Posts by webweaver
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I hope so. Meanwhile I'm getting very scared about what I heard Jonathan Coleman say about RNZ.
Mining in our conservation estate and, now, tinkering with the public broadcasting function of RNZ ...(One News) Oh dear.
I saw that on the news this evening - with some smug and smarmy Nat pol sounding very pleased indeed with himself at telling RNZ their budget could be frozen for the next 5 years.
Right now it feels like they're going after everything I hold dear in this country and stomping all over it - or selling it off at rock-bottom prices to their mates.
Makes me feel ill.
How long until the next election? I don't know how much more of this I can take.
-
Chris: the comparison would be valid if you were talking about a never-ending supply of Saddams to watch being executed. You're talking about watching a single (albeit shocking) event, as opposed to watching and collecting many such events and selling them to/swapping them with your friends.
A valid comparison would be if you were a collector/watcher of snuff videos. As an afficionado of such things, you would likely eventually hook up with other afficionados, in order to discuss/share/swap/sell your snuff videos. As a group you would be complicit in the creation of these videos (and therefore the killing of those featured) because you have become the market for them.
Money needn't come into it - I know many child pornographers swap and share their stuff - but the group's insatiable desire for more more more, and their need to continually be sourcing new material is what creates the demand, and therefore at least partly fuels the ongoing sexual abuse of the children featured. Therefore, to my mind anyway, those who view/collect/share the material are complicit in the act of abuse.
-
This is a different story though. No children (or animals) were injured, because there were none there to start with. It's animation. Would this be illegal here?
I think it would, even though it's manga, because the books were "depicting illustrations of child sex and bestiality."
The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 says:
A publication is automatically banned if it promotes or supports, or tends to promote or support:
* The sexual exploitation of children
* Sexual violence or coercion
* Torture or extreme violence
* Bestiality
* Sexual conduct involving a dead person
* The use of urine or excrement in sexual activitySo I'm guessing that includes manga cartoons of said activities.
More info here: Censorship law in New Zealand - from the new Office of Film and Literature Classification - Information for students website - which I may have had a hand in designing and building :)
-
Islander - I'm with you. I'm completely traumatised by anything involving cruelty to animals. I can't watch it, can't listen to reports about it, can't even read about it because it gives me nightmares.
The recent dog massacre upset me so much I couldn't bear to read anything more than the headline - I just didn't want to know the details because I knew they'd do my head in. Then I accidentally did read a bit and it freaked me out for days. Horrible, horrible.
I was mad as hell at one of the TV news progs because (unlike the other one) they showed photos post-massacre without a warning. Luckily it was on MySky and I was able to fast-forward, but really - is it necessary? I don't believe so.
It confuses and deeply saddens me that we live in such a wonderful country (I feel honoured to have been allowed to become a Kiwi) and yet some of us can behave with such wanton cruelty towards both animals and children. Why? Why do we have such a terrible track record when it comes to cruelty towards those least able to protect themselves? It boggles my mind.
-
I'm sure there must be cases of these numerous people we read about being arrested for possession of child porn who would never think of engaging in such an act. If they could be steered towards a more morally acceptable avenue then it could only be a positive.
Woah there! I think it's extremely important to remember that all pornography involving photographic images and/or video involves a real live person at its heart. Those arrested for possession of child porn in the form of photos or videos are viewing a real live child being abused. It doesn't matter whether or not they would ever "think of engaging in such an act".
The act of downloading/buying/viewing child porn makes them complicit in the act of abuse, whether or not they actually did it themselves. By continuing to add to their collections, they ensure that the child porn industry remains a viable way of making money for those who abuse children - and seeing as children inevitably grow up and stop being children, this means that a ready supply of new victims is always required.
For those people interested in child pornography of young children, I cannot see what the "more morally acceptable avenue" could possibly be, if we're talking about photographs and video. Unless you're using living dolls or animation, there's no way you'd be able to have an 18+ year-old passing as a pre-teen (or younger).
Presumably you're therefore only talking about 18+year-olds passing as teenagers. Personally, I don't think it's "morally acceptable" for pornography to depict children of whatever age engaging in sex, even if they are teenagers and even if the actors themselves are over 18.
But I do understand the dilemma - I watch the occasional episode of Law and Order, SVU and CSI - where people are murdered on a regular basis - which is illegal - and I'm not planning to kill anyone - but I think there's a real difference.
I do have a problem with the depiction of murder if it's being depicted in a gratuitously violent way - if there's an element of glorification in the violence then I'm not comfortable watching it. I can watch SVU because it's about catching the baddies. I've never watched Dexter because the hero is a serial killer and I'm not comfortable with that dichotomy.
Child pornography where teenagers (played by actors over 18) are depicted having sex is all about the thrill of watching teenagers having sex. Nothing else. That's why I find it morally unacceptable, and why I see a big difference between it and a story about cops catching child pornographers.
I'd also like to see the research that shows that people who watch child porn are less likely to engage in actually abusing children (as opposed to watching other people abusing children) than people who don't. What proportion of child porn watchers escalate into child porn engagers? Presumably there must be some.
Did the majority of people found guilty of child sexual abuse begin by watching it and then escalate into doing it, or did most of them start out cold, as it were? What level of escalation is acceptable? If even one person who watches child porn then escalates into action as a result of watching it (and I guess that's the most difficult thing to assess), isn't that one too many?
Questions, questions. I'm open to being convinced that my POV is incorrect or based on inaccurate info, but I think I'll need to see the evidence either way, first.
-
Snigger
I think it's even better because it's two somewhat-geek-girls talking about sport (ish) in Hadyn's thread...
Guess most of the other kids went to bed long ago eh?
-
Now now Joanna, you can't go giving away the Sevens like that. Good Lord! The very thought!
-
Talk about two of my major obsessions crashing into each other at high speed!
Which two?
Everything web and American politics (especially subset: Obama), of course.
...and thanks for the kind words Russell. Yay for all of us!
-
I am inordinately excited about Webstock. Last year was the first time I missed it - I was newly self-employed at that stage and watching every penny, and I just couldn't afford it.
Things are a wee bit better now - and I figure it's worth its weight in informal networking, inspiration and all-round goodness anyway, so woohoo! I'm off to Webstock again this year!
@Carol Green - it's not actually that geeky - or perhaps I should say, depending on the talks you choose to attend, it can be as geeky or as non-geeky as you like. Many non-geeks come to Webstock (eg project managers, govt peeps etc) and they have an awesome (and incredibly useful) time. It's so worth it - and for self-employed people the networking alone can be worth the price of admission.
I'm particularly thrilled this year about the late introduction of Scott Thomas - Design Director for the Obama Presidential campaign - to the lineup. Talk about two of my major obsessions crashing into each other at high speed! w00t!
I also got nominated for a couple of ONYAs, which is so thrilling I can't even begin to express how thrilling that is.
All in all it's gonna be an awesome few days and I hope to see many of you there. Come and say hi!
-
Do folks think that mining our reserves will capture the imagination of the public enough to bring the government down?
No - and that's what completely freaks me out about this proposal. That it'll go through virtually unopposed because yer average politically uninterested/naive/apathetic/give-me-my-tax-cut Kiwi won't give enough of a shit to do anything to stop it.
However, I could be completely wrong in my assessment - possibly Kiwis do love their land sufficiently to fight for it. I don't know. I've only been here 17 years. :)
I am somewhat heartened by the general response on Your Views which seems to be a little greener than normal - apart from the obligatory dickheads laughing at "the lefties & greenies" for "jumping up and down". But they're extra-strength morons, so I'm not counting them.