It's an obvious truth that our societies shape us, you could equally well have said that the fact that we've grown up in a christian society leads us to believe that all human lives are sacred, and that killing in nearly all circumstances is wrong, or that in areas of asia their cultural upbringing leads them to believe it can be justifiable to stone a girl to death for loving someone of a different religious faction. You just have to go for the worst, the holocaust, to create that mental link of negativity. I never said you used Hitler as an example, but as an analogy, believe it or not I know the difference.

Of course this is true, it's not even just the media. In ancient times it was the preacher (who worked for the local land lord).

You have indirectly or directly compared (as an analogy) our current culture to that (the methodology) of the Nazi's, at least indicating that you yourself believe it to be evil. You really have no reason to bring Nazi's into the picture, we all know that people are a combination of their genes and their upbringing/culture.


OK, so, we are not being the same as the Nazi's, we are simply working like human beings, which is exactly what the nazis were doing. Just because the Nazi's breathed doesn't mean that we're doing the same as them. In the past, we were conditioned by the churct to behave a certain way towards sex, a way where sex before marriage was bad, people were utter prudes and nobody really enjoyed sex because it was sinful, contraception is murder so diseases spread blah blah. What you are saying is that you favour the christian conditioning over todays sensationalising conditioning, and that is an entirely subjective moral opinion.

Once again, the discussion simply falls to different political philosophical doctrines. I believe in personal freedom to the highest level - to the point of a structured anarchic state (slight oxymoron). I don't believe not wearing a seatbelt should be illegal, although I might agree that you might have to pay for the healthcare yourself in an accident. I believe all drugs should be legal. You seem to believe in a paternal society, both in religion and law, in which people are told what to think, and have that enforced by throwing them in jail if their priorities in life are different to yours, to whatever degree it is that you personally see fit.

The point is that they wouldn't like to watch it if she was happy to have that done to her, because the thrill for them is the forced aspect of it, as I'm sure you're aware.

So people can't watch a fictional piece of work depicting someone shoplifting and getting away with it? Your example is a miss.

There is your personal opinion on what is right and wrong, greatly influenced by your religion. What is wrong, is forcing your beliefs on other people.

Yes we do live in a world where people get hurt. And I live by the "harm" principle - you cannot constrict somebodies freedom unless they are hurting someone else. Obviously rape and torture DO harm other people - I really don't see what this has to do with anything in this discussion.

I hate to break it to you, but this has been going on for millenia before TV was even invented. It's called human nature, it's a bummer.

Sure, we don't like real snuff videos. Nobody ever said differently in this thread.

Nobody tolerates real snuff, where people are actually hurt. In fact there are very strict laws against this in basically every country of the world.

"Sincere"? Yes. Obviously watching real people getting raped for real is bad. As it breaks the "harm principle".

There is a line, "the harm principle". Free speech with boundries ISN'T free speech. And haven't you seen the police escorting nazi protestors and defending them from people, to defend their right to freedom of speech and protest?

Fantastic, and irrelevent. Great, there are some paedos out there, think we don't know that? And I'm all for the legalisation of virtual child porn, I suppose. Simply in the freedom of speech/information vein of things. Real acts where children are hurt is obviously different, a difference you so far have seemed unable to see.

The line, as I've said before is the "Harm principle". If you harm someone else, it is illegal. If you're minding your own business watching an animation of someone raping a baby, whatever, I don't have the right to tell you what to do.



How has my argument bitten myself? I'm saying that the world is full of influences you might not like, which is why you need to teach your own morals to your children.

While I was writing that I was considering putting in some brackets to say that I was simply furthering your example, since it meant something to you, but I decided that it was obvious, and that I didn't need to. I guess I was wrong.