BOO to the US Supreme Court!

If ten people can watch something, and not commit a crime, but one person watches it and does, does that mean that the entertainment itself is bad?

Click to expand...

No because a person is ultimatelyresponsible for their own actions.

Unfortunately, baning somethings would be like cutting off the perverbial "christian nose" to spite our face.

However, this brings me back to my point. Hentai has no place in society. We benefit nothing from it. It's just like inappropriate contentography which has becaome a major money maker in this coutry (billions each year). All of this money is being wasted on something that gives nothing back.

Not only does something like this have no place in a progressive society, since it benfits us nothing, it also bases a good percentage of our economy on immorality (which is always a shaky foundation). inappropriate contentography destroys families throughout the world. It does more harm than good.

This is not a debate about whether or not American Pie should be banned (because we all know that that is very idealistic) but about something that is violent and perverted and has never done anyone any good except for making the producers in Japan a lot of money due to our lack of morals.

We banned "The Faces of Death" in 34 states because of it's violence and how badly it disturbed people who got ahold of it. Hentai is just as counter-productive.

Who are you, Susan, to judge what is worthwhile? Who makes you the arbiter of what is art and what is not? Of what has value to society and what does not?

The law was overturned because it could have been used to ban legitimate art like "American Beauty" and other films. It was broadly worded, and poorly thought out, and a danger to free expression.

We've all seen from your rantings against the Japanese that you hate Eastern culture. However, just because something is violent doesn't make it bad. Just because something is sexual in nature doesn't mean its not art.

Adults deserve the right to choose, for themselves, what they will and won't see. What they do and don't enjoy. And, yes, what they do or do not consider art.

I'm no fan of inappropriate contentography, I don't see the point to it. But I am not going to be the Arbiter of Art and Entertainment and decree that someone else isn't allowed to enjoy or watch something. I don't have that right, and neither do you.

If you want to rail against inappropriate contentography and everything else you hate, go right ahead. You have that right. But you do not have the right to force your scruples on the rest of the nation and call for the banning of things.

People who would limit the free expression of others in the end limit their own as well.

Well, there is some merit to the idea of banning inappropriate contentography that is aggressive or violent in nature. There are some psychology studies that indicate aggressive inappropriate contentography can foster aggressive attitudes towards women.

However, the same studies indicate that non-aggressive inappropriate contentography (including so-called "couples inappropriate content") does not change aggressive attitudes at all. Therefore banning *all* inappropriate contentography cannot be drawn from this.

The problem is defining what these terms mean.

-Chris

Better to ban too little, than to ban too much, and start down that slippery slope.

It may be. It may not be. That is not for me, or you to decide. Art is in the eye of the beholder. Some people don't think comic books are art. Some people don't think modern art is art. Most people wouldn't consider some form of art to be art.

Just because something is violent doesn't mean it's not art.

Just because something is sexual doesn't mean it's not art.

Just because something is nonviolent or nonsexual doesn't mean it is art either.

Ummmmm where in Hades did I imply I am a fan of Hentai? I am not, by any means whatsoever.

I've never seen Hentai. I don't like Asian cartoons, aside from perhaps Cowboy Beebop. But because it offends you and you think it could make someone violent, Susan, doesn't mean that you have the right to say other mature adults cannot be allowed to enjoy or watch it.

Originally posted by Susan
And kern, I highly disagree with your reasoning. If you don't think h****i should be banned or at least not viewed, I am very worried about you.

Click to expand...

So, what about the Bible, which contains scenes which suggest strongly that minors had sexual relations? Should that be banned?

The law was too vague. I don't know that it's *possible* to write a law that bans child inappropriate contentography, but no art.

As you say, by definition, inappropriate contentography has no artistic value... But, also by the same definition, if someone does something that has artistic value, it *IS* art.

Originally posted by Susan
I think that the societal problems caused by h****i are reason enough for banning it. ;mad: How many more people have to die or be scarrred for life because of what it does to people?

Click to expand...

Do you have citations? I've never heard of hentai anime causing anyone to "die" or "be scarred for life".

And, once again, apply the same arguments. If I can show you a single person who died in a way caused (indirectly, presumably) by something in the Bible, should we ban the Bible? If someone preaches about hell, and scares a kid so much that he kills himself, should we take all the scary stuff out of the Bible?

My wife is a writer, and there are some bad people (and good ones) in her stories. Sometimes, the bad people do bad things. If they didn't, the stories wouldn't be *true* anymore. I don't mean "factual"; I mean, they wouldn't be really about life and humanity, the way the world is.

A story about a murderer who spends his life atoning has meaning. A story about a shoplifter who spends his life repenting is just silly. For the first story to work, the story has to tell us that people were murdered. That's not a good thing, but it doesn't mean the story is bad. The Bible contains stories of rape and murder, but that doesn't make it a bad book.

Originally posted by seebs

The Bible contains stories of rape and murder, but that doesn't make it a bad book.

Click to expand...

Hmm... I agree with you there. The Book of Judges is filled with all kind of terrible stories. I was really shocked reading them when I was a kid. Esp. the one about the Rabbi who threw his concubine out to be raped by a horde of h0mosexu@ls. She died and then he... well you know the horrid rest.

Or how about David's pre-wedding present to his future father-in-law? That was really "forrible".

It is already against the law to produce images of real adults having sex with real children. If they are not really children int he videos, or in this case, are animated, then no one is harmed in the production of the videos, and there is no grounds for banning them. That's why SCOTUS struck down this current law: it made it illegal to have anything that even could possibly be taken as looking like minor-related sexuality. That's too broad. And could be used to ban legitimate films, such as "American Beauty."

Also, do not be so ignorant as to think that because someone has hentai, and commits a crime, that the hentai led to the crime. That's absolutely stupid. If I go and shoot someone, and the police come to my apartment and find that I own DVD copies of all the James Bond films, would that mean that James Bond films cause violence? No.

Or more to the point, I own at least 5,000 comic books. If I wrap my bedsheet around my neck and jump off of Reunion Tower, is it the fault of DC Comics? No. It's my fault, for being so stupid.

Unless you can prove causality, you are basing your case on circumstantial nonsense. That someone has violent images or sexual images on their computer, and then commits such a crime, does not mean that the images caused the inclination. Logically, it is more likely that the inclination pre-existed, and that the only reason the person had interest in the images is that they conformed to his inclinations. But that doesn't mean that the images are responsible for his actions.

People commit crimes because they are either desperate economically, or they are screwed up in the head. They do not commit them because they saw some video.

So unless you can conclusively show causation of hentai/whatever and violent acts, you're simply saying "I don't like this stuff, so ban it!" By that logic, I hereby demand that Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and every other televangelist be barred from the airwaves forever.

And you say "extreme perversion." Who gets to decide what that is? What you, as an anti-inappropriate contentography zealot, consider "perverse" is not likely going to line up with what most people consider perverse. Why do you get to decide this?

Again, I consider Pat Robertson to be perverse and putrid. Does that give me the right to demand for Federal laws barring him from appearing in public?

Originally posted by Yauming


Hmm... I agree with you there. The Book of Judges is filled with all kind of terrible stories. I was really shocked reading them when I was a kid. Esp. the one about the Rabbi who threw his concubine out to be raped by a horde of h0mosexu@ls. She died and then he... well you know the horrid rest.

Click to expand...

Hmm. I'm afraid I'm not quite sure I see what the (presumably male) homosexuals would want with this woman.

Also, how exactly do you conclude that these people were homosexual? All I can find is that they were "sons of Belial", and that they wanted to "know" the guest. This has nothing to do with sexuality; in the time described, people would sometimes rape visitors to show their power. (Compare the story with the story of Lot in Sodom, in Genesis 19.)