Virtual rape

[Kahaih]

Completely apples and oranges, not even close to being able to compare the two situations.

Can you explain why?

And maybe you can also explain how anyone would know how old the person behind the avatar is. The article said the girl was under 16 'at the time'. Are their profiles confirmed and always on display?

 

[belamyi]

It's disturbing that someone would liken the two, seemingly in defense of virtual rape.

Point of contention: I said "disturbing," not "surprising."

It was only a matter of time. People who are into this but maybe too afraid to "cross the line" in the real world will probably have no compunctions or regulation standing in their way from having a field day in the VR world. Jebus wept.

You mean like people who would be afraid to cross the line in the real world and commit a murder, but delight in watching it as fiction or, better, demand to be told about real murders in the shape of "documentaries".

 

[LeicsDom]

Can you explain why?

And maybe you can also explain how anyone would know how old the person behind the avatar is. The article said the girl was under 16 'at the time'. Are their profiles confirmed and always on display?

It doesn't matter how old the person behind the avatar is. If they are making you uncomfortable/afraid then walk away. Log off. Take off the VR headset. You do not have to remain in the area. IT IS NOT REAL LIFE!

 

[belamyi]

It doesn't matter how old the person behind the avatar is. If they are making you uncomfortable/afraid then walk away. Log off. Take off the VR headset. You do not have to remain in the area. IT IS NOT REAL LIFE!

Neither are politics, or TV, or social media and social life in general, or religion, or financial markets and balance sheets, or...

 

[Kahaih]

It doesn't matter how old the person behind the avatar is. If they are making you uncomfortable/afraid then walk away. Log off. Take off the VR headset. You do not have to remain in the area. IT IS NOT REAL LIFE!

LOL Is that shouting?

Maybe you should walk away from the thread before someone tells you to 'practice what you preach'.

I'm sure that, by now, everyone here understands your opinion on the topic, anyway. LOL


I'd like to know/understand why some people seem to think the girl was trapped. Obviously, at some point, she did escape her tormenters.

As usual, these click-bait articles lack all the important details, and we'll likely never see any follow-up.

 

[belamyi]

Can you explain why?

And maybe you can also explain how anyone would know how old the person behind the avatar is. The article said the girl was under 16 'at the time'. Are their profiles confirmed and always on display?

Is that mental or "biological" age? True that agedar is about as rare or even 'obsolete' as gaydar but...

 

[rareboy]

Can you explain why?

And maybe you can also explain how anyone would know how old the person behind the avatar is. The article said the girl was under 16 'at the time'. Are their profiles confirmed and always on display?

To one of the points that will likely be explored...will any additional controls be put on the players of these games that ensures that they are age and identity verified and have parental permission...as exists with so many other facets of the entertainment industry where viewing and participation are age restricted.

It goes to the concept of informed consent and ensuring that children are mature enough to be able to handle the parameters of the game they are playing. This of course would answer the question of parental control and responsibilities that some have mentioned.

There will be no foolproof way to guarantee that teenagers will not still find themselves in situations out of control that they thought they were in control of. We see that over and over again. I was a teenager once, so I know about guidance, limits, controls and how to circumvent those.

And there will be many who will play the 'serves them right' card along with the 'where are the parents?' card and the 'just walk away' card, but I would remind us that we are all looking at this from the point of view of adults and not of teenagers...who, despite being world weary and cynical by the age of 16, are not adults with enough emotional experience to process many psycho-sexual pressures and threats out there.

Let's see where this takes us, because this is perhaps about the shaping of rules around the world of AI experiences and understanding more about the intersection of virtual reality with the acutal reality of the real people who live part of their lives in that world.

This is a concept that has been explored in many different books and films over the last few decades, but mostly in a naive way.

Now, as we have the reality of perhaps millions of children having access to the technology, it may be time to get out ahead of really understanding the impact it has on younger children and young adults.

 

[belamyi]

^ Easy way out: disrupt the economy and all the social and political and technological development relying on it.

 

[rareboy]

Utter nonsense.

Even I thought you were more intelligent than this response.

Oh.

And thanks to the mod who corrected the spelling...it was hurting my eyes.

 

[belamyi]

^ You mean believing that someone will plan it with that purpose? I didn't say that. I just merely hinted at one of the secondary consequences of what will anyway come to pass...

 

[rareboy]

It hasn't before and won't again.

 

[belamyi]

^ Like the Deluge or the fall of Abbasid Baghdad: indeed, it's always different each time.

 

[NotHardUp1]

On another note, the assumption that the owner of the avatar being under 16 is inherently a victim and is incapable of making a prudent decision, doesn't hold water.

Age alone is not a basis.

And reframing and exaggerating the opposing view of the "attack" by putting slurs about bitches deserving it is a sing of a weak argument, else it wouldn't need need the straw man exaggeration.

Worse yet, the sureness that virtual behavior has any high correlation with real world behavior is unworthy of merit. This is the same slippery slope, guilt by accusation, that conservatives use to slander gays as pedophiles, or to suggest that watching porn is preparatory to physical rape or other crimes.

Whereas it is true that there is probably a likely correlation in some sexual porn watching with crimes, especially child pornography, it is not true that there is causation in any high percentage of porn viewers becoming sex criminals.

So, please don't argue that virtual behavior is necesasily a practice run for rape. It's not. Unless you can provide statistical data.

 

[belamyi]

On another note, the assumption that the owner of the avatar being under 16 is inherently a victim and is incapable of making a prudent decision, doesn't hold water.

Age alone is not a basis.

And reframing and exaggerating the opposing view of the "attack" by putting slurs about bitches deserving it is a sing of a weak argument, else it wouldn't need need the straw man exaggeration.

Worse yet, the sureness that virtual behavior has any high correlation with real world behavior is unworthy of merit. This is the same slippery slope, guilt by accusation, that conservatives use to slander gays as pedophiles, or to suggest that watching porn is preparatory to physical rape or other crimes.

Whereas it is true that there is probably a likely correlation in some sexual porn watching with crimes, especially child pornography, it is not true that there is causation in any high percentage of porn viewers becoming sex criminals.

So, please don't argue that virtual behavior is necesasily a practice run for rape. It's not. Unless you can provide statistical data.

No, it is not: equating homosexuality with paedophilia is like equating heterosexuality with paedophilia or, rather, family, or church, or even schooling, with paedophilia... it is not a slippery slope as much as a wild flea hop.

The "slippery slope" you point to would be more like suggesting that watching or reading crime fiction leads to "real crime" or, at the very least, is a sort of wicked, morbose perversion.

So, for you, it is perfectly reasonable to speak of violation of law or of privacy, but it is wildly metaphoric to speak of the violation of an avatar?

The true "slippery" slope is to consider reducts or contexts in which something is considered "real" and, therefore, liable of prosecution, like when black or common people were not considered "real people", or animals did not suffer "real" pain because they were not "real" beings, being soulless... or considering that there are ages after which you are, magically, rational enough to receive the Holy Spirit, or "capable of making a prudent decision", consent to any sort of sexual relationship, or even be considered a "viable" human being... or considering that being politically active can make yourself responsible for any sort of terrorist or dictatorial crime against you, or that being raped "in the real world" can only be, somehow, your own responsibility and choice relative to the way you dress or the way you conduct yourself.

As if the world of "intentions" or "reasonabilities" were not slippery enough slopes already in regular law practice.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

No, it is not: equating homosexuality with paedophilia is like equating heterosexuality with paedophilia or, rather, family, or church, or even schooling, with paedophilia... it is not a slippery slope as much as a wild flea hop.

The "slippery slope" you point to would be more like suggesting that watching or reading crime fiction leads to "real crime" or, at the very least, is a sort of wicked, morbose perversion.

So, for you, it is perfectly reasonable to speak of violation of law or of privacy, but it is wildly metaphoric to speak of the violation of an avatar?

The true "slippery" slope is to consider reducts or contexts in which something is considered "real" and, therefore, liable of prosecution, like when black or common people were not considered "real people", or animals did not suffer "real" pain because they were not "real" beings, being soulless... or considering that there are ages after which you are, magically, rational enough to receive the Holy Spirit, or "capable of making a prudent decision", consent to any sort of sexual relationship, or even be considered a "viable" human being... or considering that being politically active can make yourself responsible for any sort of terrorist or dictatorial crime against you, or that being raped "in the real world" can only be, somehow, your own responsibility and choice relative to the way you dress or the way you conduct yourself.

As if the world of "intentions" or "reasonabilities" were not slippery enough slopes already in regular law practice.

Concise as ever. You know the "blurred lines/"what does consent/sexual assault really mean anyway?" defense is a hill some people are eager to fight on, for reasons too obvious to be stated.

 

[belamyi]

^ People are so far from realizing to what degree "law" is basically "semantics" and logic, more linguistics and pragmatics, seasoned with social prejudice and habits, than some abstract and holy sort of "aequitas": that is what made several shows like "Boston Legal" so terribly entertaining... and different from those stupid TV films which would invariably ALWAYS end in some flat trial.

Saying "it's just semantics" is like saying "it's just law".

 

[Araucaria]

The point that's being missed here is that a real person, a young girl, was harmed by the actions of these men. Admittedly this is a new area, as the tendency is for "fools to rush in" where innovations of technology and media are concerned. First, it must be determined if the girl is OK, and whether the men broke any applicable laws. If so, they need to be prosecuted, and if not, if laws need to be written to address the issues. And do the media companies bear any responsibility. Do rules need to be made to address this, such as minimum age requirements, TOS updates, etc.?

 

[belamyi]

The point that's being missed here is that a real person, a young girl, was harmed by the actions of these men.

And not just "in her feelings".
It's stupid enough that refusing to serve someone, desecrating a fucking rag or a damn dummy is considered a crime, but that people who accept that, would then royally dismiss "virtual rape" as idiocy, is beyond idotic.

 

[Kahaih]

And not just "in her feelings".
It's stupid enough that refusing to serve someone, desecrating a fucking rag or a damn dummy is considered a crime, but that people who accept that, would then royally dismiss "virtual rape" as idiocy, is beyond idotic.

@ 'virtual rape'

Obviously, you either didn't read the article, or you are unable to understand what you have read.

 

[belamyi]

@ 'virtual rape'

Obviously, you either didn't read the article, or you are unable to understand what you have read.

Obviously you either didn't understand the legal and logic issues concerning "virtual rape", and the objections raised to something that "didn't actually happen" by people who will not question convicting someone for a murder that didn't actually take place,

or you are just unable to see the legal forest beyond the trees of the yellow press and yellow (is the adjective redundant here?) social media.