I am starting to understand the two primary mentalities of this subject that are clashing. There’s always two minds in any argument. I’m always fond of bringing them together to analyze them and see where they connect and unite, connect and conflict, and where they drift apart.
-
[Me] It is a good idea for people to explore the use of objects. A person’s actions define them to the public. If they are happy with a doll object and their actions do not involve or impact a person, they are a good person. If they act on a person, then they are a bad person. Purpose: to give the benefit of the doubt first, and then prosecute only those who breach this contract.
-
[You] It is a bad idea for people to explore the use of objects. A person’s mind defines them to the public. Regardless if they are fulfilled by a doll object alone or act on a person, they are still a bad person because it is the thought itself that is horrendous. Purpose: prosecute at the earliest notion of danger, no matter how minimal the action, to prevent the worst outcome.
That is basically the gist of everything else I’m going to elaborate on.
Mentality #1 is focused on one being innocent until a hard action makes one guilty. This mentality waits for an extreme (hard) action to occur, which means someone could potentially already be harmed. A person is convicted by action, but the damage is already done. The caveat here is that not everyone who buys a doll shares the same desire to move onto a real child, and it is unfair to lump them together as the same type of person. This mentality is very loose because it serves the purpose of prioritizing protecting the freedom of the individual first, and punishment second. A bit of Libertarian ideology is found here.
Mentality #2 is focused on one being guilty because one’s mind is considered guilty. The very act of buying a doll is enough to trigger a massive alert in this mind. To jump at the earliest soft action (a doll being purchased) is to prevent it from escalating into the worst type of action (a child being harmed). A person is convicted by mere conflation by a minor action and not by their major action. This mentality is very strict, but it serves the purpose of prevention of harm by prioritizing the restriction of freedom and providing the earliest punishment on soft actions before they can become hard actions. It is presumed that if one is so bold to steal an apple, then they will inevitably steal a car. A bit of Draconian ideology is found here.
This is a core belief of mentality #2. The caveat is that there is quite a large A-to-Z leap between buying an object and assaulting a living human being. The infinite distance between these two action is being disregarded on purpose in order for mentality #2 to be able to serve its point: being as fast as possible to respond at all costs and no exceptions. However, mentality #2 runs into trouble with merging the wrong things together. Mentality #1 believes that assaulting a person is also possible regardless of the purchase of an object, and that buying an object is also possible without assaulting a person. Mentality #2 disagrees entirely with this. Passive thoughts and soft actions inspired by such thoughts are just as bad as hard actions that actually affect people. In mentality #1, it is preferred to keep thoughts and soft actions separate from hard actions as they do not inherently relate to each other, under the same globally accepted rule that a knife can be purchased for cooking (soft action), and a knife can also be purchased specifically to murder someone (hard action). It is the person that is responsible and not the knife.
In Mentality #2, we seem to be equally as worried with people purchasing dolls as we are with people who actually harm children. There is a strongly required desire to merge the two as one to prevent any harm that having too much purchasing freedom could cause. There is an underlining notion of fear, worry, and panic, stemmed from the idea of being too late to save a child from a monster. Mentality #1 desires to separate dolls from children as they do not have the same notion of fear that one leads to the other. The focus of mentality #1 is on alternative means of prevention through education, psychiatric therapy, and in allowing alternative outlets to remain available. There does not seem to be as much fear in mentality #1. The focus is building a positive society around opting to apply more a humanitarian, philanthropic, and eclectic approach to our worldly problems. This is the softer mentality of the two great mentalities. Though, mentality #2 is wonderfully best suited for things that should be regulated or banned immediately without question or compromise, such as anything that can deliberately injure or kill someone easily.
From the perspective of Mentality #1 [separate], I find a disconnect between the path of thought that says, “Plan A, I’m going to buy this doll. Then, Plan B, I’m going to do unspeakable things to people.” - the person does not need Plan A at all in order to perform Plan B. Plan A is not a pre-requisite in order to perform Plan B. Therefore, I see them as separate. It depends entirely on the person, and does not depend on either of the two plans themselves.
From the perspective of Mentality #2 [merge], I find a connection between the path of thought that says, “Plan A, I’m going to buy this doll. Then, Plan B, I’m going to have no choice but to do unspeakable things to people. I’ve gotten this far, after all.” Though, the fault with this scenario is that even if Plan A is considered to be a pre-requisite in order to perform Plan B, Plan A can still be skipped entirely and Plan B can still be pursued independently. A and B are independent clauses, and yet, mentality #2 disregards this and willingly merges them as a consecutive progression where Plan A inevitably leads to Plan B.
There is an additional case for both mentalities that Plan A is used only to access whether or not if Plan B is worth their time and effort. If Plan A confirms that they want to move onto a real target, then they never really needed Plan A to begin with. The lowered inhibition of such an easily negatively influenced mindset to willingly assault someone was something that is already deeply rooted in the individual, regardless of any external stimuli making them confirm it to be true. In other words, people with an embedded proclivity to want to harm someone will eventually harm someone as soon as their capability of common sense and consideration of consequence is diminished. They were going to do it eventually anyway, doll or no doll. For all others, a consideration of consequence, along with generally not being stupid, will be enough to deter most from harming someone else, whether a child or another adult.
I hate to see the “separate (doll != child) vs merge (doll = child)” loophole. Both are correct and not correct assertions. Dolls and cartoons can be modeled after the idea of children, just as anything in the fictional world can be modeled after anything. Children are not some miraculous exception to adult fiction. However, that is where the line is and should be drawn. Children are children. Fictional is fiction. The “us vs them” war that is present in every controversial matter is a problem. Problems aren’t being solved by endless emotional bickering and blaming. I would rather we work together to eliminate the common adversary: child abusers, sex offenders, traffickers, murderers, and anyone else who has a total disregard for respecting other living beings and their basic human or animal rights. These are the real enemies and scum of the Earth that we all can do without. I would hope you agree. There is absolutely no justification for violating someone’s personal space, property, body, and mind. Laws should protect people from other people, while leaving artistic expression and the mind itself alone.
At least one thing we have in common is the focus on preventing children from being harmed. We just have different methodologies on “preventing.”
Mentality #1 opts to prevent abuse before abuse occurs by soft prevention methods that do not include blaming the actions of people on the freedoms of artistic expression. This method is more constructive.
Mentality #2 opts to prevent abuse before abuse occurs by hard prevention methods that include blaming the actions of people on the freedoms of artistic expression. This method is more destructive.
I am not too much of a fan for prevention by destruction. I am not a fan of destruction. (I will be honest in assuming that if I were you, based on how repulsed your response has you appear, I would absolutely be wanting to destroy and burn all of these cartoons and dolls out of existence. I think you would agree with this). While there is a valid concern that objects may inspire someone to do something horrible to a person, there is always the other side of the coin to consider; a valid benefit that the objects may inspire someone to NOT do those things. In addition, there is the coin itself to consider - the decisions of the person themselves regardless of the object. Whether a person “may or may not do” is exactly as it sounds. This is something that cannot be assumed or determined by anyone but the individual themselves.
We need to protect both the children and our freedoms. Let’s keep it at that. No need to jump to extremes. No need to start burning art and burning people along with it. No need to burn or destroy. Only heal and construct. Think more positively. We all want the same problems solved, even if we’re on different sides.