Rape Games in Japan?!

[JohnRM]

I put forth, as evidence, the fact that it is child pornography to depict animated characters of a minor age having sex.

What else you got?

 

[RedRalph]

No, they're based on legal principles. The reason why rape is but sex is not wrong is that sex is consensual whereas rape is not. That principle -- consensuality -- is enshrined in legal doctrine. I'm sorry if you guys aren't aware of these sound legal principles, nor the centuries of moral philosophies that underpin them, but believing that "majority rules" when it comes to law is simply wrong, both factually and morally.

And where were these legal principles derived from? Moral philosophies, as you say. Morals. What people feel is right and wrong, fundamentally. so yeah that is where the law comes from, it just goes through a few other stages on the way, but fundamentally that is what determines laws.

 

[Grisu]

That is correct. We ban things based on what the majority is personally disgusted with.

Great, let's ban homosexuality again, shall we? Or what about non-vanilla sexual practices? Most people are disgusted by a lot of them, but we don't ban them since they're between consenting adults. As long as the same is given for these rape games, they shouldn't be banned.

I put forth, as evidence, the fact that it is child pornography to depict animated characters of a minor age having sex.

What else you got?

depends on the country you're in....

 

[JohnRM]

Neither are all Japanese people wrong or sick like you state in OP.

I didn't say as much. However, there is a market for this in Japan whereas the market does not exist anywhere else.

 

[holy king]

And where were these legal principles derived from? Moral philosophies, as you say. Morals. What people feel is right and wrong, fundamentally. so yeah that is where the law comes from, it just goes through a few other stages on the way, but fundamentally that is what determines laws.

"what is moral" and "what is disgusting" are two different pairs of shoes.

 

[JohnRM]

great, let's ban homosexuality again, shall we? Or what about non-vanilla sexual practices? Most people are disgusted by a lot of them, but we don't ban them since they're between consenting adults. As long as the same is given for these rape games, they shouldn't be banned.

Most people support gay rights. Most people support privacy in the bedroom. What else you got?


side note; I have a doctor's appt. I'll be Arnold.

 

[Camikaze]

@John- you haven't addressed how you in practice would make rape games illegal, in a way that would actually work. A large part of the objection (from me at least) to making these games illegal comes from the fact that it is impossible to do so without resorting to methods that are more detrimental to the public than the existence of small niche games.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The more ways there are to do this, the closer a few of them get to enacting them, in real life.

Is that a fact?

 

[Mise]

And where were these legal principles derived from? Moral philosophies, as you say. Morals. What people feel is right and wrong, fundamentally. so yeah that is where the law comes from, it just goes through a few other stages on the way, but fundamentally that is what determines laws.

"what is moral" and "what is disgusting" are two different pairs of shoes.

Yes, and in addition, legal, democratic principles can't be overidden by majority rule. Otherwise you end up with concentration camps for Jews and lynching of blacks.

 

[Grisu]

Most people support gay rights. Most people support privacy in the bedroom. What else you got?

So if most people didn't support gay rights, it would be OK to discriminate against them?
I remember you saying Switzerland's edging towards fascism (or something to that effect) when the Swiss people decided (much to my dismay) to ban Minarets. But since it's the majority deciding you have no grounds to oppose it, right? Sorry, that logic doesn't seem to be consistent.

side note; I have a doctor's appt. I'll be Arnold.

what?

 

[RedRalph]

Yes, and in addition, legal, democratic principles can't be overidden by majority rule. Otherwise you end up with concentration camps for Jews and lynching of blacks.

No, you don't. Not eveything has to be applied as a concrete precedent. There are plenty of contradictions in the legal system, and not all of them are harmful to the public, some are quite beneficial.

Look, when I was a bit younger, I was of the 'almost everything should be legal' viewpoint, but as you get a bit older you tend to realise satisfying your own desire not to contradict your principles or to adhere rigidly to a moral or philisophical idea plays second fiddle to real-world applications. There is and has to be room for pragmatism when it comes to the legal system, because life does not take place in the head of a Greek guy 4,000 years ago. It doesn't matter if the spirit of one law contradicts the other, it does matter if the application or absence of those laws is harmful to society.

 

[dirtyparrot]

That is correct. We ban things based on what the majority is personally disgusted with.

I'll go with Rousseau in thinking that the general will =/ to the majority of the people. Otherwise, things like ending slavery and Universal Suffrage might not happen.

 

[holy king]

Look, when I was a bit younger, I was of the 'almost everything should be legal' viewpoint, but as you get a bit older you tend to realise satisfying your own desire not to contradict your principles or to adhere rigidly to a moral or philisophical idea plays second fiddle to real-world applications. There is and has to be room for pragmatism when it comes to the legal system, because life does not take place in the head of a Greek guy 4,000 years ago. It doesn't matter if the spirit of one law contradicts the other, it does matter if the application or absence of those laws is harmful to society.

you support alcohol prohibition?

 

[RedRalph]

you support alcohol prohibition?

No, I don't. In principle that contradicts some of my other views, in practise having alcohol legalised and PCP not legalised is quite beneficial to thenpublic, so I couldn't care less what happens in principle, I care what happens in the real world.

 

[Camikaze]

There is and has to be room for pragmatism when it comes to the legal system

Then please inform me how you would apply an effective ban on such games.

 

[RedRalph]

Then please inform me how you would apply an effective ban on such games.

I couldn't, no bans are ever fully effective. That doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.

 

[Camikaze]

I couldn't, no bans are ever fully effective. That doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.

That isn't very pragmatic.

So even if the implementation of a ban would harm the public more than not having a ban, the ban should be put in place on the basis of morals? Wait, what was your argument again? That you should be pragmatic rather than sticking solidly to principles?

 

[Mise]

No, you don't. Not eveything has to be applied as a concrete precedent. There are plenty of contradictions in the legal system, and not all of them are harmful to the public, some are quite beneficial.

Look, when I was a bit younger, I was of the 'almost everything should be legal' viewpoint, but as you get a bit older you tend to realise satisfying your own desire not to contradict your principles or to adhere rigidly to a moral or philisophical idea plays second fiddle to real-world applications. There is and has to be room for pragmatism when it comes to the legal system, because life does not take place in the head of a Greek guy 4,000 years ago. It doesn't matter if the spirit of one law contradicts the other, it does matter if the application or absence of those laws is harmful to society.

Funny, when I was younger I was in favour of banning a whole host of things I deemed morally wrong. I later realised that legal and democratic principles absolutely must be adhered to in order to create a fair and equitable society. I'm sorry that you don't understand why democratic principles are important, but thankfully, those in charge of the judicial and legislative branches of government do understand this, and are principled enough to ignore the self-righteous ramblings of those wanting to take those rights away.

But since you're such a believer in pragmatism, what pragmatic purpose does banning rape games serve? What would it do, other than satisfy your knee-jerk moral outrage and righteous indignation?

EDIT: Camikaze beat me to it, and said it better too...

 

[RedRalph]

That isn't very pragmatic.

So even if the implementation of a ban would harm the public more than not having a ban, the ban should be put in place on the basis of morals? Wait, what was your argument again? That you should be pragmatic rather than sticking solidly to principles?

What? How is that not pragmatic? The illegalisation of murder doesn't stop murder, but it should still exist.

How would banning these games harm the public?

 

[Perfection]

RAPE GAME BAN RUINED VALENTINES 2009

Damnit, now I need to find a new Valentines day Present for Fifty.