(Nils said he was subscribed, so there's no need to Cc him.) On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 08:16:55PM +0100, Mateusz Jończyk wrote: > No, Debian should not in distribute the illegal scenes at all neither suggest them. > That would make the distribution much more risky. I tend to agree with that. If Nils really wants this, however, I'll leave the decision about this to ftpmasters. (By asking them directly, of course, not by trying to sneak this past them.) No need to discuss this on the list; we'll work it out, and, I'll speak for myself, I'll try hard to make sure nobody is surprised if the package enters Debian (but I'm also pretty sure not everybody will be happy, judging by the discussion.) > Even somebody casually looking at the game could think that it is much, much worse > than it probably is in reality Not really. We're now talking about a game with no images of any sex in it. A casual look by a person who wants action will result in "this is boring, next please". > A good example could be a post in this thread > (https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-games/2014/03/msg00087.html) by a serious > Debian Developer. Who was not looking at the game itself (due to the language barrier), but only at the images, which will not be in the Debian package. I explained elsewhere that the collection of images outside the context of the game can easily lead someone to incorrect conclusions. This is however not a risk, because those images are not in the package, so someone doing what Jo did to the future package will only find boring town scenes. > If this will go out, somebody will find that package, try it out and > get shocked. They will be shocked that there is a story about child abuse? I'm sure some people will be shocked by it, just like some people are shocked by anything related to sexual preference, or religion. I don't think this is a reason to do (or not do) anything, really. > He/She will then contact some journalist who will publish it. Yes, some journalists publish whatever junk you send them. And their readers know this, and there isn't a problem. Before we're talking about serious organizations acting on it, they will want more proof than "this junk paper that always lies about everyone says that they are bad guys". > >>> I wrote that. However, I was corrected: > >>> http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1999-effects-of-pornography.html ... > > I suggest you read the paper – it does indeed try to compare different cultures > > and jurisdictions and references a lot of other literature. > In my mail (https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-games/2014/03/msg00094.html) > I have quoted a different paper [5] that is concerned specifically > with child porn and has a different conclusion: > "Findings from this study indicate that exposure to virtual child > pornography, in the form of barely legal sexually explicit depictions, > did result in a cognitive effect. Exposure to sexually explicit > depictions featuring underage-looking models results in viewers being > more likely to associate sex and sexuality to subsequent nonsexual > depictions of minors. This part is the conclusion, and it is likely true, but irrelevant for us. > The first step in any intentional behavior, however, may be a > cognitive consider- ation of performing that behavior. Therefore, > exposure to any stimuli that makes the consideration of a particular > behavior more likely to occur also seems likely to increase the > probability that an individual will participate in that behavior. This part is speculation, and the other paper suggests that it is incorrect. Also, if you believe this theory, we should remove all games that involve killing from the archive. They didn't do anything wrong (except writing this in place that invites misunderstanding); you're just reading their personal thoughts at the end (that they didn't actually investigate) as if they are the results of their research. > Thus, while it does not seem reasonable to claim, based on the > totality of the current results, that the government’s claims of > effects relating to exposure to virtual child pornography are valid, > the support found for Hypotheses 1 and 2 suggest that it would also be > inappropriate to reject these claims outright." I agree, and I don't do that. But I also don't have a reason to believe them. So I'm not going to avoid doing things, when there is no proof that it harms anyone, and there is in fact a pretty strong indication that it doesn't, and might even have positive effects on society. Thanks, Bas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature