This is always a fun topic to me. Now I'm sure some of you have heard of lolicon and people wanting it banned. Some people have claimed that these characters, while nothing more then lines and color have rights that should be protected. So if they have rights, shouldn't all fictional characters in any form have the same rights. Like the NPCs of various games that get murdered daily or the animals of skyrim that get shouted of a mountain. Anyone else find that interesting or is it just me.
All fiction characters should have the same level rights as the lowest level of human's that have access to that character. That said, it means no characters will have any rights because the world is just that much of an awful place.
Uh no...because they're ...fictional. When I wanna RPG someone virtually I should not have to think if I'm violating their personal rights. :derpe: Please, we don't need a PeTA for humans in terms of video games or digital media in general.
^ True. They were brought in via an author's mind therefore they could be mentally deleted by that same author and suffer a "Denial of Existence" attack. Wait a minute...I'm starting to use my own jargon. The fictional, the unreal, the "synthetic", whatever you call it, is beyond the limits of the real, the actual, the "organic" world. To bring rights to that which is unreal (though not according to Plato) is to start going down the Inception pathway by regulating people's creative consciousness. It's 1:49 AM.
^ Uh kay. Also it would be a pretty big violation to freedom of expression. To limit media in a way where we need to apply human rights to the characters of fictional works is just...wrong.
Not like it stops people from doing it. Well people fight it and all because its dumb. It doesn't matter what it is if its fictional it doesn't exist. This mostly applies to loli stuff, but I can't really go into detail or this thread will mostly likely be locked.
Well it wouldn't stop /certain/ people from doing it if content was limited like that. If some big decision happened where all characters need human rights (and the general public actually was okay with this) it would become more of a taboo thing (if not illegal) and public content like TV shows, movies, etc would suffer greatly (talking about things like murder in movies and whatnot). We'd probably be watching endless infomercials as a result...oh wait we already kinda do. With loli, well yeah, can't really comment much in depth on that for obvious reasons. But I still think it's dumb to limit it like that. For those who advocate that loli makes you a [bad guy] -- prove to me that violent games, movies, tv, etc makes you a murderer. The correlation must be valid across the board.
That's what I'm saying. What happens with loli stuff doesn't mean anything. A person that enjoys loli is child molester. But that's what they want people to think. But by their logic if a person that likes lolicon is a child molester then people that kill in games are murderers. Personally I think everyone should just stop being jerks about things, but that'll never happen.
I love idiot logic. Furry/Clop=Real life beastiality! Lolicon/Shotacon=Real life pedophile! Vore=Real life cannibal! I like alien girls. Does that make me Captain Kirk? People impose their morality on others because it lets them feel powerful, like White Knights here to save the world from the scary perverts. Many of them have never even seen the "obscenity" that they fight against.
I don't think is so much a matter of rights, but one of concern for morality. For example, some people go down the evil route in games like Skyrim and Fable, killing NPCs and making all the selfish choices. Now to be fair, that makes sense because pixels on a screen would hate you, but you'd have a ton of sweet loot so what does it matter? But for some reason, I can't bring myself to go down this route in games, I always make the choices that make the NPCs better off or never have the urge to go on a killing spree. I don't see them as having rights, but at the same time I'd feel rather shameful as a person if I did bad things to pixels. It's a sort of strange guilt complex from when you get attached to characters. Hence why I have no problem killing in games like Battlefield and Halo because you're playing against practically character/soul-less soldiers you don't know very well. And I think the same applies to sexual standards for characters, it all depends on how much you feel guilty for liking it. Some characters are done so well that they may as well be an actual human (or pony), and you give them the same respect you would any other person, because there's this sense of proving to yourself that you are still a moral person. You can say it's pixels on a screen, but if you're looking at a character in a position that would be considered pedophillia if it was rl, then guess what, it sort of is. It's not that the characters don't have rights, but it's that some of the lewd imagery encourages and glorifies what is normally considered to be immoral irl. One of the exceptions I see on this is furry/clop, where the animals are cartoonish/humanized to the point where they look less like the animal they are rl, and more human, as well as like an object of sexual desire, which doesn't encourage straight-up beastiality. Unlike some things, the original source reference is changed to such an extent that they're more human than animal, too altered to be considered feral. Personally I don't understand feral stuff i.e. non-anthro, because of that logic I have. However when it comes to things like lolicon, you can say you're not looking at child pornography, but at the end of the day, the idea is it's supposed to be implied to be that, just pushing the boundaries because it's pixels on a screen. You wouldn't look at a child in a pornographic situation (I hope), why would you look at a digital drawing of a child in one? That's where the problem lies, not that the characters have rights, but that it is basically a get-out-of-jail-free card/excuse to look at things on the internet that would be considered completely wrong if done to an actual thing irl. Using this example I'm not saying the person would be a pedophile irl, but it'd be a lie if they said they weren't looking at heavily implied digital child pornography on the internet. And even then it goes on to your morals. Everyone's morals are different, so no-one's correct. Personally I find children in sexual situations, rape, abuse etc completely immoral, but on the other hand someone might not. And I would argue they are wrong, but on the other hand who am I to say really? I can argue, but there's no set moral code. All I can do is follow my own.
Don't get me wrong... I don't like Lolicon, Guro, Vore, or many of the other countless forms of erotic art that exist. I find most of it disgusting. However, I don't judge the people that do enjoy it, because... ...Get ready... ...IT ISN'T REAL!!! Erotic fantasy art is just that: a fantasy. If there is no victim, where's the crime?
BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN. IF WE DON'T STOP NOW, THE GAYS, GANGS, AND DRUGS WILL CORRUPT OUR KIDS. ^That was a joke, by the way. I agree with you there, Ridley.
They called it rights in the things I searched before hand. So that's why I picked that word. Really? I honestly can't say I've ever seen loli characters in real life, but if they were real beings then that would be different. They aren't though, they are nothing more then lines, color and ideas. Maybe the line is up near photo realistic depictions, but most loli stuff isn't that. It's easy to see what it is. As for it being lewd or whatever, that is a matter of opinion. Yes, but you are looking at a horse still. Sure it's a hugely altered horse but it's a horse. personally I don't care. Feral, anthro, whatever it's all just things. This is where this dumb PG13 limit is an issue. Okay, so if a person is in possession of loli art and gets caught depending of several stupid laws they could be in big trouble. Though on the other hand, people can own videos of children getting hurt, like seriously hurt and that appears to be legal. No what does that have to do with loli stuff, the fact that even if it's implied to be a child or whatever, it is still nothing more then lines. It doesn't exist. Plus I think there is a huge difference between a loli and a child. If it's fiction, I feel a person can do whatever they please. There are some exceptions though if I think about it. Like if maybe a person used real people, but then again. I've read some RT fanfics and that doesn't stop those people. They still kill off real people in fiction. While I have no problem with it, I could see it being a problem for the actual person.
