Neowin.net

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're implying???

Yes, people do trade warez on irc.
But, are you implying that you expected child pornography in a game? If so, you yourself are one sick puppy.

Something like this would never enter 99.9% of peoples minds.

Second Life isn't so much a game as it is the next evolution of chat programs. All segments of society are represented there, which unfortunately means that there will be pedos there as well.

Not sick, just used to the online world and what it implies.
Not sick, just not so damn naïve.

First, Second Life isn't a game, but a virtual community.
Suddenly, illegal activities become so much more reasonable to see.

Next up someone will call a person "sick" for thinking it makes real life prostitutiona service... :p

You might be surprised to know the number of people who think about this stuff is many, maaaany times higher than you believe. Just because you think something is sick doesn't mean it automatically only afflicts a tiny fraction of people.

And here we have what is truly dangerous when it comes to pedophilia: people marginalize the behavior. Alienating any group of people is the worst possible thing society could ever do.

Unless, I mean, you want to encourage them to be anti-social and introverted.

How do you suppose someone can castrate a female?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q...ation&meta=

Enjoy your read.

You've lived quite a sheltered life, haven't you?

Not exactly what i wanted to click after eating a fish and chips lunch!

Some call it a female circumcision but I think it's more accurate to call it "genital mutilation".

Huh?? One reply is weirder than the next here...

First, castration is the act of removing the ability to have/make kids. It has nothing to do with female circumcision (removal of the clitoris), that some call mutilation. It is a disturbing, but unrelated, act, because a clitoris is not related to the ability to have kids, although it sure helps to have a normal sex life and enjoy the act. For that matter, castration has nothing do with male circumcision either.

Castration in a male as well as female can be done chemically as well as more "physically". It's a surgically simple enough matter of just cutting the spermatic ducts or ovulary pathways, depending on gender. I don't see the "complexity" in this -- anyone with a basic course in biology should be able to figure out how. :p

Next, castration for pedophilia isn't even against human rights, so no need to involve that like the OP did. It has been proposed here in Sweden for example, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's already in effect as a penalty in some "civilized" countries in good terms with the UN. As for the US, there's already been at least one bill introduced already, for a while ago. http://www.cnn.com/US/9608/29/castration/

indeed.

If Bob down the street likes to watch virtual sex with kids then Bob more than likely either has sex with kids or wants to.

Even implying sex with a child is nasty and those that agree with it, promote it, or do it needs to be taken out of the world.

Like people who gun down others on a street after playing Counterstrike?
Please, are we really heading this way again?

I'm in no way defending them, but I agree it all sounds a bit silly. I think the more psychologically correct thing that's taking place here is that they're choosing a virtual world to fulfill weird fantasies. If they were pedophiles, they wouldn't waste their time in front of their computers and they'd be masturbating to *actual* child porn instead of doing this kind of stupidity with virtual characters. They need to be bound to actual crimes to be prosecuted, although this kind of trading of course is a weird thing to do.

Edit: AFAIK, it is not even against the law in many countries (perhaps US included, I'm unsure) to watch cartoon or virtual porn of "children". It's especially common in e.g. Japan with anime porn and schoolgirls, etc.

Last edited by Jugalator on 09 May 2007 - 13:06

In addition, I fail to see a victim involved, so I don't really know what the big deal is. As long as they're fantasizing and not doing the real thing...

Precisely. Similarly to the above posters, I'm not defending this sort of behaviour, but surely this is better than actual child porn, or even worse, someone actually doing something like this to kids themselves.

As far as I'm concerned, if people want to do stuff in Second Life to fulfil their weird fantasies, that's fine by me - I'd much rather have that than them doing something similar in real life.

There's a word for this type of behaviour: thoughtcrime.

What annoys me is how the media and government abuse people's paranoia of things they do not understand (e.g. child porn/paedophilia/terrorism) and use it to rile people up in order to justify making victimless crimes illegal (as in this example).
More examples of these laws include making it illegal to: burn flags, insult kings, read certain books, etc.

Unfortunately this type of brainwashing is nothing new, and there are so many people too lazy to do anything but be spoon-fed this garbage.

Rant over.

I have to agree with you. Especially inregard to the Japan connection. Japanese anime often depicts underaged school girls having sex with family, strangers, older men, women, and whoever or whatever else. AND it is stilll legal and shown in the US and other countries.

How do you all know that the pictures weren't taken by the people who put them on Second Life in the first place?

Let's say you were in a chatroom one night. Someone posts links to pictures and you're curious as to what it is. You click the link to see mass pictures of child porn and in those pictures you see some that have your kid in it. Would you actually sit there and think "Oh, it's just a picture. No harm done". If you could honestly sit there and say something like that, then you might want to go get your head examined.

First of all, these are PHOTOS OF NUDE CHILDREN. That right there alone is pretty sick. Saying there's nothing wrong with child porn so long as they're only pictures and nothing is actually being done to the children is just complete BS. You're completely forgetting that SOMEONE took those pictures and who knows what was done to the kids in these pictures before, during or after they were taken.

I'm surprised at the amount of people who wouldn't have a problem with this. You should all get your heads examined.

@NightmarE D: With regards to real child porn - i.e. pictures/videos/whatever of kids, then I consider that sickening and believe it should be stopped - surely this is one of the few times the "think of the children" tag is all too appropriate?

But... although the article does mention that the group were offering links to real child porn, it was mostly referring to "virtual" children, within the game. This, I have much less of a problem with, because no real child or indeed person is being harmed. Also, those who say that this makes people "more likely to do it in real life" is quite flawed, because being able to fulfil those (distinctly unsavoury imo) fantasies in a virtual world might actually stop the person in question from doing it in the real world. And wouldn't it be better if some "virtual" - i.e. not real - child porn gets passed down the interweb than if some kid potentially gets messed up for the rest of their life?

Operation MindCrime

Images with GRAPHIC content. The word graphic doensn't imply that it's a drawing or something. It's implying that it's a disturbing photo.

Last edited by NightmarE D on 09 May 2007 - 21:51

It still promotes it and therefore is wrong.

and video games made me blow everyone's head off

Mr Cobra...it's not "promoting" a goddamn thing.

Last edited by excalpius on 09 May 2007 - 15:52

I was just discussing this with my mum...she thought that any exposure to a world where child pr0n is acceptable makes them have these ideas that they can do it. I then said that newspapaers, media etc...already give them these ideas, so why get rid of it? She said it was in a way that made it look acceptable.

I then posed the question: How many cases of abuse has virtual child pornography stopped? Nobody knows...

I then came to the conclusion that a collective mind is not a good one, as it thinks as one, and any bad ideas with enough voice expand and become good ideas. She said I should take Philosophy.

No need to get all bent out of shape. It does promote it. Whether it's real or virtual, it still promotes the sick behavior of having sex with kids. Those people that take part in this virtual world of sex with kids are fcuking sick bastards and those that defend it are even worse.

but there is no sex with kids! those that think that virtual child porn is a better alternative than real child porn are worse than those that actually do it? what the hell!

Haha, I think a lot of users would agree with that ... for the entire "virtual world".

Agreed - that's one thing I can agree with you on, MrCobra.

There's no correlation though, to what you're implying.

For all we know, this could be a group of like 20 people from Brazil. :p

Golly, no wonder how many campus shootings now....
Should we ban all FPS games?

These are hardly comparable situations. Trying to use the evolution of a child predator's behavior as the basis for violence from video games is completely without merit. As I stated previously, these people are in it for the control and domination of others which has no other point to vent to other than the actual event. This course of action for them is so ingrained to them that few are ever able to safely find a way out of their cycle.

Violent video games on the other hand are merely an escape mechanism for most people to vent out frustrations or to simulate life threatening situations without actually placing themselves in any real danger. I would freely admit that there is a VERY minor group that can not separate the aggression of video games from real life. However, these people are prone to violence no matter what, and in the absence of video games they would merely find something else that would escalate their aggression levels further.

Yeah, Bin-Laden's and Taliban fighters' childhoods were ruined by FPS games and as we all know Hitler very liked his copy of Doom. Let's blame games, because parents, poor education, military and president actions have nothing to do with that.

It's not just men. You'd be surprised to see how many women are out there doing this as well.

If you were in a German shiza video, you'd tell me right?

Except that the first is an act of escapism while the other is an act of substitution. I seriously doubt any of use would actually want to cause real people to explode in front of use with rocket launchers or dissolve from a plasma round.

Actually, I think that's pretty sick and disgusting. You won't catch me playing ultra violent trash like that.

You don't work with the doofuses I do!

So if soldier plays Doom then it can be called an act of substitution?

You are right, but I think that some non-geeks who have 72 virgins in mind would disagree with you .

Some games are missing moral choices. If possible then I am trying not to use violence in games. Game developers can add respect or fear points depending on ation type. I remember mission of GTA San Andreas where you need to acquire Photo Camera from some bloke on the street. I thought that it would be enough to punch him into face and he will drop camera, but probably GTA programmers had no time for that so there was only one quick way to get what you need – kill.

BFG and Doom chainsaw in virtual worlds, but real paedophiles are sick

Quote - (RazorEye said @ #18.1)
Except that the first is an act of escapism while the other is an act of substitution.
-------------------------------

I almost never post comments on any site anywhere, but I do tend to hesitate when someone paints a black and white picture to defend their personal stance on a subject. You are espousing a common misconception with the escapism/substitution debate. The published research into deviant behaviour has never proved, and probably will never prove, who engages in these activities for the purposes of escapism and who does it as substitution. Until someone actually offends in real life, there is no "proof" for either. While I do suspect that there probably are a higher number of pedophiles that use these virtual worlds as substitution, it is very likely not as clear cut as you suggest.

Just recently in California for instance, 3 young men died by gunfire as a direct result of a fight over a Playstation. I'd be very curious to see the game titles they were playing. You cannot assume that killing and destruction in a virtual world is pure escapism.

Just as there are serious mental health issues with pedophiles (I refuse to call anyone a "sicko ******" as some people in this comment chain have), there are also serious mental health issues with "some" players of violent games. For some of these troubled people, it doesn't matter what their vice is - if they partake in virtual expression of their fantasies, they will eventually act out in real life. For others, this virtual world need only be as far as they go.

Please take no offense as none was intended, but as I get older, I'm learning to see the "greyness" of many current hot topics. I have been surprised at some of my own "knee-jerk" reactions at times, but am slowly learning that it is not my place to pass judgment on anyone. Indeed, I'm certain there is an element of society that sees those who play violent video games as just as "sick" as those who engage in some sort of virtual child pornography. People have a tendency to view their own morals and ideals in a way that makes them acceptable, or at least comfortable, to themselves. (This *is* generally accepted as a result of psychological research.) I think we could all benefit from acknowledging this and perhaps engage in some personal reflection whenever we come across a topic that at first glance appears to be cut-and-dry.

Last edited by That 70s Guy on 11 May 2007 - 03:48

No offence to you, but that's such a stupid statement for so many reasons:

Do you really think it would be justifiable to prosecute someone based on their genetic traits?
Would you prosecute someone for having the 'potential' to do something wrong? In that case we should all be locked up.
What constitutes being a 'perv' and where is the line drawn?

Like I said before. You're assuming that these people who posted the pictures didn't actually take the picures themselves. How do you know they don't have kids who they're sexually abusing and taking pictures of the whole thing and putting them out on the internet?

I'd like to know why exactly soo many people are assuming these pictures jsut came out of nowhere. SOMEONE took the pictures. SOMEONE sexually abused the children to take those pictures.

my point exactly, where does it stop? they prosecute for photos in a virtual world whats to say the slippery slope in 10 years doesn't say oh well we know from your dna your a child rapist so we are going to punish for what you may or may not do.

People that get busted in chat rooms for soliciting 16 year old girls that are actually 50 year old bald FBI agents should then be wrong by your statement.

exactly. first off its entrapment second the 16 year old is really 30 working for the police. then they arrest him for meeting an imaginary 16 year old and the 50 year old doesnt do anything but he has the intent to case closed