[arkhangelsk]

Originally Posted by FragrantFlora

Again, I have no issue whatsoever with Japanese erotic games. It's only the rape genre that has to be given more prior concern.

@arkhangelsk

First of all, it'd be appreciated if you change your tone of talking. I'm pretty sure you can prove your point and answer questions without pointing out flaws ( in your POV) of others which have no relation to the topic. You're just adding unnecessary conflict which just seems rude.

A person that's using "bite-the-bullet" emotional debating tactics shouldn't be complaining. Obviously, you are hoping that I would be so tied up by a lifetime of indoctrination to be "considerate", especially of "rape victims" that I'll abandon the logic of my position.

The thing about taking away one's rights has many extremes.

In other words, it seems you agree it is wrong.

In other much more extreme lower levels, the pleasure or luxury can be taken away from an individual but he/she will still live. He/she can still get over it. Is it much more easier for a rape victim to get over being raped than someone who's rape games are taken away from him/her?

I know what you are looking for. I'll suggest you view it some other ways:

1) One can only start to try to "get over" something, be it rape, earthquake, or whatever, after the disaster ends. In that sense, by definition it is actually the rape victim that has a chance to get over her tragedy. Simultaneously, the victim of censorship might be hurt less on a visceral level, but he can only start to recover if the government repeals its ban.
2) Trying to compare the rape experience to merely the act of censorship is unfair. The reverse appropriate analogy would be a rape experience where the victim doesn't put up much of a physical or mental fight and lets her virginity be taken. The stereotypical rape experience is better compared to a person that stood for his rights (both freedom of speech and his property rights) under the censorship and got fined or imprisoned for it, complete with the ordeals of court ... etc.

Censorship on the governmental level isn't just a matter of taking things away, but for punishing people who try to exercise something that is actually their right. In a utilitarian equation, that ALSO has to be factored in.

Censorship is wrong in a way that it abuses power and as mentioned takes the rights of an invidividual away. Censorship is a way of preventing or stopping people from being able to live a part of their life the way they want it. But so does discipline. In this way, censoring and not censoring are both wrong but which is really more wrong? Again that's only my opinion.

Discipline, if you mean the kind that's externally imposed (such as "law" in general), nominally has advantages that can counteract. AS a rule, and also in this case, there isn't for censorship.

Playing rape games doesn't justify that rape is right or that it's ok to do. That I agree with you people but can only solely apply on mature people who exhibit control. Growing children have different ways of thinking. External environment contributes to that. Rape games themselves don't justify rape but it glorifies it.

I never understood that whole "glorifying" argument. If so, AFAIK the average rape game actually vilifies the villain, as opposed to the average violence game, which makes the "Rambo" of the game out to be a hero. You might be enjoying it, but it is the rare rape game (do they exist) that make the rapist out to be good.

For the children, please compare to how a parent supporting censorship "glorifies" and justifies in the child's mind the rightfulness of taking away other people's rights. While there is plenty of counterpressure against rape in the average society and upbringing, there's almost none against supporting censorship.

If you were to tell a rape victim who is for the ban that he/she is applying her own idealogies and morals just like the rapist by invading other people's freedom, you fail to take into consideration the different levels and extremes of violation or "invasion."

Please explain how "I kill this person's rights by 20" is OK, but "70" is not.

Also ... do consider what you are really doing when requesting governmental censorship. You are saying not only it is right to take a freedom away, but also to lock them behind bars. Please compare the values.

The idea of rape is very dangerous. Guns and knives can still be justifed in cases of self defense. You don't rape someone for self defense.

Censorship is also not self-defense. It is even worse, because you are too much of a wimp to impose your own irrational urges yourself. Generally a rapist can at least say that he took personal risk in achieving his personal vision of the world. A pro-censorship person is like a rapist who's so wimpy he doesn't even hold down his victim himself, but calls on a squad to do it in a gang-rape experience.

Another way one can put it is that pro-censorship people are similar to a rapist who tries to get the government to not only legalize rape, but compel the police to assist in such endeavors...

And these are the role models for our kids... and very few will even tell them it is wrong, and with not a fraction of the vigor they will for rape... hmm ... which is the big threat here...

If you can just say that censorship is only applied because of the people who are disgusted at rape, you are wrong since in general rape is already considered as something that degrades invidividuals. Yes, it is fiction, yes no one in real life gets hurt but what do rape games or rather what are we really promoting?

We are promoting nothing but a form of entertainment and free speech.