Steve,

I'm just bored witless with the discussion.

As I said earlier, I don't think it's going anywhere, I think everything that can be discussed has been and all that's happening is just a repetition of previously argued points.

but if you like we could discuss this Italian student death, the pseudo MD whose pictures seem to indicate an interest in blood letting, what happens when violent sex games go wrong, the overseas element where the violence is real, yet where the denial of consent is real but the participants think it's a pretence and whether they might have watched extreme porn.

Do you think it was filmed on the mobile phones?

First I've heard of this one Astrocat, do you have a link?

No has claimed that some violent sex offenders or even murderers don't watch extreme porn, no one has claimed that they don't watch straight porn, or Scooby do for that matter.

If there is evidence that watching anything causes the watcher to commit crime, I and many others would be more than interested in seeing it.

yeah - watch the news


Life imitates art far more than art imitates life

Oscar Wilde

p.s I've looked on the internet and I can find university studies that support that the premice that watching violence can contribute to copy cat violent acts - I'm sure you'll find them if you look

Oh yes, sorry, I hadn't read the details of that story. Well, apparently one woman wrote violent porn stories and posted them on her myspace page. Should we now ban writings which describe sexual violence? Makes as much sense as banning images of fictional violence. Nothing to say any porn made them kill, nothing to say that consent was given then withdrawn.

Though I have no doubt such a thing happens in some cases of rape, how does that support the argument?

What happens when violent sex games go wrong? Well since many of the images targeted by this law actually teach safe practice, it won't help in this. Having said that, what happens when any violent game or pastime goes wrong? Should we ban anything that holds a risk?

The overseas element where the violence is real? Well do you have evidence of porn that shows real violence? And if you do, why do you think acting should be treated the same as that?

Much as I like the work of Wilde - his opinion is hardly one to build a law upon.

I have no doubt there are university sites that support that premise, so? You already discounted the university study we have linked for you, which opposes the premise.

Astrocat, we are very familiar with the research into this area, please state which ones you think are worth taking seriously and then we can discuss them.

Remember, the Governments own Rapid evidence assessment? This claims to review sixty years worth of studies, yet still cannot show evidence which says viewing leads to doing.

You are going back again to things already dealt with.

Steve:


Well, in fact an ‘act which would be likely to cause serious injury’ could be interpreted to be an act which entails risk. This has already repeatedly been pointed out to government.
They’re so wrapped up in their own spin by now they don’t realize how ambiguous their terminology is.

As for the overseas element of violent pornography all being real abuse. Of course! They’re all greasy Dago bastards after all. They don’t have proper laws in banana land. Rape is legal there, you know…. and they eat children on camera, that’s if they’re not fornicating with hamsters at the time. Evidence? What evidence? We all ‘know’ it’s true. :)

Of course this is all nonsense. The overwhelming majority of this material in fact comes from the USA which is hardly a backwater of female emancipation and is somewhat known for lawyers eager to take up any case. The USA also is home to the world’s largest film and the world’s largest porn industry. So the origin of this material is hardly a surprise.

But hey, if one flings lies for long enough, perhaps one of them will eventually stick, right?

As for research showing that violence begets copycat violence. If that is so, we’re about to ban John Wayne films, no? Or Schwarzenegger films, or Stallone films, or Bruce Willis films, or Tarantino films, or, or, or......
Welcome back to the slippery slope!

I like the notion of violence being real, denial of consent being real but the participants believing it a pretence. It suggests a wholly different concept of consent. Or perhaps a different concept of logic. :)

But hey, some people are so right, they don’t actually need to make sense, Steve. They’re just born right. Unlike us, of course….

Sorry, Yorker, I’m getting carried away again. I know. But we are being confronted with superlative tripe here.

Again, back to the well I guess.

What demonstrable harm is associated with this material? Its production, but especially its possession? What harm is the public exposed to from it, which isn’t present in other violent or other pornographic material?
What is the aim of the law? What communal good do we derive from locking individuals up at 50,000 pounds a year for privately possessing this imagery? Are there in fact any communal disadvantages we derive from introducing such laws? Do we trust our justice system to administer this sensibly? Are they're examples which might suggest otherwise? Ever heard of Operation Ore? Do we trust our politicians not to expand on principles which allow them to interfere in our privacy, once they have established them in this law? ARe we sure they are being 'entirely honest' on this one?

From where I stand I can see quite a few negatives here. Yet I still fail to see a single possible positive. Guess that’ why I’m always banging on about it. Lol.

I dare say that on any subject there can be found extreme opposites of opinion. It just proves that opinion is subjective.

You believe that viewing doesn't lead to doing, whereas I believe that viewing leaves a subconscious imprint which may surface under a given set of circumstances that people then act on.

If it weren't so, advertising wouldn't be as effective as it is.

But as you say, we're getting back into things that have already been discussed.

While I'm grateful for a deeper appreciation of the subject due to the writings on this website, on balance I still think that anything that is illegal to publish and distribute should be illegal to view. I don't care which country it's done in, whether it's acting or real .... the arguments that were put forward for the making of it illegal to publish and distribute in the UK must be applicable to possession otherwise it negates the aims of the laws already in place.

And you're not going to change my mind on that.

so with all due respect and because I have transiting Vesta conjunct my natal Vesta today, I am going to withdraw from further discussion.

Yes, so let’s have a law based on subjective opinion, why don’t we?
Ye Gods.

Ah, and the advertising saga. Again.
Of course advertising could get us to commit crime, even murder. Of course.
‘Buy Persil.’ ‘Go kill someone.’ Same message. Yes?

Except that no-one believes that advertising can do that.
There’s some difference between suggsting to someone to buy a Heineken or getting someone to commit rape. We may be susceptible so some limited, subtle suggestion, but we can’t be influenced by remote control. There is no button one can press.

Thank God for Vesta transiting wherever....

Actually that is not a fair appraisal of the facts here at all. That is like saying one doctor claims the MMR jab causes autism, but thousands of others say it does not, so the jury is out.

We have stated again and again, that over sixty years of research into this area has not found any evidence to support the claim that viewing leads to doing. If so many eminently qualified and motivated people have spent so much time and effort trying to find it, over such a long period of time and failed, then I submit it is unlikely to exist.

Advertising? As someone who studied advertising techniques, including the psychology of advertising, I can speak with some authority about this. The main purpose of advertising is merely to remind or inform the public that a product exists, yes that is true.

As for the effects of advertising, certainly they will show things in the most desirable light they can, they show aspirational images, scenes they think their target audience aspire to or identify with.

Can you name any advertising that asks anyone to do anything that is socially unacceptable?

We are not ruled by entertainment or advertising. Our actions are ruled by societies values, more precisely the values of those we see as our peers. The danger lies in allowing people to be separated from the wider values, that is to be drawn into cults or lone activities or belief systems.

Sociopaths separate themselves from society, psychopaths believe they are 'a breed apart'. Terrorists are almost always part of an 'underground' philosophy or belief sub-system. It is the people we identify with whose attitudes we tend to accept and take on board.

If the things we watch as entertainment or advertising had any 'controlling' effect at all we would see a very different approach to politics and policing.

CONCLUSION

see .... even when you say - that's it, I've had enough, time to stop ..... they don't.

they don't know how to

steve

"Sociopaths separate themselves from society, psychopaths believe they are 'a breed apart'. Terrorists are almost always part of an 'underground' philosophy or belief sub-system"

Wrong,Wrong,Wrong and Wrong

Where did you get this tosh ?

You seem to have lost the plot here,any evidence to back what you are saying up .Coz I know different. :)

Astrocat, if you don't want to talk about this anymore then don't, no one is forcing you to take part in the discussion.

O.K. physics what is it that is wrong with that statement?

It was a simplification, but not so much as to change the definition beyond recognition.

Though a sociopath may,in some cases, be personable and charming, that is ‘appear’ to see themselves as much apart of society as anyone else does, a sociopath has little regard for the rights of others and so separates themselves from societies rules, to varying extents. A psychopath is an extreme sociopath, who may also be aggressive and without any empathy at all, unable to identify with others on many levels– a breed apart.

Evidence? Any good dictionary.

If you believe that terrorists are part of mainstream society and see themselves subject to mainstream social rules, then please tell us what makes you think this.

Bear in mind we do not want to stray too far from the core subject of the thread.

A terrorist is freedom fighter on the other side
of (our) govts agenda.When we commit terrorism,its called
a just war.Terrorism is only a propogander phrase and has no real meaning.

My definition ; from a psycology paper,states
1) 1% of the population is sociopathic.
2)These people can kill humans and live with
the psycological aftermath.
3)50% of these have empathy,They know its wrong .
But for the good of the many they will kill.
4)50% have no empathy and can kill for pleasure.
5)Not all sociopaths of either sort end up killers.

Anyone can be made into a psycopath it is not related to sociopathic tendencies
Your dictionary,up to date is it.

Your definition of terroist, may be a point of view many will not subscribe too, but it in no way invalidates what I said.



Again nothing you have said invalidates what I said, except for the quite inaccurate statement;



My dictionary is fine, thank you. Chambers;



Encarta;



Medline plus medical dictionary;



I really don't see the point of this Physics, even your own interpretations of all these terms does not invalidate the point I was making. We are dancing on the head of a pin for no apparent reason.

Steve,
Remember you said that we were always getting side-tracked.
But here we are talking about sociopaths et alia. :)
It happens very easily, doesn’t it? Because someone will always disagree with a tangential point, rather than the broad gist of a statement. One soon finds oneself arguing a matter that is miles away from the original issue.

As for psychopaths, I believe it is said that an inability to differ between reality and fiction can be a mark of a dangerous psychopath.
Sound familiar? Isn’t the controversy around this law largely centred around the ability to differ between reality and fiction?

Therefore either government is psychotic, or they believe we all are. Or, more to the point, they wish to treat as all as though we were.

After all, if the violence they seek to ban were real non-consensual violence, we most likely wouldn’t be having this conversation in the first place. It is that the government insist on treating this all as though it were real. They choose to deny that there is such a thing as a pretence. A staged scene is to be deemed real, even if evidence can be forwarded by the defendant that it was in fact staged.

As a parallel, the director of ‘Cannibal Holocaust’ who was charged with real murder for his film (because his special effects were too convincing), did in his defence produce the actors unharmed in court and asked whom he’d supposed to have killed. He was obviously found innocent. This was Italian justice.

If a man would be accused of possession of extreme pornography and could produce the protagonists in court, all testifying, that they were in fact unharmed and had taken part of their own free will in the making of the material, he’d nonetheless be convicted of possession. That will be English Justice.

Looking at it like that, we won’t compare very well to the Eyeties, will we?

Ouch! You got me Phantom, guilty as charged. LOL!

Really though Physics, I'm happy for us both to have our separate views on these things, it isn't fatal, or really relevant, to the central points under discussion.

Let us agree to disagree?

Agreed :)

Ps. encarta is propoganda

chambers , acceptable ,if unenlightning

Medline plus medical dictionary; crap (not a description is it)

but brownie points for looking.