almost choked, because this is exactly what we do here in the us.  ok, so they have lost a whole lot in the realm of homosexuality (which is the true evil for them...after all no admonition against children in the bible, just same sex) but they still fight the good fight. 

it doesn't matter what you think the depiction is.  the soldiers see sex in it.  they see sex pretty much everywhere they look.  they would outlaw abortion (for the children) then the pill (can cause abortion (for the children)) then divorce (for the children of course)  and lets not forget how homosexuals taint our children with perversion and lead them down paths to their houses.

if they had their way our females in the us would be wearing their own versions of that arabic dress their females had to wear, very much media would be outlawed. 

if you want to play devil's advocate try this:

in some conservative arabic societies music, dress, fraternization, etc, can get you stoned to death.  we whine about their human rights here in the us.  but they have religious soldiers controlling their country.  their reasons for their actions are at least twofold.  one, they are actually saving the people around the person they stone to death, and possibly that person themselves.  they are saving their souls.  anything is preferable to losing your soul, right?  to a believer religious soldier, this is the ultimate matter, and everything else must come second. 
things that cause a person to feel sensual take the person's attention from contemplating god.  by eliminating distractions they save your soul.
the second reason of course is control.  an obediant populace is....well i'm not sure what advantages that has, other than i guess to retain power. 
our christian soldiers (again, no offense to the nicer ones) have the same motivation.

anyway the first amendment was about the marketplace of ideas, lassez-faire capitalism in ideas and language.  but the more rules you impose about what ideas can and can't be examined in the marketplace the less inovation the marketplace will have.  the marketplace will become poorer.

believe me, this guy and this case means nothing to any of us of course.  but our own creations will be judged next. 

lets not forget the attorney general from missouri under bush, and also the governer of utah that ran for president, Mitt Romney, spent a lot of time talking about outlawing all pornography.  all of it.  and they also would of course redefine it.  that missouri guy said that mtv was pornographic.  they are not alone.  this stuff still plays very very well with their constituents.  if Mitt Romney won the presidency, 3/4 of us here at renderosity would be up the creek.

so which side of the football field are you on?

Well I guess for once I have to agree and disagree with almost everyone.

If that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, let me just say that, having accidentally seen a "questionable" manga cartoon a time or three over the years, they just don't look anything like kids to me. They don't even look remotely human to me. They don't even look like pornography or erotica. They look like insane, silly cartoons.

So, personally, I wouldn't think such silliness could be harmful to anyone, but as we've become such an insane, silly country, run by such insane, silly people, I guess it all does kinda make a kind of insane, silly sense.

Er, wait a sec. Or maybe not.

dork, what you've said about the aquisition of power can be applied to the other side as well.  As you have said some christians are trying to push their beliefs on the people keep power, the other side is trying to do the same thing with different beliefs.

Anyways it isn't always about Christianity it's about gaining and keeping power for both sides (more or less).  In places like Iran, it isn't about Islam it is about using Islam to control the population.

You mentioned abortion.  Some would say it is a woman's choice because it is her body thus being a part of her body she can do what she wishes with it.  Others would say if you replace unborn babies with blacks and "my body" with "my property" you have a modern analog to slavery meaning you have a group of people being denied their human rights because another group claims to possess them in some manner.  So it's not necessarily a Christian-only thing that makes people pro-life nor is it a power thing; for some people it is a humanitarian issue.

And as I said earlier if anyone has a problem with the law, take it up with your repersentatives.  The less active you are, the less right you have to complain.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

-Martin Niemöller

Cautionary tales by the Bros Grimm have long had literary and artistic value. They're stories that represent a hundred cultures, the results of the Grimm's collecting them from every source they could.

But the literary or artistic merit of an image of a sorta-maybe-kinda "child" with enormous breasts being raped by some kind of hyper-sexed animal monster? Hmm. I think the jury might still be out on that one.Not saying the image doesnt have any, mind you... but would someone like to tell me what it might be so I can make an informed decision? As far as I can see, it has everything to do with the typical Japanese attraction for the weird and strange, which aint exactly literary or artistic for that matter. But if there's some cultural context here I'm missing, I'd like to know what it is.

Quote - But if there's some cultural context here I'm missing, I'd like to know what it is.

I'm not sure if it is a cultural thing, to be honest.  From an author's perspective, I'm not sure their motivation from an artistic perspective is any different than some of the ways I've killed off my plucky bit characters - "You know, it would be fun to ...".

 I mean, I'm pretty sure most of the people here would skip the 3/4 page description of how one of them feels and dies after having a form of liquid thermite injected into their vein - but at the same time, that scene is one of the more popular ones I've come up with.

At the end of the day, whatever the motivations for creating the artwork, it might just boil down to "there's a market for it".  I don't know if anyone's done research into the motivations of that market, and if there's any connection between it and child abuse in "real life".

It also raises a question - should artists be held responsible for what people do because of the art they create?  That's a really risky extension of responsibility.

>> It also raises a question - should artists be held responsible for what people do because of the art they create?  That's a really risky extension of responsibility.

Well, at the risk of setting off a firestorm, I'd say that artists need to be held responsible for what they create.

Okay, hang on a sec -- let me get the asbestos suit out... Hmm. Doesnt fit as well, guess the diet must be working.

Look, we talk a lot about what's "art", and the egalitarian among us want to include every little squibble in that category -- and if it sounds elitist, screw it, but no, there are some things out there that are not art. We can pretend all we wish, but I think the "artist" in this case would have a really tough time defending his/her work as "artistic" if it's done strictly for the sake of sensationalism or prurience. An image of child abuse that strikes an emotional chord that makes you want to do something about the problem is one thing, but to simply put one up there is -- and excuse me for being crude here -- like masturbating in public. Makes the "artist" feel real good, I'm sure, but it's not something I'd like to see in the middle of Main Street.

Yes, I know, I know, this invokes the "slippery slope" argument and everyone's gonna be offended by something somewhere. But I think (or at least I hope) that child abuse is one of those issues that crosses all lines, liberal and conservative alike, just like snuff films or videos of pointless exercises in animal cruelty. There are some things that simply cannot be justified, no matter how hard you try. And IMHO it's not art, no matter how well it's drawn.

Now, having said that, I'm of two minds on this, TTTT. If the "art" is kept to an audience that (for whatever bewildering reason) appreciates it and uses it as some kind of moral and emotional pressure valve to keep them from doing the real thing, then huzzah and hurray and keep it coming. At the same time, a gratuitous image of child abuse for its own sake has no place in a civilized society. None. This is one of those rare instances where I actually agree with doing something "for the children", that otherwise hoary line politicians use when they cant justify things any other way.

It's not an easy issue, and yeah, the cops took advantage of an easy arrest. The fact that the guy bought it is minor. The motivation behind both the vendor and the purchaser is something worth far more investigation.

Quote - Well, at the risk of setting off a firestorm, I'd say that artists need to be held responsible for what they create.

Hmm. Maybe. But held responsible for exactly what and exactly by whom?

It's been said Hitler's Nazis used Nietzsche as a springboard for some of their ideas ...

Certain killers, etc., have said they got the ideas for their crimes from some movie or novel.

Is an artist responsible for how his or her art is interpreted, or for what it inspires in dark hearts? Is a philosopher? A writer?

I guess I just think child abuse is child abuse, not cartoon abuse. When you talk about snuff films and pointless exercises in animal cruelty, you are talking about behavior that victimizes an actual living person or creature.

On the other hand, when you're talking about stupid cartoons ...

How about let's hear from the victims then? Okay, all you goofy cartoons out there, let's hear from you about how this sort of thing traumatizes you.

Well, whatever. I guess that last comment's a bit condescending, and I don't exactly mean to be. It is a difficult issue, and smart, well-meaning people can disagree. But I guess I just don't understand how toons have anything to do with anything. If toons are capable of causing bad behavior, why are we not all going around and hitting each other on the head with giant anvils all the time? Or walking off cliffs?

And even if someone can prove that toons are causing bad behavior in some tiny subset of idiots, does that mean everyone else should be banned from viewing them? What if it's also proven to be true of novels, movies, songs, short stories, poetry, philosophy, religious texts, etc., etc. ?

Hmm. Maybe we'd just better be on the safe side and eliminate everything, including all but the most superficial of thoughts, which seems to be the way our society is headed in any case.

Don, some librarys in the US have banned the Bible because of some "content".  The states and congress are doing everything they can to keep kids from buying an M rated game because they think pixelated violence causes crime.  Some people blame rap music for some of the problems of black youth here in the US.  On drudge a few months ago, I saw a story about someone killing others based on a scene they saw in a movie.  So banning child-rape drawings are in line with what's going on.

>> On the other hand, when you're talking about stupid cartoons

And there's the key word right there: stupid.

What is the purpose or point of a cartoon that shows gratuitous child abuse? What possible reason could it have just to exist?

That's a serious question, BTW.

I read once that in japan, there are a few anime/manga makers who just like to push the boundries of sex and violence to see what they can get away with.  In other words, it's sex, violence, and rape all for the sake of producing sex, violence, and rape.  I think the answer is that it exists because it can exist.

So it's sort of like what South Park would be like if they didn't have the FCC to hold them back.

BTW, not all people who do anime and manga push the boundries, some are family friendly.

"some librarys in the US have banned the Bible because of some "content"."

where?

Dredge is not the most unbias reporting source. On occasion it ranks right up there with Rush Limbaugh and Bill Orielly

winter i realize that the other side is indeed pushing it's values on the public.  but these are not values that insist you view one thing or another.  there's a huge difference between pushing laws that allow people freedom to choose what they view, and laws that tell them they can't view specific things.  one side empowers people and society the right, but does not mandate it, to engage in discussion.  the other side throws people in jail for discussion.  that's why defending liberal values is so hard really, there are a zillion little wars going on against specific things with people saying, "come on...it's _____ what responsible person can defend that?"  and the ball moves in their favor further and further.

o yeah and i distinctly remember butters getting it in his bum quite graphically in the episode where he thinks cartman is a ghost (hilarious episode, and i love the friendship they develop in it.)  under these kinds of laws, south park is next.

and sean i must assert that every little squiggle IS art.  art is the eye of the beholder.  anything my kid makes is beautiful.  not just beautiful, but actually technically interesting in where his ideas and techniques come from and how they develop.

but the art idea is in my opinion just a distraction from the central issue, a way to denigrate and ridicule the publication in question, so as to win emotional support for their side.  the founders did not mention freedom of speech as long as it is artistic.  they just said freedom of speech, publication, etc, period.  they published anonymously their treasonous pamphlets before the republic was born, which the crown surely saw as propaganda.  they had to hide to defend their lives.

(of course the part that gets me is, these guys pass this bill of rights, and then john adams has thomas jefferson thrown in jail for disagreeing with him when jefferson was his vice president.  right from the absolute start, we in this country have been subverting our own contract with our government.  the kicker of it is, they were best friends!  isn't that crazy?  and he sat in jail for some peroid of time.)

the whole "fire in a crowded theater" decision is the one of the worst court rulings in history.  after all, how can you go to war if you don't yell fire?  remember the runup to iraq.  fire fire. but that is why the court decided that way.  quiet the rabble.  the populace must obey.  the leaders can do what they want.

Geoegress, I can't find a good source to back myself up, so the point is retracted unless I can find something soild. 

Yes Drudge is a right winger, but I can't stand the left-wing media anymore.  IMO they are fully behind Obama yet some of them keep claiming to be fair journalists.   I mean if McCain fought as hard as Obama did to keep the votes in two states from counting, do you think the traditional media sources would have allowed us to forget it?  If McCain gave 800,000 from his campaign to a group that is being investigated for voter fraud in at least 11 states, don't you think it would have gotten a little more attention?  These two things are important issues, yet they seem to be swept under the rug.  Speaking of Obama attempting to ban florida's vote, if anyone from my state votes for him, in my opinion they will lose any right to complain about their votes not counting in the future.  The fact that McCain doesn't have the balls to swift-boat Obama on that issue down here and up in michigan just shows me how he'll be nearly as bad as Obama.

Frankly, I don't want either one to win but I'm forced to pick between someone who doesn't really want the presidency and someone who wants it too much and will abuse it a lot.

dorkmcgork, you mention one side empowering discussion but I don't really see it.  The right side says things like life begins at conception and refuses to budge from that.  The left side says there is man-made global warming and we are all going to die from it in 20 years and that the discussion is over.

That does kind of tend to say quite a lot about the idea of anything being judged by a purely subjective standard :)

geoegress, is that render you did called "eye candy" still up on that site where you were
a mod?  I recall that caused quite a controversy due to the apparent age of the poser figures.

Quote - What is the purpose or point of a cartoon that shows gratuitous child abuse? What possible reason could it have just to exist?

That's a serious question, BTW.

Though I can't recall having ever seen an actual child that looked very much like a manga cartoon, I'm not going to defend its right to exist. What is the right of you just to exist? Or me? While I believe I do understand why you take offense, if you're claiming there actually needs to be a reason for something, anything, "just to exist," jeez, is that going to open up a can of worms ... !

As for other, and admittedly very serious, considerations, the notion that any sort of crime or urge can be effectively prevented, or even curtailed, by controlling media I just consider a bit wrong-headed. I understand the impulse of course. It's there, it's in your face, it's obvious, it's a simple explanation, but if media are the problem, how do we explain most of history, in which socially-sanctioned murder and underage incest, just for examples, were often greater than in modern times, and in which media often played an almost nonexistent role?

Just because some people will abuse their freedoms doesn't necessarily mean the solution is to take everyone's freedoms away. Solutions, while at times needed, nearly always bring with them a new and often equally bad, or worse, set of problems. Folks generally have to choose which set of problems they are more or less willing to live with. It is the nature of the human dilemma that there are no perfect answers, nor final solutions. That's just the human condition.

Just my 2 cents of course, but for anyone who wants to live in a society that allows them any sense of personal freedom for themselves, I can't help but wonder if maybe part of the price is having to deal with the reality that a few nuts and sickos will sometimes abuse those same freedoms and behave badly? And when they do, by golly let's punish them but good. But how about let's be a little bit reluctant to punish them for their thoughts and expressions, and far more readily for their actual behavior?

winter, the constitution doesn't promise anyone the right to not be criticized for their views.  in fact, it pretty much guarantees that you will be harassed for your views.  that's freedom of speech.  hell, science itself relies on wide open free speech and review as the most invaluable way of discovering the universe.
what the constitution does promise is that you won't go to jail for those views.

>> I can't help but wonder if maybe part of the price is having to deal with the reality that a few nuts and sickos will sometimes abuse those same freedoms and behave badly

You're right, of course. I guess I just get tired of all the attempts at showig just how sick a species we can be. I never understood, for example, the fascination with slasher films: they just seem... well, "silly" doesnt even begin to describe it. Beyond silly, I suppose. But those I can accept because they usually involve the removal of the dumbest of the herd from the gene pool (HEY, LADY, DONT WALK IN THERE, OKAY? NO, I MEAN IT, DONT WALK IN THERE! TRUST ME, YOU DONT WANNA -- oh well...).

But child abuse? And then mixed with bestiality? I simply cannot fathom the mindset, not one whit. That is just too out there, far beyond my comfort zone -- and that's spoken as someone who hung out with the hardcore SM crowd on Folsom Street for over a decade. Never participated, because it wasnt my thing, but I always appreciated the fact that these guys seemed to have their heads screwed on a little more tightly than most of us because they seemed to have come to some kind of acceptance of who and what they were/are/continue to be.

But this? No way, Jack. Yikes.

Quote - Cautionary tales by the Bros Grimm have long had literary and artistic value. They're stories that represent a hundred cultures, the results of the Grimm's collecting them from every source they could.

But the literary or artistic merit of an image of a sorta-maybe-kinda "child" with enormous breasts being raped by some kind of hyper-sexed animal monster? Hmm. I think the jury might still be out on that one.Not saying the image doesnt have any, mind you... but would someone like to tell me what it might be so I can make an informed decision? As far as I can see, it has everything to do with the typical Japanese attraction for the weird and strange, which aint exactly literary or artistic for that matter. But if there's some cultural context here I'm missing, I'd like to know what it is.

What gives them literary value? Because they are old? Because they are bits and pieces of other cultural tales?  Because some "intellectual" declared them great? Because somewhere in there is a moral? Do we truly know that the Brothers Grimm weren't "getting off" on what they wrote? If they were...does that make their stories porn?

"Literary merit" is usually a term used by pseudo intellectuals who want everyone to believe that everything they do has some higher intellectual purpose. Have we forgotten that stories and artwork are meant to entertain, make us think, explore concepts and ideas that are far away from the reality we live every day? Not every great work that sits in a museum is the product of the artist's attempt to bring "literary/artistic value" to the world. That does not keep it from being great.

You can use the phrase "children being raped by animals" all you want. Those are hot button words designed to evoke a response. We are supposed to be horrified and disgusted by them. If you aren't disgusted by it then aren't you just a child rapist...or at least that's the subtle implication. It's a great way to sneak censorship by the masses, most people are too busy reacting (or pretending to) to the horror of it to realize they are signing away their freedom of expression. Child abuse is a horrific thing, but  real child abuse has nothing to do with an image, a story or a comic book. 

http://www.stevencscheer.com/bannedbooks.htm

Quote - Cautionary tales by the Bros Grimm have long had literary and artistic value. They're stories that represent a hundred cultures, the results of the Grimm's collecting them from every source they could.

If Lewis Carroll -- the writer of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, etc. -- were alive today: he'd be in jail.  Among other things, he liked to take pictures of little girls in the nude, etc..  He considered the young ones to be his "special friends", and he appeared to have no interest in romantic relationships with adult women.

So, yes -- it's entirely possible that certain "great works" of classical literature were penned by vile men.  Artistic talent -- along with other inherent personal traits such as a high IQ or a large dose of highly attractive & charming, Smilin' Jack charisma (à la Ted Bundy)  -- can exist side-by-side with the depths of the blackest evil in the same person.

I recall the (true) story of a convicted violent rapist who later heroically saved the life of a child from drowning -- at great personal risk to his own life.  Human beings are filled with such internal contradictions of character.  It's the way that we are as a race.

BTW - none of what's going on right now is new in any sense.  Today's popular amorality has been tried before -- many times.  Usually shortly before a formerly great civilization collapses into chaos.

It's a good sign that we're in the late afternoon, historically speaking.  Perhaps even at dusk.

People that collect that stuff end up acting it out with real kids.  Better to lock up the perv.

Well, this has been a VERY interesting debate. I have learned a thing or two about people, and perception here. I have enjoyed some view points, and been enraged by a few as well.

I'll keep my opinion to myself because I simply have nothing to say that hasn't already been said.

I just want you all to know that I have really enjoyed reading this thread. It probably doesn't matter, but in attempting to get to know my peers on Renderosity topics like this are incredibly helpful.

It's good to know that such healthy, and informative discussions happen here. I've never truly explored the forums here, but plan to be more active now that I know such interesting discussions take place.

Thanks!
Anicee

Quote - I guess I just get tired of all the attempts at showing just how sick a species we can be.

We are certainly in agreement there. I would prefer such things, slasher films included, did not exist. Actually, I would prefer a whole lot of other things didn't exist either. But I don't believe my own sensibility should be the only measure by which all matters should be judged, and frankly, the world would be a much less interesting place if it were.

And I'm all for holding the right people responsible. I'm not even sure I have a problem with punishing collectors or traders or whatever ...

But artists?

I guess, in a society in which an active member of congress (currently somewhat in the news) once wanted to ban the Disney movie, Aladdin, on the basis that she thought it encouraged paganism, and who more recently suggested her political rivals should be investigated for being un-American in their views (when having any point of view whatosever is by definition American, since that is what the US is supposedly about, and when doing not much more than the bidding of international financial and business interests -- which most members of congress have been guilty of of late -- could possibly be construed as being as un-American as anything else), I am just very concerned about where all this intolerance for ideas, for expression, artistic and otherwise, could lead.

And as for Xeno's comment about "popular amorality" having been tried before, when he is right, he is right. As I recall, Lot slept with his daughters, and the Bible makes it clear that God considered Lot to be a righteous man ...

Quote - And as for Xeno's comment about "popular amorality" having been tried before, when he is right, he is right. As I recall, Lot slept with his daughters, and the Bible makes it clear that God considered Lot to be a righteous man ...

I don't quite follow your intended connection here -- a more appropriate metaphor would derive from the fate of the Vale of Siddim -- from which Lot and his daughters had escaped.  BTW - Lot was essentially drugged by his daughters.  At the time, he was unaware of what was happening to him.  In other words: the result wasn't from a voluntary act on Lot's part.  And as for the daughter's part: at the time, they'd just witnessed the total destruction of what, to them, was the entire world.  After which they found themselves living alone in a desolate cave in the wilderness.  So the girls most likely actually believed that they were doing something good.....perhaps even (so they thought) necessary.  So it all follows.

But once again:  the story of Lot and his daughters vs. the effects of current "popular amorality" ties in to the cultural debate in ways that I doubt that you'd anticipate in advance -- or likely appreciate.

It might make a bit more sense to discuss the fates of ancient civilizations such as Greece and Rome.  Or, if you'd prefer more modern examples: we can discuss the culture of Europe just prior to WWII.  It's quite instructive.  Even without Lot and his daughters being involved.

Quote - I don't quite follow your intended connection here -- a more appropriate metaphor would derive from the fate of the Vale of Siddim -- from which Lot and his daughters had escaped.  BTW - Lot was essentially drugged by his daughters.  At the time, he was unaware of what was happening to him.  In other words: the result wasn't from a voluntary act on Lot's part.  And as for the daughter's part: at the time, they'd just witnessed the total destruction of what, to them, was the entire world.  After which they found themselves living alone in a desolate cave in the wilderness.  So the girls most likely actually believed that they were doing something good.....perhaps even (so they thought) necessary.  So it all follows.

But once again:  the story of Lot and his daughters vs. the effects of current "popular amorality" ties in to the cultural debate in ways that I doubt that you'd anticipate in advance -- or likely appreciate.

Xeno, actually I do appreciate. I especially always do so appreciate your condescending presumptions about my lack of sophistication and understanding. I suspect various others you've debated with appreciate it, too.

My point in bringing up Lot, if you are truly interested, was simply an illustration, i.e., that considerable amorality has always existed, since the beginning of time, in every civilization, both when they were up and when they were down. Sometimes it was largely swept under the rug by the powers that were, and sometimes not so much. If you don't know that, your understanding of history is not as comprehensive as you sometimes imply. That we hear and care so much about such behavior these days is very likely and almost entirely due to the ubiquity of, and universality of, and sensationalistic nature of, our mass media, and a much increased sensitivity to these sorts of issues in recent years, and very likely not much else.

Quote - BTW - Lot was essentially drugged by his daughters.  At the time, he was unaware of what was happening to him.  In other words: the result wasn't from a voluntary act on Lot's part.

How it is possible to be so drunk that you don't know you are in bed with your daughters and yet not so drunk that you can't perform sexually, I don't know, but perhaps so. But on the other hand, the Bible was written by men, and pretty much in defense of men running and ruling everything, and don't men almost always make such claims? In any case, 100% true or no, just try that defense in a modern-day court and see how far it gets you ...

Quote - How it is possible to be so drunk that you don't know you are in bed with your daughters and yet not so drunk that you can't perform sexually, I don't know, but perhaps so. But on the other hand, the Bible was written by men, and pretty much in defense of men running and ruling everything, and don't men almost always make such claims? In any case, 100% true or no, just try that defense in a modern-day court and see how far it gets you ...

This thing about Lot & his daughters is an interesting sideshow, I suppose.  It's about like injecting a subject such as whether or not Shakespeare actually wrote the works which are attributed to him into the middle of a debate over tax policies.    But we all have our little hobby horses that we just can't resist inserting into things, I suppose.

Quote - My point in bringing up Lot, if you are truly interested, was simply an illustration, i.e., that considerable amorality has always existed

Good observation.  On a sunny day, the sky is normally blue, too.

The point isn't that "amorality has always existed".  That's a given.  The point is its infusion into popular culture in such a way as to spread its toxicity throughout the culture's various layers.  To the point where people begin to insist that black is white and that white is black.......and that the only "true color" (assuming that one is allowed to use an objective term such as "true") is to be found in shades of gray.

Quote - As I recall, Lot slept with his daughters, and the Bible makes it clear that God considered Lot to be a righteous man ...

Someone does not know the Bible or the history of that time.

Quote - Someone does not know the Bible or the history of that time.

Perhaps. But it's not exactly me.

God and Abraham debate about whether anyone righteous lives down in Sodom. God sends angels. Lot, the implication being that he is righteous in God's eyes, is spared. Lot sleeps with his daughters.

Genesis, Chapters 18 and 19, especially Chapter 19, Verses 30-38.

People validate their vices just as they pick verses from the Bible without their context.

Quote - The point isn't that "amorality has always existed".  That's a given.  The point is its infusion into popular culture in such a way as to spread its toxicity throughout the culture's various layers.  To the point where people begin to insist that black is white and that white is black.......and that the only "true color" (assuming that one is allowed to use an objective term such as "true") is to be found in shades of gray.

That may very well be the point, and though I am nearly certain we would strongly disagree about what type of people are most frequently insisting black is white and white is black these days, what exactly do you mean by the term "popular culture?"

In the modern sense of that term, popular culture is a fairly recent phenomenon.

And are you suggesting that societies in which amorality is reserved for the elite are somehow superior? Or that such societies do not also, and just as often, collapse?

Quote - People validate their vices just as they pick verses from the Bible without their context.

No argument there, but I didn't exactly pick verses. I picked chapters. Two entire chapters.

Okay. Whatever. But instead of making unsupported declarative statements, how about explaining my missing context?

Having been raised in an obsessively religious environment, I've read the Bible, in its entirety. Even the endless rules and "begets" parts. Some parts of it I have read -- at least -- hundreds of times. Others, only dozens of times, but that's far and away more than I can say for a lot of folks, those who claim great piety and claim to know better than I do and otherwise. But even so I can't claim to always remember or to have always understood it all, so please feel free to educate me.

We're talking about pervs and their collections and you bring up the Bible.  Ok.  So, you have contempt for the Bible and probably for christians as a whole.  But we can agree to disagree.

On second thought, nevermind. Shonner, Xeno, as you know, we've been here before.

I know this is now going to degenerate into mindless, unsupported argument for its own sake, and I just don't have the patience for it, so I'm outta here ...

You guys win again. Enjoy it while you can.

I sincerely hope that it can hold off degenerating that way, I've been around far too long and I'm kind of hoping that history for once won't repeat itself.

And up until now, it's been a good discussion - it's forced me to have to think to explain my own concerns in new ways, which is never a bad thing from my perspective.

So in the hopes of trying to bring it back on track, I'll toss in a couple of current events I think are "similar" to the risks of this law to artists.

In the UK, Darryn Walker faces charges for writing a porn story involving some band called "Girls Aloud".

In Afghanistan, a student has had his death sentence commuted to 20 years imprisonment for blasphemy - he downloaded material from the 'net regarding women's rights in Islam.

To me, these two cases aren't that much different from the matter at hand - both of them are purely subjective judgment calls about material that doesn't actually involve harm to real people.

Oh, blast it, I just can't resist! I suppose I am condemned to this pointlessness.

Quote - We're talking about pervs and their collections and you bring up the Bible.  Ok.  So, you have contempt for the Bible and probably for christians as a whole.  But we can agree to disagree.

Shonner, you're very quick to judge. You might want to work on that. Many Christians (and the word is supposed to be capitalized as it is derived from the 'Christ' and many Christians consider it disrespectful not to capitalize it) consider such an eagerness to judge to be very un-Christ-like, and a sin, and support that belief with the scripture 'judge not, lest ye be judged in like manner.'

And though you were apparently talking about pervs, I was discussing, with Xeno, something else. Let's see, what was it? Oh yes. Something to do with the historical constancy of amorality, society, that sort of thing.

And not that it matters, but I do not have contempt for the Bible, or for Christians as a whole. There are portions of the Bible I have great regard for, some not so much -- and I especially value the teachings of Christ, but I do have contempt for many who claim to be Christians -- who in fact practically beat everyone else at times over the head with their own "Christianity" -- but who are not very familiar with and/or do not practice very much of what Christ actually taught.

(And since you may not know what I'm talking about, Jesus harshly condemned those who considered themselves righteous and Godly in His day, and those who practiced religion for profit, but He did not condemn adulterers and thieves.)

Quote - I am nearly certain we would strongly disagree about what type of people are most frequently insisting black is white and white is black these days,

I'd say that's a safe bet. 

Quote - what exactly do you mean by the term "popular culture?"

The same thing that most people who use the term mean by it.  If you're looking for a lengthy technical definition, here's a referral:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_culture

I like the opening line of the article.  It's about as good of a definition as I've come across:

Popular culture (or pop culture) is the culture — patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activities significance and importance — which are popular, well-liked or common.

Quote - In the modern sense of that term, popular culture is a fairly recent phenomenon.

In the sense of the definition above, it's been around since humans have been around -- in one form or another.  But we can get bogged down in defining terms (which, of course, might be the real goal here ).  Most people know what "popular culture" is in the same way that they know what "philosophy" is.  And you can spend (re: waste) entire lifetimes trying to dig into the fine details -- the "definition" -- of each.

Quote - And are you suggesting that societies in which amorality is reserved for the elite are somehow superior? Or that such societies do not also, and just as often, collapse?

Hmmmm.  This is another odd rabbit trail to go chasing down.  I'm not quite sure how we get from pointing out that civilizations of the past have consistently displayed a generalized cultural acceptance of amoral thinking during the last stages of their existence........over to questions about "amorality being reserved for the elite" vs. (I suppose) "amorality being for everyone".  Sounds like Oppression of the Masses going on to me.  How DARE the elites reserve the privilege of being amoral only to themselves?!!!!!!

That subject.......will require some Deep Thought to work out all of the implications.  In the meantime, I'll continue to read the signs of our times in the light of the times of others who've already lived it -- regardless of whether their examples were for the "elite" or for the "everyman".

Where is that head-scratching smilie when you need him...........!!!!!?????

Quote - We're talking about pervs and their collections and you bring up the Bible.  Ok.  So, you have contempt for the Bible and probably for christians as a whole.  But we can agree to disagree.

Argue with DQ, and he'll bring up the Bible and "religion" just about every time.  As I mentioned earlier: it's an especially favored hobby horse: well-ridden.

Quote - I sincerely hope that it can hold off degenerating that way, I've been around far too long and I'm kind of hoping that history for once won't repeat itself.

And up until now, it's been a good discussion - it's forced me to have to think to explain my own concerns in new ways, which is never a bad thing from my perspective.

So in the hopes of trying to bring it back on track, I'll toss in a couple of current events I think are "similar" to the risks of this law to artists.

In the UK, Darryn Walker faces charges for writing a porn story involving some band called "Girls Aloud".

In Afghanistan, a student has had his death sentence commuted to 20 years imprisonment for blasphemy - he downloaded material from the 'net regarding women's rights in Islam.

To me, these two cases aren't that much different from the matter at hand - both of them are purely subjective judgment calls about material that doesn't actually involve harm to real people.

shrug  As I've pointed out in other, similar threads: you can be executed for running a porn site in China.  You can also be tortured and executed there for being a Christian.  The Middle East is its own story, of course: but the same rules largely apply.  Only for what appear to be 'different' underlying reasons: "different" reasons which end up having precisely the same practical effects.  We aren't likely to change the collective minds of those societies on such subjects any time soon.  But it's interesting to note that one of the standard characteristics of ALL forms of oppressive societies -- of whatever ideological stripe -- in the modern era, regardless of the particulars of the foundational political / social philosophies involved: is to persecute Christianity as a mode of thought: and to persecute individual Christians as persons.  Not to mention Jews.........

But we in the West do seem to have been changing our own minds in regards to cultural mores over the last several decades.  Slowly, at first.  And then increasingly more rapidly as time has gone by.  By and large: we seem to be basing our thinking on the late Roman cultural model.  I'd go into more details: but it's late.  However: I will say this: children were regularly used for sexual purposes, including for "art", in the late Roman empire.

Also, ancient Carthage used to regularly sacrifice children and infants both for the sake of personal convenience and to seal business deals, etc..  Killing infants without conscience is another characteristic of those societies which have so spectacularly collapsed in past times.

The high-sounding, sophistic and oh-so-smooth and oh-so-comforting justifications for doing just exactly whatever we please are always easily ready to hand, to use in a pinch.  But it's the down-the-road results of doing whatever we please that people always have a hard time accepting: results that people prefer to pretend don't exist -- in spite of the repeated examples of those results throughout human history.  But accept those results we will.  We won't have a choice in the matter.

Quote - Argue with DQ, and he'll bring up the Bible and "religion" just about every time.

Nonsense. The only other time I can recall bringing up the Bible was when others had broached the subject, somewhere in the thread, first. If you can prove otherwise, mea culpa, but whatever.

And what is your point, or objection, anyway about bringing up the Bible? Haven't I already adequately explained my purpose?

If not, let me be as specific as possible. The reason I brought it up this time was simply to make the point, in a manner, and using a source, that I thought someone on the political right might readily be able to acknowledge, i.e., that amorality -- at least as most modern folks understand it -- has always been with us, and not always, apparently, considered even important enough to condemn. So what exactly does it mean to suggest things are so much worse now? How do we even know all of what happened before, or whether now is worse or not? It was just intended to offer a little perspective for consideration.

As far as your comments on popular culture, the definition you offered did not indicate whether it was intended to apply to all times, and as far as wasting time defining terms, for people who do not come from very similar backgrounds, it is often nearly impossible to communicate otherwise. I'm sorry you don't like that, but try mentioning ol' "DQ" on "Renderosity" to someone who is completely unfamiliar with the internet, this site, etc., and let me know if you are asked to define your terms.

While the distance between our "take" on reality may not be that great, it should be amply clear by now that your terms and my terms do not always mean the same thing.

And historically, in a great many societies, what was truly popular among the masses was called subservience to authority, and basic survival. If we are speaking of ancient Roman or Greek culture, you are almost by definition (and at least in many respects) not speaking of the women, the slaves, the children, the poor, the uneducated, those considered to be racially or otherwise inferior, the common laborers and servants, or the great masses of the people. Again, if you can prove otherwise, mea culpa, I will have learned something.

Quote - Hmmmm.  This is another odd rabbit trail to go chasing down.  I'm not quite sure how we get from pointing out that civilizations of the past have consistently displayed a generalized cultural acceptance of amoral thinking during the last stages of their existence........over to questions about "amorality being reserved for the elite" vs. (I suppose) "amorality being for everyone".  Sounds like Oppression of the Masses going on to me.  How DARE the elites reserve the privilege of being amoral only to themselves?!!!!!!

That subject.......will require some Deep Thought to work out all of the implications.  In the meantime, I'll continue to read the signs of our times in the light of the times of others who've already lived it -- regardless of whether their examples were for the "elite" or for the "everyman".

Where is that head-scratching smilie when you need him...........!!!!!?????

Well, again, I regret that you don't understand, or that (perhaps) I have been unclear. The point of my questions is, because you suggested that it is the "popularization" of amorality that is the problem, whether or not you believe such things should be reserved for some elite someones other than the masses (i.e., you did not say amoral behavior was the problem; you acknowledged it is always around; what you said was that it is the popularization of amorality that is the problem; so does that imply amoraity is a-okay with you so long as it does not sift down to the masses?). It was just a question. And the follow-up was whether or not you are suggesting that such societies in which it is the case that amorality exists but is not popularized, do not also frequently collapse? See? Does any of that make any more sense?

What I am asking is, that if it is the popularization of amorality that is the problem that leads to great civilizations collapsing, doesn't that imply that societies in which such amorality has not been popularized would be markedly and provably longer lasting and more stable? And if so, can you demonstrate that with historical evidence?

I'm just trying to learn something here, and also to discover whether you actually know anything or not.

Quote - I'm just trying to learn something here, and also to discover whether you actually know anything or not.

But that would be judging.  And you said we shouldn't judge each other.  So what's it gonna be?

Quote - But that would be judging.  And you said we shouldn't judge each other.  So what's it gonna be?

Because of this sort of vacuous comment, I think I will ignore you from now on. At least Xeno usually puts a little thought behind his posts.