I guess we'll have to agree to disagree :)

The government picking cases that no-one will object to in order to set things up for future use isn't exactly novel - all you have to do is look at the UK to see how "mission creep" turns what looks to be great at the start into something unhealthy later :P

So it's a little disingenuous to make it about possessing drawings of kiddie bestiality porn. It's about someone else's morality judging what's acceptable for you in the privacy of your own computer that hasn't harmed, and will not, harm anyone else.

(The argument that such images, even if weird and sick, encourages actual child abuse is about as valid as the claims computer games or TV make kids shoot up their schools - the same connection to reality as political campaign promises)

When you surrender a piece of a right based solely on something so subjective, you can say goodbye to that right altogether because it's a virtual certainty someone, somewhere, will object to something you do that you consider harmless.

Consider the Danish cartoons ... They managed to offend about one and a half billion people, but subjectively, very few people saw the offence claimed - Everyone was jumping on the bandwagon claiming "freedom of speech".

(and Islam is aniconic, so half the artwork here probably qualifies as offensive to many Muslims)

Is Freedom Of Speech really "Freedom of speech only in those things we agree with" ... and if so, who is the "we"? What do you do if you end up not being part of the "we"?

You've got a pic on your page (a rather good one, too!) of two women - I think it's Tango? - what would you do if some tinpot dictator in authority who objects to anything implying lesbians decides it's obscene and went after you?

You might think that unlikely, and it probably is. It shouldn't have to be "probably" or "unlikely", though.

Which probably means there'll be no "real" answer - the kiddie pornographers will use it to validate their crap, which will be used to justify limiting the rights involved, but no-one can say those limits won't be used in the future for things that aren't as hot-button offensive to the community at large.

Maybe it's a cultural thing, I'm coming at this from having escaped the totalitarian democracy the UK has become, and know first hand how the authorities make such reasonable suggestions of limitations then once the "fix" is in suddenly expand it to hit everyone else they find objectionable.

Thanks for the link about Whorley, I didn't know about it, and retract the statement this case sets precedent. I'll also grant you I need to read more on this particular case to get a better handle on it.

Quote - So it's a little disingenuous to make it about possessing drawings of kiddie bestiality porn.

Once again, that's not what Handley is being charged with - it's BUYING the stuff after it's been outlawed.

Quote - You've got a pic on your page (a rather good one, too!) of two women - I think it's Tango? - what would you do if some tinpot dictator in authority who objects to anything implying lesbians decides it's obscene and went after you?

I'd either comply with the law or accept the consequences - I wouldn't stick my fingers in my ears and yell "NA NA NA NA NA" like Handley seems to be doing. Be aware that "some tinpot dictator" is not the reason for the PROTECT Act being passed, it's consistent and heavy demand from lawmakers' constituents. If there were consistent and heavy demand for the opposite, i.e. the free right to collect and acquire images of whatever category of children being raped by animals, it is likely this law would not have passed.

Freedom of Speech granted by the First Amendment is not a blank check, there are MANY limits on what information can be expressed, where it can be expressed and how it can be expressed.

My Freebies

I must admit the title got me to read this thread...and I haven't followed any of links...but "children being raped by animals" seems to be some of the content in question and that really does cross the line...that isn't art. And I am not bringing up the "what is art" conversation.....

--Rebekah--

I agree sixus.....totally.

"I didn't lose my mind, it was mine to give away"

Unintended consequences and slippery slopes.

First they come for........

Quote - I must admit the title got me to read this thread...and I haven't followed any of links...but "children being raped by animals" seems to be some of the content in question and that really does cross the line...that isn't art. And I am not bringing up the "what is art" conversation.....

--Rebekah--

I agree. Bekkah thanks for not bringing up the whole "what is art" arguement, by mentioning it in the first place though. :lol:

This is not directed at you Bekkah, but speaking of slippery slopes and unintended consequences though.

This arguement that this is just someone else trying to force their morality on others is IMHO nothing more than an attempt at saying anything should go. When clearly no, anything should not go.

Our society has every right to say what is acceptable and what is not acceptable behaviour by it's members. Otherwise we have nothing but anarchy and chaos.

This individual clearly chose to ignore the law wich prohibits possession of such materials, and they got dinged for it.

"I didn't know" otherwise known as what I call the "ignorant defense" is not a legal defense for breaking the law. It never has been. And it shouldn't be in this case either.

Jumps off the bandwagon****

"The Blood is the life!"

I think the law did the safe thing by charging the guy. Better safe than sorry. I mean kids being raped is pretty messed up, animals or not.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)

While I agree that people who produce photos or movies of kids being harmed & the people who buy them should be tortured slowly until they die, the point is there were NO kids involved at any point in the making of those pictures.

Better safe than sorry is NOT the way to go, I'm pretty sure some of our American friends reading this thread own guns, now surely it would be better safe than sorry to arrest them all in case they go on a killing spree, wouldn't it?

Yes it is exactly the same thing.

Windows 7 64Bit
Poser Pro 2010 SR1

Apples and Oranges dude.

Apples & potatoes more like. ;)

Windows 7 64Bit
Poser Pro 2010 SR1

I'll give you that. :)

It's fictional cartoons people!

As a survivor of child sexual abuse, let me say that I'd rather someone get off on fictional, hand drawn cartoons or 3D graphic images than with a real child!

Quote - Defendant states all of the images at issue in counts one through five are drawings from
Japanese anime comic books that were produced either by hand or by computer, and the
drawings depict fictional characters. Defendant states there is no indication the drawings
represent or refer to any actual persons, either minor or adult, and the drawings are purely a
product of the artist’s imagination.

Yes, some of the images being referred to are well, strange IMHO, but I have to agree with the Defendent's statement above.

Since when is having an imagination against the law?

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

You can dislike the law, you can think it is a dumb and stinky law, but you either follow it or accept the consequences. If you want the law changed, lobby for it (write your lawmakers). Or spend a little time in prison like Mr. Handley there is going to be doing.

Personally I'm not a fan of images (photo, painted, cartoon or otherwise) of little kids being raped by animals, so this guy can go down the toilet and it's all good with me.

My Freebies

If only people with closed minds could have closed mouths.

Well I don't agree with child porn but I think the problem is western culture is becoming more and more closed minded. The more you hide, push under and force underground the more you are likely to create more and larger problems.

Personally I feel free speech and the USA are two things that are mutually exclusive. From what I can tell the US especially the government like to subvert and opress free speech. It's starting to get that way here in the UK as well.

I review manga and anime for a science fiction and fantasy website and to be honest I think the japanese on the whole have a lot healthier approach to sex in general than here in the west.

I can't get my head round the whole thing of beauty pageants - dressing up small girls to look like adults just doesn't sit right with me but if thats what people or rather parents want to do then thats up to them. I think there are things like this in the mainstream that I think are as equally dodgy.

I'll shut up now cause I'll problably go to far if I carry on. I've probably upset a few people and I'm sorry if anything I've said offends anyone. I just can't abide closed minded thinking.

Quote - If only people with closed minds could have closed mouths.

A funny thing for a free speech advocate to say... If your opinion does not match mine then you shouldn't be able to talk? Heh!

My Freebies

If only people with closed minds could have closed mouths.

it's 'metaphoric' . It's a famous quote - can't remember off the top of my head who said it - someone out there may know. I think it can be true sometimes that those who have a narrow view point are often the most vocal. I just think its worrying when a few can dictate what the many can or can't say or do or even feel. Everyone is entitled to a view point. Its the imposing of judgement that I get uncomfortable about.

Yes you need to have laws and hopefully a society can form sensible laws and rules. It's when people forceably impose there moral view point, often with a false sence of justice, that I begin to worry.

it's one of the things that's kept me from looking at manga (other than the fact they have kinks that I'd never even imagine...sheesh). There's something about children with adult attributes that just seems innapropriate. But I'm an old geezer...;)

I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)

Quote - I think it can be true sometimes that those who have a narrow view point are often the most vocal. I just think its worrying when a few can dictate what the many can or can't say or do or even feel.

"Few" and "narrow view point" are perhaps not as accurate as you might like when categorizing people who think images of animals raping children should not be bought and sold, but I could be mistaken. Also "the many" when it comes to those who desire to buy and sell the same. I'm all for porn - peek at my gallery and judge - but this stuff, no.

My Freebies

Quote - There's something about children with adult attributes that just seems innapropriate. But I'm an old geezer...;)

There's something worse about children with children's attributes. If you've ever seen any of the stuff, it's blatantly obvious what's going on. Anybody defending this guy ought to find some info on exactly what's being talked about, it's not pictures of kittens and flowers, it's really foul stuff.

My Freebies

First off, I agree with those that feel the law is right in this instance. I abhor kidde porn, and although I agree with freedom of expression, I do think that in this instance it's a case of someone trying to circumvent the generally accepted and legally enforced penalties around such offensive material by satisfying his urges through manga art.

I'm going to throw a seriously curved ball into this one though. Where is the moral high ground if, once this person is released from prison, instead of using fictional art to satisfy his urges he ends up actually engaging in or viewing real images of such material because he believes that there is no point in trying to find grey areas such as manga any more because he will be prosecuted anyway?

My point here stems from the fact that no matter what society in general does, people with such obscene urges and desires will always exist. You can't after all punish someone for what they are thinking. So, if such people do exist, and if they do not act on their impulses in the real world they are more than likely part of normal society, surely it follows that unless they have some form of outlet which is not grounded in reality, they may well turn to reality to satisfy their urges?

The question that is begged by this is that should such people be institutionalised, but how do we know about it before they commit their first real-world crime? I'm not advocating allowing this sort of thing to go unchecked or unpunished. I'm just wondering if in this instance the devil we know really is as bad or worse than the devil we don't know.

Mostly just food for thought and comment.

*Well I don't agree with child porn but I think the problem is western culture is becoming more and more closed minded.

*Agreed, and it's doing so without giving much thought, as usual, to the long range consequences of represssion. Hey, I may not be a fan of BDSM, but if that's what people want/need to do behind closed doors or in front of 250 like-minded enthusiasts, that's their call and NOMB. I'd rather see a government official come out on how much he enjoys cute little Chanel day dresses than how well he can shoot a wolf from a helicopter. And if having images or videos of illegal stuff on one's computer is a bad thing, then I imagine a lot of us are in deep, deep trouble.

Bottom line: the guy may be stupid about how he's handling it, but given all the high minded speeches we make about freedom et al, the guy wasnt really doing anything wrong. He kept it on his computer: he didnt run out to Kinko's and get 24x36 blowups made. He wasnt pressuring the local paper to start running it as a daily feature. And if we think that making an example of this poor schmuck (and yeah, folks, I think we can offer a little sympathy here) whose crime was discovered when someone else decided to go poking around in places that none of us would really want a government official to go... well, yeah, I think we are looking at a slippery slope of injustice here. If it doesnt involve anyone else, tell me: what, truly, is the crime here? Thoughts? Desires? Wow... like I said, if that's the case, we'd all better watch out.*

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider

Quote - I'm going to throw a seriously curved ball into this one though. Where is the moral high ground if, once this person is released from prison, instead of using fictional art to satisfy his urges he ends up actually engaging in or viewing real images of such material because he believes that there is no point in trying to find grey areas such as manga any more because he will be prosecuted anyway?

By extension, where is the moral high ground if a person imprisoned for assault is released and goes on to commit murder? Obviously assault should be legalized!

That line of reasoning breaks down in every other category of criminal law too. And it's all moot - it IS ILLEGAL to trade in images of children being raped by animals, whether it is a poopy dumb stinky law or whatever you might think. Write your legislators if you want different law.

My Freebies

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'?

There are definite cross-cultural elements in this, and I'm not going to argue against the thesis that the Japanese are weird. But a part of this whole sorry business is the idea that comics are just for kids. That's not something the Japanese believe, or the French, or... Well, it would be a very long list of countries and cultures. And the whole thing depends on the problem of just what "appears to be a minor". Which means under-18, if I understand right. I doubt that even big tits are a guarantee of a person's age being over-18. Not these days.

Quote - By extension, where is the moral high ground if a person imprisoned for assault is released and goes on to commit murder? Obviously assault should be legalized!

That line of reasoning breaks down in every other category of criminal law too. And it's all moot - it IS ILLEGAL to trade in images of children being raped by animals, whether it is a poopy dumb stinky law or whatever you might think. Write your legislators if you want different law.

Your extension of my reasoning is incorrect. Let me explain why. Firstly, going from assault to murder is a choice that the criminal is making. Nobody took anything away from the criminal which left him no choice other than to commit murder, he just chose to do so. Someone who is sexually deviant does not have a choice to begin with. Those are the urges they experience, period.

Secondly, in your example both assault and murder are physical crimes against other people. In my instance it's being jailed for a moral crime which has no victim which may in fact result in the criminal turning to physical crimes through feeling that there is no other way to satisfy his urges without being prosecuted.

Lastly, I didn't say that anything should be legalised. I merely put my thoughts up for comment.

PS. I do not live in the US of A, I am a South African. In my country things are similar but have their nuances. If I was living in the USA I may consider writing to legislators however.

Quote - Someone who is sexually deviant does not have a choice to begin with. Those are the urges they experience, period.

That is absolute nonsense when it comes to acting on any impulse. Most particularly obvious when you have an offender who goes to very great and very sane and controlled lengths to conceal their behavior and to evade law enforcement. There is obviously no lack of control at all in the typical sex offender, it's only a defense used in court.

Quote - In my instance it's being jailed for a moral crime which has no victim which may in fact result in the criminal turning to physical crimes through feeling that there is no other way to satisfy his urges without being prosecuted.

Same can be said for any category of punishment for any criminal offense, "victimless" has zero to do with that. Society shouldn't punish criminals, it may make them meaner!

My Freebies

I think you're missing my point again. I didn't say that a sexual deviant has no choice but to act on their impulses. I said they have no control over the fact that the impulses exist in their heads. There is a big difference there. What I was getting at earlier was that, if a sexual deviant who as I said has these urges and thoughts going through their mind, finds that they cannot satisfy their urges using material which we find offensive but is not based on reality, the urge to act out on their sexual deviances in real life may become stronger.

I really can't see why you keep saying that what I am pointing out in relation to this specific issue must have bearing on all other crimes. There is no such thing as a universal across the board standpoint when it comes to crime because all crimes are different. They have different motives, victims, modus operandi, consequences and moral deviations. Therefore they should all be treated differently in keeping with their circumstances.

Without trying to start a flame war pjz, i'm debating these points with you not trying to pick you apart. I understand that you feel passionate about this, but please try not to say things like 'That is absolute nonsense' and 'Obviously assault should be legalized!'. Debate with me by all means however.

Sean-

"If it doesnt involve anyone else, tell me: what, truly, is the crime here? "

Step number 7- intimidate journalist and artist.

Even with no conviction a chilling effect is produced.

These are the tools of the totalitarian.

And be sure your foot soldiers ridicule any attempts at contrary reasoning.

And this highlights the problem.

The issue isn't about the material itself, it's about the implications for artwork - computer generated or even just PnP - that could be considered "obscene" by someone in authority.

That it's being used against material that's patently gross, with implications of the motives and future actions of the person in question, isn't in doubt.

But it's also pretty obvious that no-one was actually hurt in the creation of the material. No-one was exposed to it at the guy's house (that's been told about at any rate). Its artistic value aside for a moment, it was nothing more than images.

If there were no overt acts of harm committed, doesn't it simply end up being a suppression of expression? In effect, "you can't draw anything we we find immoral/obscene". Along with that is "You can't write about things we find immoral/obscene".

It's effectively punishing thought, not deeds.

Again, the Danish cartoons come to mind. Islam prohibits any depiction of the Prophet Mohammed, and yet everyone said the cartoons were legitimate even though they managed to annoy somewhere around a billion people.

Was there any artistic value to a picture of the Prophet with a bomb in his turban? As I recall, a lot of people didn't think so - but they still stood up for the right of the cartoonists to draw it if they wanted to.

You can't turn around and say obscenity laws justify suppression of expression simply because of them being decided by some sort of societal majority - else how do you explain telling a billion people that their idea of obscenity doesn't count?

It isn't about whether or not those particular comics are obscene - they are, but it's irrelevant. The government has decided to place a moral level of censorship on artwork that harms no-one in the creation, doesn't violate anyone's privacy if it's disseminated - and that can't be a good thing, because who makes those decisions?

You risk surrendering the right to determine the product of your own imagination and your right to create based on that product for your own edification and enjoyment. The law regulates possession, not sale, dissemination, or production.

Simply possessing non-photographic artwork. If you create it, you're in possession of it.

In some ways, we should actually "blame" some of this on the coders who create the software. They've created software that produces photorealistic imagery, which makes it near-impossible for law enforcement to go after the "real" kiddie porn - the stuff with real live victims in it.

A pedophile could turn around and say "It's computer generated", and the cops would have the damndest time proving otherwise - the burden, you recall, being on them to prove guilt to begin with. They struggle to identify real live victims of such creatures, the chances of them being able to categorically prove an image is not computer generated are getting slimmer almost day by day.

So this law got passed to cover the loophole, and shut down a way pedophiles could abuse computer-generated imagery.

(As an aside, the genesis of Manga to begin with, if I remember correctly, was because of Japanese cultural mores against "real" depictions of genitalia, and so Manga developed as a way to get around that to provide porn.)

But it doing so it can be used to go after almost every artist, for anything they produce in any form that offends the local community - who, incidentally, will also make up the jury that decides what has artistic value or not.

That's the problem. It isn't that it's being used against kiddie porn, it's that it's so broad everyone who puts pencil to paper or renders an image is being told "The government can decide if it likes what you make, and if we don't, you're going to face criminal charges, even though no-one will have actually been hurt".

Kiddie porn ends up being the red herring, yet another "reasonable cause" to put such things in place to combat, because no-one will object to going after the people who like that material.

Think about what someone, for example from Focus On The Family, could do if they got into the state's attorney's office of your state, and you render gay-themed images? You really think they'd hold back on making an example of you for "corrupting youth and pushing the homosexual agenda with such obscenity masquerading as art"?

Think people like them aren't considering how they can do just that? The law already exists on the books, the opening is there. If some lawyer in Florida can go after Take-Two software claiming they're responsible for Columbine and Va Tech and Goddess-alone-knows what else because of a simple computer game, it's pretty much a certainty some other "moral crusader" will pick this topic to get their 15 minutes out of.

It's being used against someone who likes virtual kiddie bestiality porn, but it is not limited in who it can apply to as only people who like virtual kiddie bestiality porn.

That's why I brought the question up in the first place.

Allowing the debate to get sidetracked into the right and wrongs of it's specific application in this case means people aren't going to see the branch for the leaves, let alone the forest - which is probably what those behind the law hope stifles debate of just how intrusive the law can be to begin with.

"Question the law, and the argument can be repositioned into how you're just supporting kiddie porn". That ends up being really conducive to the free exchange of ideas :)

At the end of the day, how comfortable are artists with the idea that the government has the ability to decide if their artwork is obscene or not, and drag them in front of a judge, even if the artwork was on your computer in your home, possibly was never seen by or intended to be seen by anyone else, and didn't hurt or harm anyone?

Will you change what you create based on a fear that the inevitable will happen, that someone will find it offensive, and that this hypothetical someone might just end up being able to use this law to go after you?

Those are possibly better questions?

Quote - Simply possessing non-photographic artwork. If you create it, you're in possession of it.

You keep missing the important point. POSSESSION is not at issue, TRADE in the materials discussed is the charge.

At any rate, here is a very nice picture of kittens and flowers. These are still legal.

My Freebies

And here come the kittens...

As far as I can tell, the law says no depictions of child porn, including drawings. Thus this guy needs to be charged. While these cartoons don't mean someone would do something bad to a child, he might very well have an interest in it and could go off and hurt a child later anyways. That's why I feel he should be given his day in court instead of being let out.

If you feel the law is wrong, contact your representative and senators.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)

And art is as art has always been... up for interpretation by any and all. Some will say ‘good job’ and some will not. I have seen some terrifying manga before and it just seems to me that such material doesn't help a person cope with their urges but focuses them and makes them more of a pervert. We as a culture always want the next thing (insert interest in place of thing) to always be better, brighter or more intense the next time around. Perverts are no different. Once something gets old and uninteresting they move on to something more shocking to get their kicks. The person who enjoys what this guy is reading (huh, reading?) is simply focusing on what excites him the most now. When he has gotten all that he can from these images he's bound to move up and on. Now where do you guys think that will eventually lead?

"And be sure your foot soldiers ridicule any attempts at contrary reasoning"

Are you kidding? Do you really think that we are so ignorant that we can't see that this very comment made by you is a condemnation of any contrary opinions? By your very statement, I must be a brainwashed foot soldier conspiring to bend the truth simply because I don't agree with you!!! Well, I guess there is no reason to visit this forum again. No matter what I say, unless I submit to the ‘open minded’ bunch, I must be the bad guy attempting to subvert reason. Apparently, my opinion is no longer valid simply because I disagree with you.

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

While I'm not being "pro-child abuse", subject matter is not considered the determiner of whether something is art. As an example, take Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" where the artist simply takes a photo of a small crucifix in a bottle of his own urine.

I'd rather stay in my lane than lay in my stain!

Since this thread has long ago digressed into lala-land, I will instead address the original question directly:

Rendering manga-style images in and of itself will in no way put you at risk of being prosecuted.

Attached Link: Just trying to keep some proper values

[miikaawaadizi](../../homepage.php?Who=miikaawaadizi), you're perfectly right, but it's waste of time trying to discuss a serious topic like that at place like this.

What happened to "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" ?

All I say is that *"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Quote - What happened to "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" ?

Someone screamed "fire" in a crowded theater or "bomb" in an airplane?

Actually they sang "Weapon of Choice" on an airplane.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)

I wouldn't be too critical. After all, pornography and violence are two of the US' major export products.

There are no Borg. All resistance is fertile.

That's called supply and demand.

I keep hoping the two biggest exports would be the Osmonds, personally.

In a crate.

An airtight one.

Don't ask :P

The Osmonds LOL. I haven't thought about them since my mother died! She said you just couldn't trust people with that many teeth. Thanks for the smile :-)

-Sarah

Yeah...The Osmonds. I remember when the lead-singer started yelling: "Gimme and F..."

Was at Woodstock, no?

LOL

more prophetic seriousness:

Our cities have turned into jungles
And corruption is stranglin' the land
The police force is watching the people
And the people just can't understand
We don't know how to mind our own business
'Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there
No matter who's the winner
We can't pay the cost
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into a noose
And it just sits there watching

Steppenwolf

There are no Borg. All resistance is fertile.

"While these cartoons don't mean someone would do something bad to a child, he might very well have an interest in it and could go off and hurt a child later anyways."

Hmmm, good thing I didn't do that Sarah Palin being mauled by wolves pic. Wasn't there a movie where they were arresting people for crimes they hadn't committed yet because some high tech scanner said they would commit them in the future?

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

I think you're thinking of "Minority Report", but the concept of "pre-crime" has been in sci-fi for a while.

More recently in the "real" world, Tony Blair (the previous UK Prime Minister), declared he could determine who would end up a criminal while they were still in the womb - and people actually took the idiot seriously!

However, with pedophiles, it's an "urge" that's almost guaranteed to escalate into actually fulfilling those urges with another, statisticly speaking. It's been claimed that stories and pictures such as these give such people an outlet that prevents them offending, but that's mostly apocryphal at this stage - partially because of the attitude towards the material to begin with.

Having said that, given the amount of pictures of live victims and stories available to these people, I don't think it has much effect on the numbers in either direction, up or down.

I'll admit, it's hard for me to reconcile my belief that pedophiles will offend, it's just a matter of time and opportunity, and so therefore they should be somehow prevented from doing so (incarceration, castration, isolation, monitoring, pick any two) with the fundamental idea of "Innocent until proven guilty".

But the question still becomes the validity of any laws that are so broad they can be used for something other than their intended and stated purpose.

Look at the way the UK seized funds of banks in Iceland under "anti terrorist laws", in order to prevent that country using the money deposited in its banks by UK authorities to bail their (Icelandic) banks out.

"Mission creep" happens all the time.

It's understandable why people would shrug and say "It's in a good cause" when their freedoms are curtailed for the purposes of preventing child abuse, but rarely do they look beyond the stated purpose and recognize how such laws can (and are) abused - abuse that can impact them further down the line - e.g. anyone who does renders using Mill Teen, or just tweaks dials to "Young", or similar.

One has to wonder if some enterprising little tin pot dictator might not go after the creators of those meshes for making such art possible, in a worst case scenario. The laws certainly seem to be usable for it.

Hence the topic.

In this particular case, there may be more going on than any of us can know. Law enforcement will prosecute "lesser crimes" they can prove, when there are actually more serious offenses they're pretty sure of, but can't prove in court. As in the Al Capone IRS charges.

On the other hand, Orwell's poor Winston Smith (in the novel "1984") is casting large shadows on the wall right now, and we do need to take notice of such actions as this. There are actually several points Orwell makes in that novel that bear close attention these days.

*"One has to wonder if some enterprising little tin pot dictator might not go after the creators of those meshes for making such art possible, in a worst case scenario. "

Poser is banned in many fundamentalist middle eastern countrys right now such as Saudi and Iran. And a few more.

In fact 8 or 10 years ago even those who ran this site unoffically turned a blind eye to our Poserite brothern in those countries conserning warez.

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

*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.

-How can you improve things when you don't make mistakes?

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?

go that way really fast.
if something gets in your way
turn

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.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)

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.

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider

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.

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider

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.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)

>> 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.

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider

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.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)

"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.

go that way really fast.
if something gets in your way
turn

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.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)

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.

go that way really fast.
if something gets in your way
turn

>> 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.

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM

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

www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM

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.

www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG

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.

www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG

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.

www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG

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...........!!!!!?????

Something To Do At 3:00AM

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM

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?

www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG

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.

Quote - 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.

You're judging again.

www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG

Quote - > Quote - 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.

You're judging again.

Observation and judgement are two vastly seperate things.....

Now...where'd I set my popcorn?

<-insert words of wisdom here->

Quote - Observation and judgement are two vastly seperate things.

Not according to Webster.

www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG

Oh great! It's that time of year again!

Shonner, just so you know, if you even care -- to suggest there is no difference between reaching a conclusion based on evidence and jumping to one based on one's own presumptions is comparing apples and oranges. The former is a necessary part of life and survival, the latter is not, and is generally what most people mean when they suggest someone is being "judgmental."

Just checked back in. Sorry, donquixote -- I don't have much time to contribute to this thread today, or even to do much more than to briefly glance at your last couple of posts. I might come back later to respond in some detail when time permits -- but please don't take that as a set-in-stone promise. sigh There's a retrofit fire alarm system for an existing elementary school building that needs to be designed. Not to mention other things that need testing..........

Hold the popcorn, RedHawk. It's much better hot and fresh-popped than when it's a day old. That's the thing about popcorn. It goes stale fast.

Something To Do At 3:00AM

Quote - Shonner, just so you know, if you even care -- to suggest there is no difference between reaching a conclusion based on evidence and jumping to one based on one's own presumptions is comparing apples and oranges. The former is a necessary part of life and survival, the latter is not, and is generally what most people mean when they suggest someone is being "judgmental."

We can agree to disagree. I thought you meant you were ignoring me? I guess I misjudged you.

www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG

Quote - We can agree to disagree. I thought you meant you were ignoring me? I guess I misjudged you.

Yes. Sort of. What I actually said was that I "think" I will ignore you, but I then decided (much to my chagrin) to make another attempt to see if you might be able to acknowledge a point on the subject of "judgment."

I'm sorry to have bothered you, and am becoming increasingly sorry to have wasted my time.

Quote - We can agree to disagree. I thought you meant you were ignoring me?

:laugh:

Something To Do At 3:00AM

Hey, miikaawaadizi, didn't I say "this is now going to degenerate into mindless, unsupported argument for its own sake?"

See what I mean?

Speaking of mindless, purposeless discourse: Have any of you written your legislators yet?

My Freebies

Who in California would read it?

www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG

Quote - Hey, miikaawaadizi, didn't I say "this is now going to degenerate into mindless, unsupported argument for its own sake?"

See what I mean?

A self-fulfilled prophecy.

www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG

This is ever so slightly off topic, but all my life I've come across people who simply enjoy being annoying. I wonder what their satisfaction is? Do you suppose it simply gives them a sense of power when they are able to get a reaction out of others? I hope not. That would be so pathetic.

And hey, has anyone noticed an insect buzzing around around here? No? Okay. Just checking.

Quote - Speaking of mindless, purposeless discourse: Have any of you written your legislators yet?

I thought written work relating to sado-masochistc activities even between consenting adults was being outlawed?

I have no idea what you're talking about, if that was a joke I apologize for not getting it. Was wondering if the hot feelings are strictly limited to anonymous discussion board catfighting, or something that actually affects the real world, that's all.

My Freebies

I wish I could say the idea of writing to politicians being an exercise in sado-masochistic behaviour was "entirely" a joke.

People always seem to have this idealistic idea that it's a worthwhile endeavour, but they generally tend to forget the basic fact of political life - to stay employed, politicians do what looks popular, what's "right" is only a vague idea they toss aside the first time they see negative opinion poll results.

No-one wants to do something that will put them out of a job, politicians aren't somehow more "ethical" in that respect than anyone else. One letter makes no difference to their opinion of how popular they are - neither does a thousand, or a million, because politicians know that less than half of those letters will actually translate into votes come "job evaluation" time, and of the ones that do, more than half of those people will have either forgotten all about the issue, or will let themselves be blindly led along by the nose..

So contacting these parasites on society ends up being nothing more than an attempt to assuage your own guilt at not doing anything worthwhile - anyone with sense knows that the most they're going to get back is a vague appreciation for commenting and how their thoughts will be noted, and that's it.

Hence - it's a sado-masochistic exercise :)

Disclaimer: Some people claim I may be a tad cynical when it comes to my opinions regarding those semi-evolved pseudo-simian sacks of putrescent protoplasmic slime who make political pundits appear to be productive members of society by comparison that call themselves politicians.

Ya think??

Quote - Speaking of mindless, purposeless discourse: Have any of you written your legislators yet?

On this issue, no. On others, yes.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)

*"semi-evolved pseudo-simian sacks of putrescent protoplasmic slime "

LOL :P

Quote - People always seem to have this idealistic idea that it's a worthwhile endeavour, but they generally tend to forget the basic fact of political life - to stay employed, politicians do what looks popular, what's "right" is only a vague idea they toss aside the first time they see negative opinion poll results.

No-one wants to do something that will put them out of a job, politicians aren't somehow more "ethical" in that respect than anyone else. One letter makes no difference to their opinion of how popular they are - neither does a thousand, or a million, because politicians know that less than half of those letters will actually translate into votes come "job evaluation" time, and of the ones that do, more than half of those people will have either forgotten all about the issue, or will let themselves be blindly led along by the nose..

You are at least partially mistaken. And in fact, you have kind of contradicted yourself. You said that all the politicians care about is staying employed (as politicians), and respond to only what is popular, but then suggested even a million letters have no effect.

While there are actions that may at times have a greater impact than simply writing a letter, all the politicians I have known personally, and there have been several, pay a great deal of attention to various communications from their constituents, not so much every individual communication, but the weight of their constituents' opinions. And those who take the time and trouble to write, or call, are understood by the politicians to be the type of people who are also busy trying to persuade their families, their friends, and their neighbors -- some of whom also vote.

Further, though there are always plenty of bad players, there are also politicians who stand up for what they believe and think is right even when it hurts them considerably. Because they do not always have their praises sung for them by the mass media, or only get major coverage when they do the wrong thing, or because you do not agree with their point of view, does not mean they are not often trying to do the right thing, as they see it.

These are not baseless, idealistic opinions, but observations I have made over many, many years. If you want to blame someone for the goings on of representative government, first look at yourself in the mirror. It is political activism, or the lack thereof, that often determines who stays in power and who goes.

My fear is that at some point in the future, some bureaucrat somewhere will take all this to the extreme and determine that merely possessing an image of a naked child, regardless of pose or circumstance, will be deemed as a punishable offense under federal law.

At that point, all of us can be brought up on charges and sent to prison!

That is, all of us who simply have a naked little Maddie or Laura thumbnail (and many other MilGirl thumbs) sitting in the Character folder waiting to be selected as models for some project can be guilty of possessing images of nude children.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least if we get to this point.

i7 6800 (6 core/12 thread), 24 GB RAM, 1 gtx 1080 ti (8GB Vram) + 1 Titan X (12GB Vram), PP11, Octane/Poser plugin, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Oh, and a wiener dog!

puts mod hat on I don't mind this discussion...if we can take it off of religion and back on the subject at hand, folks ;)

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

Interesting point samhal. When I heard that hanna montana chick did a "artful" nude shoot even though she was only 15, I was like 'what on Earth is happening here, she's just a kid'.

Maybe we could make this issue go away if we just banned cameras of all types. You might think I'm joking, but I have a feeling if teens keep snapping nude pictures of themselves and sending them to their friends or putting them on the net, at the least we are going to have a minimum age of 18 to own and operate a camera in the US.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)

Quote - Interesting point samhal. When I heard that hanna montana chick did a "artful" nude shoot even though she was only 15, I was like 'what on Earth is happening here, she's just a kid'.

Ok, first things first, IT WAS HER BACK.
Second, Miley Cyrus has since posted WORSE photos of herself on her myspace page.

But, that leads into your second point. I don't think taking cameras out of the hands of kids is a good idea...but, I do think that parents need to take responsibility for their kids.

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

Bans only succeed in sending things underground, and people make a lot more money selling them than they would legally. You only have to look at the UK to see how "ban everything" populist knee-jerk laws don't work.

Especially when it comes to teens, who seem to be hardwired to do anything they're told they shouldn't.

("Nerdstress"??? Is that like "Geekette" with pocket protectors? :) )

All I heard about the first shoot is she had a sheet draped over her. I heard she had been doing more questionable things but at that point I figured she is going to be the next Britney Spears/Lindesy Lohan. Disney should cancel her contract and toss her away to another company that is willing to deal with an implosion waiting to happen and parents should start steering their kids away from her.

I agree that parents really need to take responsiblility for their kids, but it isn't happening with this generation. Easy web access plus a smutty society plus a teen craving attention is a bad combo. They haven't morally matured and they are looking to have fun so putting a camera in their hands is one of the worst things you can do for them. At the least get the cell phones with text and cameras out of kids hands.

This is one of the few things I'm actually a little conflicted on. I totally believe that it is the parent's responsibility to raise a kid, not the government's. However there are a ton of parents that are dropping the ball these days and frankly I don't think the schools are helping the situation at all. So we can't count on parents and we can't count on the government yet if we don't want our society to implode as the aforementioned actresses, someone is going to have to do something and do it well. However if we leave it up to the parents or the government, I really think that implosion is going to happen in a generation or two.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)

(I will own up to owning pocket protectors. Have you ever had a Sharpie explode in the front breast pocket of a white shirt??? It SUCKS!) :laugh:

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

Parents can't control their kids because half the tools they had available to them have been banned, and every kid nowadays knows the magic words "I'll call the cops on you" which shuts any dispute down flat.

Which is not to say all kids are bad, there are a good number of them who've learned honesty, integrity, honour, and community all on their lonesome, without any guidance from anything other than their own ability for self-identification.

But yeah, it's not gonna happen that way enough, and osmosis is too fickle to cover the slack.

Cynic mode warning.

Society has gotten too big and too unwieldy, community has gone down the drain, honour has gone out the window, both derided as "outmoded" and "outdated". The sheeple are controlled via FUD by those who have a vested interest (i.e. their self-interest) in keeping people as sheeple. Social disorder works to their advantage, they're not likely to want to do anything to reduce it - if it goes away, it's harder to stampede the sheeple into the ramp up to the kill sheds of "it's for the best" legislation.

Personally, I figure there's a revolution of sorts coming in the next two decades, as the two "sides" clash - individualists vs conformists.

Got to love the cyclic nature of history and civilization :)

(I've had a Bic go psycho in a front pocket of a pair of cream slacks, that's not much fun ...

But as a card carrying BOFH, pocket protectors are a no-no, I have a rep to live down to :P)

Quote - All I heard about the first shoot is she had a sheet draped over her. I heard she had been doing more questionable things but at that point I figured she is going to be the next Britney Spears/Lindesy Lohan. Disney should cancel her contract and toss her away to another company that is willing to deal with an implosion waiting to happen and parents should start steering their kids away from her.

I agree that parents really need to take responsiblility for their kids, but it isn't happening with this generation. Easy web access plus a smutty society plus a teen craving attention is a bad combo. They haven't morally matured and they are looking to have fun so putting a camera in their hands is one of the worst things you can do for them. At the least get the cell phones with text and cameras out of kids hands.

This is one of the few things I'm actually a little conflicted on. I totally believe that it is the parent's responsibility to raise a kid, not the government's. However there are a ton of parents that are dropping the ball these days and frankly I don't think the schools are helping the situation at all. So we can't count on parents and we can't count on the government yet if we don't want our society to implode as the aforementioned actresses, someone is going to have to do something and do it well. However if we leave it up to the parents or the government, I really think that implosion is going to happen in a generation or two.

Yes, there was a sheet. She happened to be topless, her father was there, there were other adults in the room, and she had a sheet wrapped around her. And, you can see her back. She wears clothes onstage that shows more, and both her AND her father decided to freak out about it, but only after they were scrutinized by the public. Which, you know, seriously...If it were my family, I would have stood up and said "They are beautiful photos, Annie Leibovitz did an EXCELLENT job, and there is nothing wrong with photos of someone's back."

We can't count on parents because no one holds them accountable. This generation of parents wants to party and be their kids' best friends....and that's not how you parent. My mom and I rarely do "hang out" things. Sure, we do mother/daughter things, many of which end in a fight because we are too much alike, LOL, but I'm not going to take her to CyGamez with me to sit and have a Rock Band tourney, and I wouldn't want to go with her to her little scrapbooking meet thingies. We cook together, sometimes do crafty things together, and we do photography together. As a parent, you have to find something to do that's together time. We as an american society suck at families. We work long hours to buy shit we don't need, spend money for stuff no one in their right mind needs (seriously....a robotized vacuum??? Are we too busy to VACUUM?), and still find time to ignore our children. And then get all surprised when they're posting tata shots on MySpace for their boyfriends. But, they're not getting the ideas on their own. Look at who some of the most popular young female celebrities are and what they're celebrated for. There's too much non-quality entertainment, so our (collective) children are emulating the utter crap they see on t.v. Which is sooooooooooooooo sad.

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

What's a BOFH?

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

Parents responsibility? Maybe to a degree. What about the story recently of a highschool girl taking a picture of herself (her genitals I believe) with her cell phone and sending it to other students?

The way I remember the article, they got her on child porn charges (on herself?!) and plan on bringing similar charges on everyone that recieved the picure. To me this is a system getting out of whack.

Not sure parental responsibility comes into strong play here...even some straight and narrow kids will do stupid things sometimes without being able to explain why they did it.

Of course, Miley Cyrus is probably a different situation altogether.

Just sayin'.

i7 6800 (6 core/12 thread), 24 GB RAM, 1 gtx 1080 ti (8GB Vram) + 1 Titan X (12GB Vram), PP11, Octane/Poser plugin, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Oh, and a wiener dog!

Quote - Parents responsibility? Maybe to a degree. What about the story recently of a highschool girl taking a picture of herself (her genitals I believe) with her cell phone and sending it to other students?

The way I remember the article, they got her on child porn charges (on herself?!) and plan on bringing similar charges on everyone that recieved the picure. To me this is a system getting out of whack.

Not sure parental responsibility comes into strong play here...even some straight and narrow kids will do stupid things sometimes without being able to explain why they did it.

Of course, Miley Cyrus is probably a different situation altogether.

Just sayin'.

Saying that the parents have no responsibility is a crock of b.s. 1. No one NEEDS a cell phone. They are a tool, nothing more. No high-school kid needs one. When I was in school, and needed to call my parents, the office had a phone. We used it. When I was at work, and needed to call my parents, the office had a phone. We used it. When I was at a friends' house, and needed to call my parents, they had a phone. We used it. I have a cell phone. I'm 28. I have text and pix messaging on my phone, and, quite honestly, sometimes I wish I didn't. Remember back in the day when pretty much not a week went by and some jackass was posting something with a link, and it was to....let's just say it was to a freaking gross image. Well, those photos have made their way to pix message forwards. All it takes is for 1 young adult to get one, think it's hillarious (or think that it would be hillarious to send it on), send it to their younger brother/sister, and BOOM, it's all over the school.
I know quite a few teenagers who have access to cell phones. They are not allowed to take them inside the school. They are to leave them in their vehicles. They have a certain amount of minutes they can use, and then they're cut off for the month. They don't have camera phones, they don't have text messaging. Why you would buy a teenager in high school a CAMERA PHONE is beyond me. Sure, they're fun. THEY'RE EXPENSIVE. What happened to making kids work for what they had? What happened to teaching kids responsibility?

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

"Civilization"?

Edit: Forgot the cynic warning message, sorry.

Quote - Samhal

Parents responsibility? Maybe to a degree. What about the story recently of a highschool girl taking a picture of herself (her genitals I believe) with her cell phone and sending it to other students?

The way I remember the article, they got her on child porn charges (on herself?!) and plan on bringing similar charges on everyone that recieved the picure. To me this is a system getting out of whack.

I heard of one of those stories. The feds I think went to the girl's house and the parents said to them "what's the big deal?" I don't think the system is out of whack so much because there are good reasons for having some laws to protect against child pornography. However I will concied that their could be a gray area if someone forwarded the picture to a bunch of friends and not all of them wanted to see it.

Some would argue that there is a certain amount of objectification going on and anyone at that age who just takes a picture of themselves and sends it to the class needs help.

Quote - JenX

She wears clothes onstage that shows more, and both her AND her father decided to freak out about it, but only after they were scrutinized by the public.

Emphasis mine. I think I see the problem here. They pretty much agreed with you Jen until the poop hit the ceiling fan and then got all freaked out about it because they feel like they had to.

BTW, camera phones are getting cheap. I had to upgrade mine earlier this year and it only cost about 40 dollars with a plan. It's the service plan which costs the most and how the cell phone companies make their money.

Now if you go with one of the better phones, that'll cost you some money. And I have a theory why parents buy them: it's easier than putting up with a teenager whining at you for several years about not having a cell phone.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)

Don't disagree at all. Absolutely parents have a pivotal role to play in a childs development.

However parents are being overwhelmed today. My parents had it easy. When I went to school (not saying how long ago) there was no cell phones, heck there wasn't even sex-ed. Health (of sorts in H.S. yes), but NOT sex-ed in any grade. Now it's taught in middleschool in some places.

Back then an R rating meant something, 18 or over only and there was no PG-13. Youngs kids today absorb R movies like candy (don't kid yourself thinking they don't) ala cable tv, if not at home, then someone elses. I won't even get into the internet issues. When I was in school, there was no gay rights or gay marriages...even the concept of it was foreign. Now its becoming part of the curriculum.

Right direction? Wrong direction? In some cases yes, in others no. Who knows...you tell me.

But society as a whole dictates the direction we move in and it's not hard to see the direction we're moving in. What about the Folsum Street Fair in San Francisco? Open nudity and outright sex, gay or otherwise, in broad daylight...and is sanctioned by the city itself! Whoa! In my parents day this would have indicated to them the end of the world was at hand.

And this is just from 15-20 years ago to today. Can't wait to see what the next 15-20 years or so brings!

Serious question here: Do you think pedophiles will slowly win their rights too? Don't laugh. Gay rights had NO chance either just a decade ago.

Parents have a MUCH harder job today than they did, and it's just not getting any easier.

Again, just sayin'.

i7 6800 (6 core/12 thread), 24 GB RAM, 1 gtx 1080 ti (8GB Vram) + 1 Titan X (12GB Vram), PP11, Octane/Poser plugin, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Oh, and a wiener dog!

Quote - Serious question here: Do you think pedophiles will slowly win their rights too? Don't laugh. Gay rights had NO chance either just a decade ago.

Holy crap. What a terrible analogy. I mean, wow. Terrible.

My Freebies

Quote - What's a BOFH?

Bastard Operator from Hell

Let me start with this....I'm more than slightly offended that you're comparing the rights of pedophiles (criminals....and the BOTTOM of the barrel as far as prisoners are concerned) with the rights of homosexuals (not criminals, but still the bottom of the barrel as far as society is concerned). Do you really think that the Folsum Street Fair is that different from Mardi Gras? There are outlandish costumes, obscene amounts of drinking, nudity, and debauchery at BOTH. The Folsum Street Fair has 2 things against it (media-wise). 1. - It's newer. (Hey, it's only 25 years old!) and 2. - It's a Gay fair. OMFG (sarcasm). If there's open sex, it's not the problem of the organizers...it's the people themselves who are doing wrong. It's like saying that the organizers of the Woodstock '98 are to blame for having a festivale where it was possible for women to be raped. And, as for "gay rights" in curriculum....IF it's brought up, there should be no mention of actual sex (as in fornication, the act of sex) by the teacher. There is something to be said for schools who teach tolerance as opposed to completely ignoring the situation. There has always been gay families, it's just that a lot of them feel safe to be vocal now. And blaming ANYTHING to do with homosexuality with parents having a hard time is not only wrong, but completely and totally missing the point.

Parents have a harder time because they create a harder time for themselves. They start in early childhood, plopping the tot in front of some t.v. show designed for infants. Then they move up to the toddler shows. and so on, and so on. Electricity bills are astronomical because people have the t.v. on all damn day. Why? Entertain the kidlets. Keep them out of my hair so I can read a book/clean the house/garden/play online all day. No one includes their children anymore in their daily activities. Kids have PLAYDATES. Are you freaking kidding me? When I was a kid, you went outside. If no one was outside, you knocked on doors. And now, playdates are supervised. WTF?? Every parent I've talked to about why THEY go to playdates? They want to keep their kids safe from pedophiles. You know...your child has less of a chance of being molestedy by a pedophile YOU DON'T KNOW than they do by your sibling or parent. And, you'd practically have to make your kid pedophile bait these days for someone YOU DON'T KNOW to take them and molest them. Not to say that it doesn't happen, but I'm talking probability, here. I WAS molested as a child. I'm not trying to minimize this in ANY way. But, come on, folks. The kids I went to school with were WAY more screwed up than I was as far as sex goes, and, statistically, I should have been the class whore! You know WHY I was a good kid? I had PARENTS WHO CARED (sometimes too much, lol). I got grounded. I got my mouth slapped once in a while. I got the things I really loved taken away from me. Hell, I spent 6 weeks with nothing in my room but a bed, dressers and 3 books (not including schoolbooks) for getting a 2-day suspension at school. Do I look back and shudder and cry at that? No, I look back, and laugh, because, frankly, the things that were taken from me...trivial physical property, and nothing more. So, what if I didn't get to annoy my sisters with Green Jelly's "3 Little Pigs" at 3am? That's why they call it a punishment. It's making you do something you don't want to do, to make you think of what NOT to do.

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

I meant no offense and didn't mean to insinuate the two are related in any way, but to offer an anology of what is possible against seemingly impossible odds. Today - 10 years ago...big difference in gay acceptance! More power to them!

I personally have NO issues with gays or their rights in any form. They are consenting adults and that is cool with me. Can children consent in similar fashion? I think not!

Using the above analogy, do I think pedophiles can make the same acceptance gains as well? I certainly hope not, but seeing what is possible against seemingly impossibly odds, I'm not going to be betting any money.

i7 6800 (6 core/12 thread), 24 GB RAM, 1 gtx 1080 ti (8GB Vram) + 1 Titan X (12GB Vram), PP11, Octane/Poser plugin, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Oh, and a wiener dog!

Oh boy.

"And blaming ANYTHING to do with homosexuality with parents having a hard time is not only wrong, but completely and totally missing the point."

Me thinks you are totally missing my point as well and on that note, I hereby recant everything I have written.

i7 6800 (6 core/12 thread), 24 GB RAM, 1 gtx 1080 ti (8GB Vram) + 1 Titan X (12GB Vram), PP11, Octane/Poser plugin, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Oh, and a wiener dog!

Quote - Can children consent in similar fashion? I think not!

But a Supreme Court judge will think so one day, sooner than you expect.

www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG

In my defense, that was the only example you used.

Kids absorb R-rated movies...don't let your kids watch R-rated movies.
Kids absorb violent and/or sexual lyrics in songs....don't let your kids listen to those songs.
Kids absorb sexual and violent themes in video games...don't let your kids play those games.

The difficulty of parenting hasn't changed in 20 years...the laziness has. My parents were fully aware of the things I did as a kid, and we had LONG conversations about everything, regardless of whether or not they liked what I did. I don't understand what's so hard about taking an interest in your child. I do it with my son, and plan to do with my future children.

Kids absorb intelligent conversation...so have one with your kids.
Kids absorb positive themes in film, music, and games...so open your kids' minds and expose them to culture.
Kids absorb history, science, and art....so take them to museums, zoos, and cultural centers.

There is a lot of stuff out there that makes it easy to be a parent...it's just that parents choose not to use these resources.

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

Quote - I personally have NO issues with gays or their rights in any form. They are consenting adults and that is cool with me. Can children consent in similar fashion? I think not!

Using the above analogy, do I think pedophiles can make the same acceptance gains as well? I certainly hope not, but seeing what is possible against seemingly impossibly odds, I'm not going to be betting any money.

No, and I'll tell you why...It doesn't matter how big of a taboo homosexuality was 20 years ago, people will do anything to save their children. If a man kills or assaults someone attempting to rape/molest their child, they either get a lighter or no sentence. Pedophiles are a hot button everywhere...20 years ago, it was more likely to be swept under the rug than make the 5 o'clock news. Today, everyone is up in arms about it.

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

I hope you are right.

i7 6800 (6 core/12 thread), 24 GB RAM, 1 gtx 1080 ti (8GB Vram) + 1 Titan X (12GB Vram), PP11, Octane/Poser plugin, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Oh, and a wiener dog!

Everyone needs to understand that this guy was also on parole so he basically violated the terms of his probation. This law won't stick if there are no victims in the scene. I know that sounds bad but do you realize how many sites are out there that contain this type of cartoons and or 3d Images of minors? Quite a bit and they are still out there. If the the feds were so worried about this, they would of been gone by now.

Quote - > Quote - Can children consent in similar fashion? I think not!

But a Supreme Court judge will think so one day, sooner than you expect.

They couldn't "consent" in ancient Greece or Rome, either......but they weren't given the option. There are lots of things that infants can't "consent" to these days -- but it's done to them anyway. So, if we're in the soup for an inch: then, logically, we might as well go the whole distance. Either way: children are a mere commodity -- to exist or not to exist at our own whim and convenience. So why not use them for other purposes, too: in the same fashion that one would use any other similar home-grown agricultural resource? Think about it.....it's no worse than what Jonathan Swift suggested to the elites of his day in A Modest Proposal. I don't understand why anyone could possibly object, or could feel that such a suggestion is in any way unreasonable.

On some of the other topics that have been touched upon since I last posted to this thread......I'm nowhere near as politically correct as some of you painfully and self-consciously bend over backwards in straining yourselves to be.....in order to firmly establish the credibility of your "I'm hip and with the program" bona fides. But we don't want to get into too much of a flame-fest in the Poser forum, do we.......so it'll all have to wait for a different discussion venue.

You're right, Shonner. We're likely just a Supreme Court jusitice or two away from such a decision. No doubt, if we manage to get the "right" (he says in quotation marks) man elected this time around -- we'll see a lot of things happening "sooner than we expected". Or wanted.

Something To Do At 3:00AM

There are only two Fed officers in San Diego to go after the 4,500 pervs. There is too much paperwork to do and the jails are already full. And the judges are on the side of the criminal. And it's going to get a lot worse before things even begin to get better.

www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG

Quote - We're likely just a Supreme Court jusitice or two away from such a decision. No doubt, if we manage to get the "right" (he says in quotation marks) man elected this time around -- we'll see a lot of things happening "sooner than we expected". Or wanted.

Yup. Like it or not...it's coming.

i7 6800 (6 core/12 thread), 24 GB RAM, 1 gtx 1080 ti (8GB Vram) + 1 Titan X (12GB Vram), PP11, Octane/Poser plugin, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Oh, and a wiener dog!

Quote - This law won't stick if there are no victims in the scene.

While that is certainly one opinion, it is not a very realistic one. The current version of the law being discussed is based around obscenity law, which is pretty thoroughly explored in case history.
http://www.findlaw.com/01topics/06constitutional/cases.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity

Before people run off thinking this body of law does not have any teeth, you may want to familiarize yourselves with exactly how it's worded and how it works.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:S.151:

*SEC. 501. FINDINGS.*Congress finds the following:

*(1) Obscenity and child pornography are not entitled to protection under the First Amendment under Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) (obscenity), or New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) (child pornography) and thus may be prohibited.

[...]
`(b) ADDITIONAL OFFENSES- Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly possesses a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that--*

`(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and

`(B) is obscene; or

`(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and

*`(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;

My Freebies

Quote - "You're right, Shonner."

The Greek civilization died out. The Roman civilization died out. And America is simply only repeating what's already been done in history.

www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG

There's something about the goverment telling me what can or can't imagine, draw or render that is just not right for me.

For me, and I say this from very personal point of view, there is a difference between a drawing and the actual process of produce or aquire real children pornography, one is real, the other, isnt.

I'm ignorant of the US laws so I'm not gonna say much, but what If they find the artis? would they be charged for possesion too? so you are now being told what you can or can't draw? its like telling you what you can or cant imagine.

If authorities really cared, they would work on the real child porn out there all around the world, there's a whole industry of child being sold and carried in containers for sexual activities, who's suffering here? a guy with a manga collection?

I'll be talking about this issue at college, I might change my mind, its a complicated subject IMO.

Quote - There's something about the goverment telling me what can or can't imagine, draw or render that is just not right for me.

Once again (4th time now?) this body of law has nothing to do with you can imagine, or draw, or render, or possess - it's about what you distribute across wires or physically. It would be cool if people would actually read the the stuff I take the trouble to link you to.

My Freebies

Quote - > Quote - There's something about the goverment telling me what can or can't imagine, draw or render that is just not right for me.

Once again (4th time now?) this body of law has nothing to do with you can imagine, or draw, or render, or possess - it's about what you distribute across wires or physically. It would be cool if people would actually read the the stuff I take the trouble to link you to.

Ok, I agree about distribution of such material being out of the law, real or not. But here's a question.

If someone draws what the goverment might consider obscene material, Is it out of the law to just keep it even if you are the artist, or is it out of the law if you start to distribute it?

Well, naturally I suppose, I disagree with all the alarmism. I just don't think you can judge the direction a society is headed by the extreme examples. Maybe I've just been lucky, but I've lived in various parts of the country, and have often worked extensively with young people, have even partied with some, and I just don't see the moral decay everyone is talking about.

Yes, it's always there. But there are also a lot of young people that -- in my experience and observation -- seem well on their way to becoming responsible adults. For some reason, those kids don't seem to get a lot of attention from law enforcement and the media though ...

And as far as the Supreme Court, and children, and consent, my suspicion is that most Americans are getting sick of the extremes. I don't think very many on the left really want to go back to the worst excesses of the 60's and 70's. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see it. And vice versa. I think Americans are becoming increasingly fed up with the extremes and excesses of the right.

Maybe I'm just a polyanna (or maybe being a contrarian is just in my genes), but I think there's a real possibility that we may be in for a little more of the middle-of-the-road approach, both socially and politically, than many here are suggesting ... at least for a while.

That is, of course, not to say that there will not still be abuses of power, moral outrages, etc. I'm merely speaking of the attitudes of the great majority, not the fringes, which always exist in every society.

But it's just my 2 cents, and unlike some, I am readily willing to acknowledge I could be very, very wrong.

Umm

Quote - Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly possesses a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting

It does say possesses. If you draw it, or render it, you possess it.

Quote - depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor

That's the "anime" part of my original concern. Most anime characters are cute, cuddly, and it's not a stretch to say they can look really young.

By law, minor simply means below the age of majority - which is higher than the age of consent in a lot of cases to boot. So in theory, you could render an image of a 17 year old having sex, (an act which would be legal if they were real people), but still come under the law.

Nitpicking? Sure. Lawyers live for nitpicking - especially prosecutors.

Oddly, I don't see anything regarding nudity in the quoted section(s) though. Maybe "Obscenity" is supposed to cover that?

Pop quiz: what is described in subsection (d)?

Quote - If someone draws what the goverment might consider obscene material, Is it out of the law to just keep it even if you are the artist, or is it out of the law if you start to distribute it?

You tell me, what does the law say?

My Freebies

Quote - I think Americans are becoming increasingly fed up with the extremes and excesses of the right.

I actually would agree with you on the backlash against extremes of both left and right, though I quote only this part because that's the only one I can offer a concrete example to support.

Westboro Baptist Church (and I use the term "church" very loosely) and the backlash - not just the Patriot Guard Riders, but more visible community counter-presence when those loonies are out and about.

Quote - `(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value

*Wait, so does that mean if there was a US flag being burned in the background of one of those images the OP told us about that it would suddenly become legal? I mention flag burning because as far as I know, in just about every case the US Supreme Court has said it was protected under free speech.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)

We can quote state and federal statutes all day long but the bottom line is, are the prosecutors actually going to get off their arse and prosecute based on those laws? The most likely answer would be NO due to the courts throwing cases out the window. It's not worth their time and/or effort. Again, what about all those 3D cartoon sites that are out there who actually make money off of this concept? It's not what they can prove, it's what they want to prosecute.

Quote - are the prosecutors actually going to get off their arse and prosecute ...

You may have missed the first post in the thread, that's kind of the point of the discussion.

My Freebies

Quote - Quote - "You're right, Shonner."

The Greek civilization died out. The Roman civilization died out. And America is simply only repeating what's already been done in history.

Yep. I've been making the same point throughout my "active" portion of this thread. The parallels are truly eerie -- for anyone who's studied the end of bygone civilizations in detail. I really, really wish that I could be more optimistic about the way that things are headed..........but not now.

When a society is hell-bent on pleasuring itself to death -- persons (including children -- in fact: especially children) become mere objects for our enjoyment, to be used and disposed of as we please. It's the ultimate fulfillment of the philosophy of De Sade.

Teen mothers have gotten into the occasional habit of throwing their newborns into trash dumpsters -- and then blithely going on to party with their friends as if absolutely nothing out of the ordinary had happened -- for a reason.

I recall a scene from a movie of a couple of decades ago -- Time After Time. During one scene the main character -- H.G. Wells -- confronts a former friend from his own era who had stolen Mr. Well's time machine. His former friend is none other than Jack the Ripper, who'd escaped the Victorian era in Well's time machine in order to avoid being hung. "Jack" had then simply returned to practicing his same bloody trade in the late 20th century.

By way of explanation, Jack the Ripper's character tells a stunned Wells that "Ninety years ago I was a freak. Today I'm an amateur."

Something To Do At 3:00AM

Quote - Yep. I've been making the same point throughout my "active" portion of this thread. The parallels are truly eerie -- for anyone who's studied the end of bygone civilizations

I know by now this is pointless nitpicking (in the eyes of some), but some very serious historians (actually, many) would argue the point of Rome's "fall," as well as the cause(s) thereof. Gibbon's "fall" of the Pax Romana has been largely discredited.

All civilizations, including ours, have had periods in which they waxed and periods in which they waned, and often, depending on what one looks at and how one measures, both at the same time. Every civilization that no longer exists, by definition and in some limited sense at least, "fell," and there is no reason I can think of why one should expect any civilization, or any particular mainstream cultural point of view, to last indefinitely.

Greek culture transformed due largely to the failure of the Polis and the rise of Alexander and was eventually adopted and adapted by the Roman empire, and Roman civilization transformed or declined due largely to economic and military factors and gradually became the Byzantine Empire, the barbarian kingdoms of the West, the eventual dominance of European Catholicism, etc.. And there were many, many factors, and given that those successors adapted some of their institutions and officialdom from the Romans, and even in some cases considered themselves a natural evolution of the Roman Empire, there was not exactly a "fall."

"Transformation" versus "fall" -- I suppose it comes down to how one defines one's terms again ...

In any case, while my instinct is to agree that a civilization in which all, or large portions of the population, are only interested in carnal pleasure (the argument presumably being at the expense of more productive and civic-minded behavior) would very likely prove problematic, it is at least arguable how much of the "fall" of these civilizations had to do with people pleasuring themselves to death, and claims that some massive portion of our population are doing that in the present are at least somewhat questionable.

What is factual is that there are now over 300 million people in the US, and over six billion people on the planet, and many of those people living in crowded, close proximity to one another. There are not only very many more people committing crimes and doing immoral things than in the past, there are also very many more people working, raising and taking care of their families, and living largely conventional lives of mostly conventional morality than in the past.

But of course we only rarely see the behavior and activities of the latter folks made into major nightly news stories.

What is also factual is that there has never before the last few decades been a civilization in which the everyman was being so thoroughly inundated -- through mass media, the internet, etc. -- with so much information about illegal and immoral goings on hundreds and thousands of miles away, much of which may have been happening (relative to per capita, of course) without our knowing it many years ago when information did not flow so freely, so far, so fully, or in such quantity.

What is possible is that many of us may not be adapting our attitudes to correctly interpret the meaning and significance of all this new information-rich reality.

And what is at least thinkable is that the perception that so many of us have that things are so terribly bad now might be at least partly due to the above factors.

Of course it is also possible that Xeno and Shonner are right, and the end is nigh, or nearly so.

Something else I probably should've mentioned that some might want to consider is that some of what is interpreted today as signs of moral decay was considered well within societal norms not too long ago.

Several decades ago a man living in a small community could go to a local bar and get into a brawl and beat another man senseless, and sometimes even accidentally to death, and the odds of him being arrested for it were fairly slim.

In what has been frequently termed the "Old South," it was not particularly infrequent for grown men to court and/or marry what today we would all consider to be girls (i.e., children, not adults), and it was likewise true in the Old West that grown men sometimes married child brides of 12 or 14 and sometimes killed each other in the street in front of witnesses and walked away free men.

Some of these matters may have been due to differing economic conditions, responsibilities, etc., but the point of bringing these things up is not to condone (or even to condemn) the behavior of our forefathers, but to argue that, coinciding with the increasing sophistication of our civilization and increasing ubiquity of our institutions have evolved many more laws, more enforcement, and many more generally accepted rules of morality.

And perhaps all that, too, contributes to there being so many criminals and perverts about, i.e., some of such behavior, while it may always have been deemed to be irresponsible or in bad taste by some, was once considered to be neither crimes nor, by many, as particularly immoral.

Quote - I know by now this is pointless nitpicking (in the eyes of some), but some very serious historians (actually, many) would argue the point of Rome's "fall," as well as the cause(s) thereof. Gibbon's "fall" of the Pax Romana has been largely discredited.

Too bad that no one was around to tell the Roman women that in 410 AD. The Roman women who committed suicide rather than permit themselves to fall into the hands of the Visigoths.

Quote - All civilizations, including ours, have had periods in which they waxed and periods in which they waned, and often, depending on what one looks at and how one measures, both at the same time. Every civilization that no longer exists, by definition and in some limited sense at least, "fell," and there is no reason I can think of why one should expect any civilization, or any particular mainstream cultural point of view, to last indefinitely.

True, insofar as it goes. But it remains that certain historical cultural trends can be reliably and consistently pointed to as indicative of the character of societies before they fell from within.

Quote - Greek culture transformed due largely to the failure of the Polis and the rise of Alexander and was eventually adopted and adapted by the Roman empire, and Roman civilization transformed or declined due largely to economic and military factors and gradually became the Byzantine Empire, the barbarian kingdoms of the West, the eventual dominance of European Catholicism, etc.. And there were many, many factors, and given that those successors adapted some of their institutions and officialdom from the Romans, and even in some cases considered themselves a natural evolution of the Roman Empire, there was not exactly a "fall."

Aspects of both Roman and Greek culture remain with us to this day. But, indeed: their nations fell. And violently so. The fact that their "ruins" -- both figurative and literal -- remain to this day is merely evidence that the thing itself is gone. Shadows remain, sure. But the originators died.

Quote - "Transformation" versus "fall" -- I suppose it comes down to how one defines one's terms again ...

shrug The city of Rome took on a different character after it was sacked. The same thing goes for Thebes, Tyre, Carthage, Tenochtitlan, and Saigon. Some to a greater extent: others to a lesser extent. There have many, many such.

When the original owners are dead, and new owners move in to take over: then I suppose that one can call such an event a "transformation", if one wishes to do so. Heh -- vestiges of the original owner's culture still cling to the areas, even when their nation died right along with the original owners centuries or millenia ago.

Quote - In any case, while my instinct is to agree that a civilization in which all, or large portions of the population, are only interested in carnal pleasure (the argument presumably being at the expense of more productive and civic-minded behavior) would very likely prove problematic, it is at least arguable how much of the "fall" of these civilizations had to do with people pleasuring themselves to death, and claims that some massive portion of our population are doing that in the present are at least somewhat questionable.

:biggrin: I'd suggest reading late Roman history. And then reading about the cultural history of Europe in the decades prior to WWII. And then reading about the cultural history of the Western world over the last 40 years or so.

And then turning on the television set: and watching a little network TV.

Quote - What is factual is that there are now over 300 million people in the US, and over six billion people on the planet, and many of those people living in crowded, close proximity to one another. There are not only very many more people committing crimes and doing immoral things than in the past, there are also very many more people working, raising and taking care of their families, and living largely conventional lives of mostly conventional morality than in the past.

Fortunately and unfortunately. But few would argue that the character of what's considered to be culturally acceptable, and what's not -- has not changed considerably over recent decades. And not just in terms of the quantities involved.

Quote - But of course we only rarely see the behavior and activities of the latter folks made into major nightly news stories.

There's a lot of the other kind of event around to report on. But it's true: the character of the reporting appeals to the cultural interests of the day. Our day: our times. And the culture which prevails in it.

Quote - What is also factual is that there has never before the last few decades been a civilization in which the everyman was being so thoroughly inundated -- through mass media, the internet, etc. -- with so much information about illegal and immoral goings on hundreds and thousands of miles away, much of which may have been happening (relative to per capita, of course) without our knowing it many years ago when information did not flow so freely, so far, so fully, or in such quantity.

What is possible is that many of us may not be adapting our attitudes to correctly interpret the meaning and significance of all this new information-rich reality.

And what is at least thinkable is that the perception that so many of us have that things are so terribly bad now might be at least partly due to the above factors.

Or, alternately, it could be due to the fact that things such as mass school shootings simply did not happen 50 years ago: at a time in which guns (including full-auto machine guns) were easy for anyone to obtain via mail order. Or at a time when parents -- such as my own parents -- wouldn't give a second thought to their children taking off on their bicycles and being gone alone all day.

Something must have changed in the meantime. Something more than just the ready availability of "information". BTW - they had television, newspapers, and radio back then too.

Quote - Of course it is also possible that Xeno and Shonner are right, and the end is nigh, or nearly so.

Could be. I'd suggest starting a betting pool, only it's not something that I'd like to collect on.

Something To Do At 3:00AM

Quote - Several decades ago a man living in a small community could go to a local bar and get into a brawl and beat another man senseless, and sometimes even accidentally to death, and the odds of him being arrested for it were fairly slim.

Overall crime rates were also considerably lower.

Quote - In what has been frequently termed the "Old South," it was not particularly infrequent for grown men to court and/or marry what today we would all consider to be girls (i.e., children, not adults), and it was likewise true in the Old West that grown men sometimes married child brides of 12 or 14 and sometimes killed each other in the street in front of witnesses and walked away free men.

All of those things still happen today......but with certain caveats. The relationships with younger girls are normally carried out today without any need for complications like marriage. And as for "killing someone in the street in front of witnesses and walking away": convicted 1st degree murderers in the US spend about 4 years on the average in prison for their crimes, statistically speaking. That is to say: those few of them who are actually caught and then actually convicted.

IIRC, something on the order of 76% of the murders which occur in New York City go unsolved. Nobody saw nuthin'. In most cases, the police don't even have a suspect.

Did you happen to see the recent news report of the old man who was run over, and no one helped -- or even seemed to be particularly interested?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t4wWGH51-A

Typical.

Quote - Some of these matters may have been due to differing economic conditions, responsibilities, etc., but the point of bringing these things up is not to condone (or even to condemn) the behavior of our forefathers, but to argue that, coinciding with the increasing sophistication of our civilization and increasing ubiquity of our institutions have evolved many more laws, more enforcement, and many more generally accepted rules of morality.

As far as marrying young was concerned: depending upon the precise era to which you refer -- people used to have an average life expectancy of 35-40 years of age. Under such circumstances, getting married at age 14 might have had some legitimate reasons behind it.

Quote - And perhaps all that, too, contributes to there being so many criminals and perverts about, i.e., some of such behavior, while it may always have been deemed to be irresponsible or in bad taste by some, was once considered to be neither crimes nor, by many, as particularly immoral.

True. In late Rome it wasn't considered to be particularly perverted to sell castrated boys for sexual purposes. Or to engage in certain other types of activities.

Give us a little time: we'll come around to it. We've already come around on so much else. You know: cultural advancement and all of that.

Something To Do At 3:00AM

Quote - Give us a little time: we'll come around to it. We've already come around on so much else. You know: cultural advancement and all of that.

Well, concerning the imminent collapse of civilization, thousands upon thousands of self-appointed "prophets" throughout all of history would agree, except in regard to their own times and their own cultures. A few were right, the vast majority were wrong. History is replete with Chicken Littles screaming the sky is falling and the end of the world -- or at least as they know it; and occasionally -- as one might statistically expect -- they were right.

Perhaps you will be one of them. On your death bed perhaps you can let me know.

And really, Xeno, on the rest of it, you insist on missing much of my point.

That all these things happen today I don't contest.

Much of my point was that much of what happened in yesteryears was simply never documented and the information never disseminated, either because they were not considered crimes or because those who documented and disseminated such things were nonexistent or in such short supply. We simply don't know how many abortions there were when it was only midwives and pregnant women performing them. We don't have a very good idea how many people were killed in the streets either. We don't know how many kids were abducted or sexually abused.

Of course, we can guess, and historians can infer, but the fact is that there was simply not the ubiquity of law enforcement or news media or scholars or researchers or institutions which kept track of all these various statistics -- or at least certainly not even remotely on the scale that we have today.

As far as having TV way back then, too, I said several decades, and then, it was 3 channels, no internet, and in a social culture in which most "national" news was almost exclusively about Washington and major metropolitan areas, and many parts of the country strove mightily (as some still do) to keep their crimes and "weird goings on" under wraps for fear it would give their community a bad reputation.

And as far as 410 A.D. goes, and whoever the original owners of Greek and Roman civilization were (who, based on your argument, apparently must have lived for hundreds of years, i.e., not being dead yet), I'll read a little bit more if you will ... but Rome went through a lot of upheavals, up, down, and sideways, and though it was once widely accepted among historians like Gibbon -- whose work is now well over 200 years old -- that 410 was the "official" date of the "fall" -- more recent scholarship suggests that particular take on things is very much an oversimplification ...

Quote - Well, concerning the imminent collapse of civilization, thousands upon thousands of self-appointed "prophets" throughout all of history would agree, except in regard to their own times and their own cultures. A few were right, the vast majority were wrong. History is replete with Chicken Littles screaming the sky is falling and the end of the world -- or at least as they know it; and occasionally -- as one might statistically expect -- they are right.

History is replete with prophets who said "peace, peace", when there was no peace. Or at least they knew it, and frequently -- they were wrong.

Many of those soothing (It's always been this way......so no need for concern. Go back to sleep.) prophets had a lot to say just prior to WWI and WWII. Not to mention just prior to many other similar events of the more distant past.

It's recently been claimed that over all of recorded human history, there has been 20 years of cumulative "true world peace". Personally, I tend to doubt that figure. The "chicken littles" of today have good cause. The "chcken littles" who took Hitler at his word, before that man had actually moved -- Winston Churchill foolishly believed that Hitler actually meant the things that he had said in Mein Kampf -- i.e. -- that Hitler wasn't just kidding around -- some of us likewise foolishly believe that the leaders of nations like Iran actually mean the things that they are saying that they are going to do to us today. And that they will be only too happy to carry their words out at the first opportunity.

Those "chicken littles" of the early 20th century were disbelieved at the time by the soothing prophets of peace (of course).

Statistically speaking, I wonder who was right.......?

Quote - Perhaps you will be one of them. On your death bed perhaps you can let me know.

Boy, the places where Freudian analysis could go with that one..........

Quote - And really, Xeno, on the rest of it, you insist on missing much of my point.

Nope. I just insist on responding to you various points, and pointing out the flaws in them.

Quote - That all these things happen today I don't contest.

Good.

Quote - Much of my point was that much of what happened in yesteryears was simply never documented and the information never disseminated, either because they were not considered crimes or because those who documented and disseminated such things were nonexistent or in such short supply. We simply don't know how many abortions there were when it was only midwives and pregnant women performing them. We don't have a very good idea how many people were killed in the streets either. We don't know how many kids were abducted or sexually abused.

Oh, there were always bad times. Frequently brought on by people's behavior as a culture......cultures which were comprised of individuals, making individual cultural choices in keeping with their times. Choices which brought about certain results. Which takes us back to the examples that we have from history as to the places where certain types of accepted cultural mores will take us........because we have the pattern, oft repeated, of others who've tried the same sorts of social experiments which we are bent on trying today. From which we expect to see different results than they did -- which someone has called the definition of insanity.

As for "not knowing"......in the Old West (one of the periods to which you refer) -- there wasn't nearly as much internecine warfare as the Saturday Matinee westerns would tend to lead someone to believe. It depends upon your sources for your history, I suppose.

However, it's easy to suggest that there was a whole lotta child abductin', etc. goin' on that we didn't know about. Because making such a completely unfounded suggestion represents an attempt to mitigate the guilt of the current era, by implying that "it was always like that -- we just didn't know about it".

When did a high school student shoot up his school a couple of generations ago? And why was it OK for kids to ride their bicycles down to the creek in 1955, but not today?

Quote - Of course, we can guess, and historians can infer, but the fact is that there was simply not the ubiquity of law enforcement or news media or scholars or researchers or institutions which kept track of all these various statistics -- or at least certainly not even remotely on the scale that we have today.

True -- you are engaging in guessing. That's correct.

But once again: you are attempting to dodge around my point by first obliquely admitting to it: and then speaking wonderingly of why others can't grasp your logic. Now that's funny.

Yep, bad things happened "back then" as a result of the paths that people chose to follow "back then". And while no modern statistician was there at the time to analyze things to a .001% sample (snort), and do so just as accurately as they do today ()........yet the results of their choices remain for us to read in the ruins.

BTW - as a side note on statistical matters: there has yet to be a presidential election since (and including) 1980 where the polls favored the Republican candidate. The Democrat was always supposed to win -- every single time. Including in 2004.

Quote - As far as having TV way back then, too, I said several decades, and then, it was 3 channels, no internet, and in a social culture in which most "national" news was almost exclusively about Washington and major metropolitan areas, and many parts of the country strove mightily (as some still do) to keep their crimes and "weird goings on" under wraps for fear it would give their community a bad reputation.

Uh......so what's different today? Beyond the existence of the internet? And the addition of some cable news channels? Big steps, I'll acknowledge. But people had ready access to information back then, too.

Quote - And as far as 410 A.D. goes, and whoever the original owners of Greek and Roman civilization were (who, based on your argument, apparently must have lived for hundreds of years, i.e., not being dead yet), I'll read a little bit more if you will ... but Rome went through a lot of upheavals, up, down, and sideways, and though it was once widely accepted among historians like Gibbons -- whose work is now well over 200 years old -- that 410 was the "official" date of the "fall" -- more recent scholarship suggests that particular take on things is very much an oversimplification ...

Where the part about "thinking that the original owners of the Greek and Roman civilizations lived for hundreds of years" came from escapes me. The "original owners" refers to a society, a culture. Not to individual human beings. :rolleyes:

Yep. It's simplified. As I mentioned earlier: it was a simple matter for the Roman women to grasp. Vestiges continued after 410. Vestiges always do. But there was a cultural / historical process which led up to 410. And we're doing an excellent job of mimicking that process today.

Something To Do At 3:00AM

Well, a lot of high school kids of yesteryear were not actually high school kids. They were laborers, or signed up early for the military, or dropped out to take care of parents, or to look after younger siblings, etc., but I suppose that's really beside the point.

Nor did they have to deal with all the pressures and stresses of rapid scientific, technological, political, racial, cultural, class, and social change, which stresses even adults, as we all know.

They were also a smaller overall percentage of the population in most times, i.e., than we've had since the baby boom, and to some extent, more recently.

But high school shootings now apparently being the primary measure of all things bad and evil (for Xeno), plenty of horrendous crimes were committed, but because they were crimes of a different nature, like unreported and unpunished rapes, and unreported and unpunished wife and child beatings, and unreported and unpunished murders of blacks and homosexuals, etc., I suppose they didn't really happen and don't really count so far as you are concerned.

I suppose this could go on and on as you have now accused me of not having an argument without actually having a particularly coherent or empirically supported one yourself, but obviously, as always, at least when it comes to Xeno, there is no point to any of this.

In terms of how our modern moral decay may or not be worse or more pervasive than other times, I was not claiming to have the truth. For the most part, I have not even argued against many of the points and assumptions you are making. I don't claim to know that what I have offered is the explanation for anything. I was simply asking you, and others, to consider, and perhaps even examine and think about, some other possible explanations for some of what you so self-servingly (considering your political/social philosophy) assume, but I see that it is pointless ...

And strangely, it is not all that rewarding to discuss this, or anything else, with someone who has so obviously and completely closed their mind. Who would have thought? Go figure.

And in any case, at the moment, I've much, much better things to do.

Quote - Well, a lot of high school kids of yesteryear were not actually high school kids. They were laborers, or signed up early for the military, or dropped out to take care of parents, or to look after younger siblings, etc., but I suppose that's really beside the point.

Yep. It's beside the point.

Quote - Nor did they have to deal with all the pressures and stresses of rapid scientific, technological, political, racial, cultural, class, and social change, which stresses even adults, as we all know.

Ah -- OK. I get it. So the pressures of the Great Depression, a couple of world wars, the threat of the atomic bomb, and a few other suchlike minor incidents didn't have much bearing on those young people's lives back then, eh? It's so-o-o-o-o-o-o much harder today -- with Xbox's and full cable TV + DVD players in every 8-year-old's room. Tough life.

Those high schooler's of yore had things so much easier than kids do now. :ohmy:

Quote - They were also a smaller overall percentage of the population in most times, i.e., than we've had since the baby boom, and to some extent, more recently.

shrug The angst of youth was ever thus.

Many popular Victorian novels focused upon the central character of a rebellious teenager. Often a 17-year-old girl.

Quote - But high school shootings now apparently being the primary measure of all things bad and evil (for Xeno)

Nope. It's just an example of something that happens now, which clearly did not happen back then. There are other examples, too. Like workplace shootings. And restaurant mass shootings. And shopping mall mass shootings. And......well, you get the picture. Or perhaps you don't.

Quote - plenty of horrendous crimes were committed, but because they were crimes of a different nature, like unreported and unpunished rapes, and unreported and unpunished wife and child beatings, and unreported and unpunished murders of blacks and homosexuals, etc., I suppose they didn't really happen and don't really count so far as you are concerned.

Oh, they happened all right. Please see my response to you in regards to this same rhetorical ground above. It might help to clarify things.

But just in case if you missed it, I'll state this again: "facts" based upon assumptions are no facts at all. You continue to make the spurious claim that gazillions of crimes were committed that we know nothing about -- in an attempt to make the well-known crimes of today seem less by comparison. Prove it. Prove that those hidden events actually happened in per capita numbers to compare to today's outrageous numbers.

You cannot logically make the assumptions that you have to make in order to "prove" such an unfounded point. You can only guess, and imply, and suggest. Not establish.

I can point to the ruins of ancient civilizations, and to well-known historical facts. You are the one who is making assumptions.

Quote - I suppose this could go on and on as you have now accused me of not having an argument without actually having a particularly coherent or empirically supported one yourself, but obviously, as always, at least when it comes to Xeno, there is no point to any of this.

See above in response to this type of rhetoric. Again.

Quote - In terms of how our modern moral decay may or not be worse or more pervasive than other times, I was not claiming to have the truth. For the most part, I have not even argued against many of the points and assumptions you are making. I don't claim to know that what I have offered is the explanation for anything. I was simply asking you, and others, to consider, and perhaps even examine and think about, some other possible explanations for some of what you so self-servingly (considering your political/social philosophy) assume, but I see that it is pointless ...

History is as history does. I suppose that one could argue that the Roman empire never actually fell at all.......as you seemed to imply, at least in a measure, earlier.

Tell me -- when will the next Senatorial appointments be made?

Quote - And strangely, it is not all that rewarding to discuss this, or anything else, with someone who has so obviously and completely closed their mind. Who would have thought? Go figure.

Once again: a high mark for ironic humor. Without any question, DQ is the master of irony. Especially when he's attempting to be high-sounding with vacuous rhetoric.

Quote - And in any case, at the moment, I've much, much better things to do.

Like sleep.

Something To Do At 3:00AM

Well, philosophically speaking, I remain HOPEFUL that donquixote has a truer world view, but I'm afraid XENOPHONZ more precisely mirrors my own.

I think the next few years will unequivocally chart our course in history. I am pessimistic. Hopeful, but pessimistic.

i7 6800 (6 core/12 thread), 24 GB RAM, 1 gtx 1080 ti (8GB Vram) + 1 Titan X (12GB Vram), PP11, Octane/Poser plugin, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Oh, and a wiener dog!

Quote -
Ah -- OK. I get it. So the pressures of the Great Depression, a couple of world wars, the threat of the atomic bomb, and a few other suchlike minor incidents didn't have much bearing on those young people's lives back then, eh? It's so-o-o-o-o-o-o much harder today -- with Xbox's and full cable TV + DVD players in every 8-year-old's room. Tough life.

Those high schooler's of yore had things so much easier than kids do now. :ohmy:

See, that's just the thing...100 years ago, people HAD TO deal with their lives. The most of a "fantasy" people had to delve into back then was a book, a radio show, or their own imagination gasp. Now, we've got 500+ t.v. channels, thousands of movies and video games, and no one seems to want to take the blame for anything in society today. Back then, people had to deal with the depression because it simply was....and it made everyone conserve resources and work hard. Today? We've got a recession...But you'd hardly notice it with what people are buying. Why stock up on non-perishible food items, when you can buy a new PS3? Or, why buy the $50 converter box for your t.v., when you can spend $1000+ on a brand new flat-screen t.v.? We don't live in the same reality now that we had 100 years ago.

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

Okay, Xeno, I've finished staring into space, twiddling my thumbs, goofing off, and planning all those evil, illegal, immoral, nasty activities we so-called liberals are apparently always about (I told you I had much better things to do), and have decided, very stupidly I'm sure, to take another shot at this.

If some of the following comes across as insulting, I apologize. Call it my high-sounding vacuous rhetoric, if you like (and your anti-intellectual bias is showing by the way; you might want to tuck that in -- or maybe not). It's just that I don't know how to say some of this in a way that could not be interpreted as insulting (if one wants to interpret it that way).

To begin, I'm not much interested in all your barbs and thinly veiled insults. Some are somewhat clever, some are quite vapid, but whatever. I'm just not interested.

Nor am I interested in your throw-out-every-distraction-and-red-herring-but-the-kitchen-sink-then-oversimplify-and-restate-so-as-to-change-the-actual-meaning-of-what-was-originally-said approach to "debate." You make lots of declarative statements about the world as you see it, and I'm sure (make that almost sure) some are fact-based, but it is hard to tell about many of them because you do not generally try to back them up with any argument, and when you do, the facts you use tend to be anecdotal rather than anything that could be construed to be a point-by-point argument. That's fine. That's your style. And I admit, I do a bit of it too. But I am not interested in that either.

Nor am I particularly interested in your apparent need to preserve your apparently very large ego by refusing to ever acknowledge anything unless you said or thought of it first.

Nor am I interested much, anymore, in convincing you of anything. What I am interested in is not leaving others who may be so inclined with the impression that you necessarily always know what you are talking about. I can let a lot of things go, but I simply refuse -- well, while I still have the strength -- to let everything go.

So here goes:

Quote - Uh......so what's different today? Beyond the existence of the internet? And the addition of some cable news channels? Big steps, I'll acknowledge. But people had ready access to information back then, too.

I can't decide if you are really so unsophisticated or if this is simply part of a strategy to tucker out your "opponent" by demanding one exhaustive explanation after another to support the obvious while offering very little in the way of such explanation to support your own claims ... but in any case:

First off, your offhand near dismissal of the significance of cable channels and the internet is surprising as it should be apparent to anyone here on Renderosity how much they have transformed our lives, our information, and here on the internet, our interactions with one another, etc., and not merely nationally, but world-wide as illustrated by the very many members here from very many nations around the world.

Second, until recent decades, oh, let's say 50 years ago, but even to some extent since then, there were still very many Americans who lived in rural areas, some remote and a few not so remote, who did not have electricity, much less TV sets, radios, etc., and they, along with those who did have all those things, often performed hard labor from dawn to dusk, working on farms, ranches, hauling produce and supplies, working hard on oil wells, clearing land, chopping wood, slaughtering animals, and so forth. Not only did they work hard at hard physical activities, they did not have much in the way of leisure time. It is also true that many more than today who worked in metropolitan areas -- not just rural folks -- worked much harder physically as well, which I will come back to in a moment (with my "hi-faluting" rhetoric, so as not to disappoint).

Further, in addition to fewer TV channels (and far fewer radio stations for that matter), there were far fewer TVs and radios. One did not find a TV at every doctor's office, at every gymnasium, etc., etc., and the 3 channels were not on 24 hours a day, and the vast majority of the programming offered was not news and was of a much more limited variety, and there were certainly no 24-hour news channels, and weren't nearly as many communication satellites (actually none 50 years ago -- (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/satcomhistory.html)), broadcast towers, cables, phone lines, reporters, news magazines, etc.

Additionally, there is a very good reason for the stereotype of the dumb athlete (and here goes that high-sounding rhetoric you like), and at least one of those reasons is that prolonged physical activity tends to tire one out, burn off nervous energy, release endorphins, etc., and for all those who worked physically hard from dawn to dusk, even those who had access to good reading material, TV, radio and such and wished to know and understand more about the world around them -- as anyone who has ever worked that hard knows -- the temptation to fall asleep during the nightly news must often have been overwhelming.

Having read widely and talked to my mother and father and their friends, and various others from previous generations, I have reason to believe that many -- outside of the best educated -- who grew up in rural areas (as well as many who lived in small to mid-size towns), as little as 40 and 50 years ago got much of their information through word of mouth, and the vast majority of that was local, not national. Many simply worked too hard and too long to have the time and energy to get it otherwise.

And so on. There is also the fact that many Americans were more provincial in their education and concerns. Conversations like this one -- and I'm starting to think it was a good thing -- not only did not take place very often because there was no internet, but because there were limited opportunities and venues for such. Rural citizens cared less about what went on in the cities and vice versa. Crimes that happened among the big city folk was of very limited interest, at best, to country folk, and vice versa. To some extent, it is still true, but not as profoundly.

So that is just some of how "what's different today." To go into more detail than that would likely require a detailed review of the 2nd half of the 20th century, and I simply don't have the inclination, and perhaps not the expertise.

As far as your other comments, I may or may not review them and respond to them at some point. But it really is a bother -- (if it brings you any satisfaction, you are succeeding somewhat in exhausting me if that is your strategy) -- and it seems so pointless since you seem -- and not just in this "debate" but in others that can be found here at Renderosity -- essentially incapable of acknowledging very much of anything unless, as I have already mentioned, you said or thought of it first.

No time to twiddle my own thumbs right now, DQ. Other than to mention that you're a bit confused on the "high-sounding rhetoric" bit. That has to do with your implied lip-curling in regards to your own self-proclaimed Higher Order of Deep Intellectualism: and to the lack of it on the part of any others with whom you disagree. The rhetoric.......I have to admit.........is equally as profound as its basis.

Quote - I can't decide if you are really so unsophisticated or if this is simply part of a strategy to tucker out your "opponent" by demanding one exhaustive explanation after another to support the obvious while offering very little in the way of such explanation to support your own claims ... but in any case:

You know -- the irony here is just too great to resist. :lol: It's quite funny. Hilarious, in fact. Thanks for that one.

As for the remainder: I'll have to get back at 'cha when I have more time to kill.

Something To Do At 3:00AM

Quote - the irony here is just too great to resist. It's quite funny. Hilarious, in fact. Thanks for that one.

Not interested in insults, lame attempts at ridicule, etc., as I have already stated.

Instead, let me respond to some of your other claims with some more high-sounding rhetoric you can then pathetically dismiss as hilarious without any substantive acknowledgment (I am now certain) that you might not be all-knowing:

Quote - Ah -- OK. I get it. So the pressures of the Great Depression, a couple of world wars, the threat of the atomic bomb, and a few other suchlike minor incidents didn't have much bearing on those young people's lives back then, eh? It's so-o-o-o-o-o-o much harder today -- with Xbox's and full cable TV + DVD players in every 8-year-old's room. Tough life.

Again, you restate and attempt to change the meaning of what I said. I never said or suggested that such events had little or no bearing on young people's lives; and it is quite obvious you don't "get it."

It is well understood by physiologists that an advanced biological organism's average, day-to-day stress level has far more to do with immediate, constant stimuli, constant flux, and the perception of immediate threats than with great, infrequent events occurring peripherally to their direct life-and-death survival. It is true of human beings as it is true of any other creature with a sophisticated, well-developed nervous system.

Call it high-sounding rhetoric if you will, but instead of closing down to every thought but your own, and wasting my time as well as yours with pointlessness, how about go ask someone who has actually studied the subject?

Quote - You continue to make the spurious claim that gazillions of crimes were committed that we know nothing about -- in an attempt to make the well-known crimes of today seem less by comparison. Prove it. Prove that those hidden events actually happened in per capita numbers to compare to today's outrageous numbers.

You cannot logically make the assumptions that you have to make in order to "prove" such an unfounded point. You can only guess, and imply, and suggest. Not establish.

I can point to the ruins of ancient civilizations, and to well-known historical facts. You are the one who is making assumptions.

And again you restate in order to change the meaning, and then demand that I prove your mischaracterizations.

I never suggested that gazillions of crimes were committed. What I suggested, as anyone who wishes to go back and read what I actually wrote can attest, is that in many respects we simply don't know, and not knowing means that to insist that our state of immorality or amorality is so much worse today is, at least to a significant degree, as much speculation and assumption as anything else. You are essentially comparing what is largely and thoroughly known, documented, statistically categorized, analyzed, and often covered incessantly by our often sensationalistic media to what is largely unknown, undocumented, etc., and saying that what is largely known is far worse. How absurd. I hope this is not what you term "logic." Nor have I ever suggested that crimes of the past in any way make the well-known crimes of today seem less by comparison. And since I never made either one of those claims, I don't feel particularly compelled to prove your mischaracterizations of what I actually said.

As for pointing to the ruins of ancient civilizations, and to well-known historical facts, yes you can do that, and sometimes you do, but mostly you merely claim to be uncommonly familiar with these matters because, presumably, you are such an expert on history. Perhaps this is because you don't have, or don't want to take, the time to actually lay it all out to make a coherent case, or perhaps it's for some other reason. But until you actually do lay it all out, in an ordered, logical, deductive and/or inductive manner, we will all simply have to make our own various assumptions about the depth and breadth of your understanding of these historical matters and how knowing them substantively supports, or doesn't, your point of view. And even assuming you do so at some point, which I don't expect, since as I've pointed out I've never actually made many of the claims you have suggested I've made, it will not be likely to, in many respects, adequately refute many of the various actual points I have made.

In any case, as I said, most of your facts are anecdotal as opposed to an attempt to muster a point-by-point argument.

As for the rest of your recent, various and sundry comments, as I said, I'm not interested in insults, attempts at ridicule and so forth. As is often the case, you resort to these tactics, among others, when you wish to avoid attempts at rebuttal, presumably because, other than such folderol, you have nothing much to say.

Quote - As for the rest of your recent, various and sundry comments, as I said, I'm not interested in insults, attempts at ridicule and so forth. As is often the case, you resort to these tactics, among others, when you wish to avoid attempts at rebuttal, presumably because, other than such folderol, you have nothing much to say.

:lol::lol::lol:

You're killin' me, DQ! :biggrin: I gotta admit -- you're one of the more snarky self-important types that I've run across. It's pretty much a standard forum debate tactic to use ironic projection in the way that you do.........:biggrin: I note that your last line of defense always seems to be a sneer, and always involves claims of inherent superiority. I gotta tell ya: I love forumites like that. They're so much fun to take down.

As for your interests or lack thereof: that's all entirely up to you. But it's no never-mind to me.

And as for me "wishing to avoid attempts at rebuttal" -- do you really believe that? Do you think that I have the least concern whatsoever about answering another of your moustache-twirling diatribes? It's true that RW concerns take me offline for hours at a time, or even for a day or two: but rest assured.......I have no problems over the fearful (snort) thought of rebutting yet another University Freshman mixture coming from you.

Something To Do At 3:00AM

Alright, you two. Seriously, the back and forth is enough. The personal attacks are a bit much from the BOTH of you.

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

Quote - Alright, you two. Seriously, the back and forth is enough. The personal attacks are a bit much from the BOTH of you.

Not a problem, Jen. It doesn't bother me: such things never do. But without the personal insults being allowed, I fear that DQ won't have much else left to say..........

But dropping them on this end, as per your indication.

Something To Do At 3:00AM

Quote - Alright, you two. Seriously, the back and forth is enough. The personal attacks are a bit much from the BOTH of you.

Okay. In spite of Xeno's characterizations, and yours, I believe I have kept it far more civil (though admittedly "snarky" in Xeno's terminology) than Xeno has. I do not agree that I have engaged in particularly personal attacks other than having said that Xeno is very close minded, engages in ad hominem attacks, and is unwilling to acknowledge much of anything, all of which I firmly believe is evident to anyone who bothers to read his posts, but you're the moderator, so whatever you say.

As I predicted some time ago, and have repeatedly noted, it is all pointless anyway, and I am done here.

*....and as we break for half time, the combatants move back to their rest areas for refreshments.

we were to have the Arakeen Marching Band play for us this week, but due to an unforseen problem, they are unable to attend.

instead we have the Famous Klingon Morris Dancers of Qo'noS performing "arggh ow ow aaarrgh erk' with live painsticks.

So we turn to our Team for predictions on the 2nd half of this exciting match...

Bahhh -- rather than waste bandwidth in citing lines of quotations from your last couple of posts -- I'll just roll over some points of interest here:

You seem to be taking the position that most people living in the 1960's and earlier were a bunch of ignorant, uninformed provincial dunces: and that no one had an educated ear attuned to national -- or even to local -- news events. And that the media of that day was so limited that the average person simply couldn't hope to grasp the magnitude of passing world events. :rolleyes: I have to admit that such attitudes are standard fodder for self-important snobs (who fancy themselves to be Great Intellectuals -- and so superior to all of the mere mortals below), but the realities were (and are) often quite different.

People -- including people living back in the day -- were as much of a mix of the informed and the uninformed as they are right now. In spite of the famous 24-hour news cycle that we all have the joy of living in today: there are still plenty of people -- as in those that Howard Stern's man on the street reporter recently interviewed -- who when informed that Obama had picked Sarah Palin as his running mate: praised Obama for his wisdom and his foresight in making such a superb choice. And that's another reason why they were voting for Obama, too..........

So, yes: ignorant people exist in spite of all that the 24-hour news cycle can do for (or perhaps to) them.

I'd take a look at the famous 8th-grade standardized test from 1895 (admittedly controversial as to precisely how we should interpret it in the light of today's 8th graders -- because some people don't like the implications):

http://people.moreheadstate.edu/fs/w.willis/eighthgrade.html

I can tell you something about the 60's - I was there. Little boys in the 3rd grade even knew about LBJ and "what he was doing about LSD and dope and all that". Some of them wee saddened that LBJ had chosen not to run again, too. (shudder) But after what had happened to him in New Hampshire, it probably couldn't be helped, you see...... We discussed Vietnam, the Soviet Union, Goldwater, WWII and Patton, the Civil War, NASA.......and so forth. And I was raised in a small southern town.

Information was more than readily available for anyone who cared to casually look.

Attempt to deny the clear facts on their face as much as you like: we, as children, had no fear about going where we liked in those days. And nothing ever happened to any of us as a result. Or only fear was from the mean old man or old lady who lived down the street, and that everybody (meaning us kids) hated. It's not like that today.

People didn't shoot up schools, restaurants, workplaces, shopping centers, etc. in that day, either. Charles Whitman was the beginning of such: and at the time, he was so notable because he was so totally shocking, an abberation, a freak. Today he'd be a minor blip in the 24-hour news cycle. Just another one in a long list.

You know, the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, which so galvanized the entire nation's attention in it's day -- and which so outraged the public at that time........to the public of that era: it was an unthinkable, horrific crime. By contrast: today, a mere incident on the order of the St. Valentine's Day Massacre -- at least in terms of the number of people killed -- hits the news every couple of months or so, at least. If not more often. It's another temporary blip on cable. "Hey, Ethel -- did you see that? Another crazy killed 7 people because his girlfriend broke up with him. yawn Be sure to turn off the TV, will ya?" One week after, that particular news story involving 7 dead teens-old folks-children-women-whoever will have been totally forgotten by most of the public. If they ever learned of the incident in the first place. The once-shocking has now become the everyday, the hum-drum. So are things different now? Nahhh.....they just can't be...........

In the 1950's, a divorce was a major cause of scandal for local neighborhoods at that time. Today, it's nothing at all.

I could go on and on..........

Are things different today than they were a couple of generations ago? Are people's attitudes different? Is amorality on the move as a cultural wave in our times? Yes, it is. And it's not the ready availibility of the news cycle which has caused this state of affairs. It's the tenor and the calling of our times: as expressed in the opinions, thoughts, desires, and the hearts of individuals.

No, we didn't get here overnight. But -- as Rome's fall didn't happen because of the events of a single year: but the cracks in late Roman society grew over decades.........that single year of 410 AD was the result of a society in decline for some time before. 410 was merely the culmination of the effect. Likewise, a decent structural engineer can see the same cracks forming in our own foundation today. In fact, a sharp-sighted layman can spot the warning signs -- if he cares to see.

Something To Do At 3:00AM

Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL

Subject: OT: Cautionary news for those who render anime-style?