# UK to outlaw lolicon.



## Hothien (Jun 2, 2008)

> Drawings and computer-generated images of child sex abuse would be made illegal under proposals announced by Justice Minister Maria Eagle.
> 
> Owners of such images would face up to three years in prison under the plans.
> 
> ...





Wait. If these images were not produced by harming children, then what is the point of outlawing them? They must be thinking its non-sequitor day.


----------



## Godot (Jun 2, 2008)

*deletes majority of hentai in hard-drive* damn


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 2, 2008)

NUUUU MY LOLIS!   Oh wait i'm in the US! I guess its okay then..sucks for Britans tho.

I don't understand how they can ban Loli's when its just an artform. Especially one that's holding back a lionshare of sexual deviants from preying on real young girls by sating them fictitious images..

I mean think of japan, the sexual crime rate is pretty low there, cause of the artform, people don't need to find real young girls cause they have all they need in the form of fake images.

UK enforcing is making it worse IMO


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 2, 2008)

Wait, wtf? -.- This is goddamn bullshit.


----------



## Godot (Jun 2, 2008)

i think the point they were trying to make was that it _encourages_ real child abuse.

btw, what counts as 'child abuse' in loli? Does it literally mean rape, or just underage sex?


----------



## martryn (Jun 2, 2008)

> Wait. If these images were not produced by harming children, then what is the point of outlawing them? They must be thinking its non-sequitor day.



Wow, you posted the article but you didn't read and understand it?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 2, 2008)

Loli's are usually defined as : "False images of young girls(or girls who look young) posed in a provocative manner"


----------



## Cookie Puss (Jun 2, 2008)




----------



## Hothien (Jun 2, 2008)

martryn said:


> Wow, you posted the article but you didn't read and understand it?



What's not to understand? They seem to think that some users are indeed taking real photos and manipulating them to turn them into cartoons, but their aim is a bit off - it will make the whole of it illegal, not just their so-called intended target.

See the following:


> Ms Eagle said the plans were "not about criminalising art or pornographic cartoons more generally, *but about targeting obscene, and often very realistic, images* of child sexual abuse which have no place in our society".



It's not about their so-called concern about 'manipulated images', its about what they deem to be obscene.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Jun 2, 2008)

oh damn




oh you killed me


----------



## T4R0K (Jun 2, 2008)

I wonder what they'd consider "lolicon"...? I mean, it means good bye to Haruhi porn too ? (She's still just 16.) 

And whatever, MILFs all the way !


----------



## Pilaf (Jun 2, 2008)

This is a horrendous blow against western values of free speech and thespianism.

You can not outlaw a specific type of art when it harms nobody. 

A drawing of a child is not a child.

I SAID A drawing of a child is not a child.

I SAID a drawing of a child is not a child.

I SAID a drawing of a child is not a child.

I SAID a drawing of a child is not a child.

This is not justice nor protection of innocents.

This is religious extremism in its fully glory...puritanism of a smug type which seeks to stamp out what it and it alone deems perverse and which in reality is harmless and in no way promotes abuse.

Blasphemy against all western ideals. A sad day indeed....aided and abetted by restless, power hungry politicians and the massive engines of commerce, these values against perversion - perverse in and of themselves - march on and continue to be the biggest threat to real morality and freedom in this brave new century.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jun 2, 2008)

fucking retarded, who's to say when a drawing looks like a drawing of an adult or a child.  Do we have art professionals to determine the age of a fictional subject in a drawing?  wtf, stupid


----------



## Sarutobi sasuke (Jun 2, 2008)

Yay the Labour government made a new law.


----------



## Kurumie Tsurashima (Jun 2, 2008)

And yet they do nothing for Shotacon?


----------



## Hi Im God (Jun 2, 2008)

Who wants to be the special interest group to block this?


Talk about getting a label you don't need after doing that.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 2, 2008)

So wut if it's a hentai about an adult that got shrinked into child size? Would that still be loli?


----------



## Hothien (Jun 2, 2008)

Saufsoldat said:


> So wut if it's a hentai about an adult that got shrinked into child size? Would that still be loli?



The proposed changes specify "computer generated or drawn child abuse", so take of that what you will.


----------



## Masaki (Jun 2, 2008)

> Owners of such images would face up to three years in prison under the plans.



I seriously thought that the word "face" was "fap".


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 2, 2008)

Ahh look at the Loli-Lovers run...I don't see the big deal, it was bound to be done by someone sooner or later basically considering the fact that it could be said to promote people to feed their urge. Of course it could also be said to fight back the urge. 

Whatever though, loli is pretty fucking nasty. Especially hard stuff....


----------



## Hellion (Jun 2, 2008)

Man alot of hentai based on animes will be outlawed:amazed

Oh and finally The UK wants to implement a stupid law


----------



## Hothien (Jun 2, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Whatever though, loli is pretty fucking nasty. Especially hard stuff....



There are plenty of things that I find pretty nasty, but I wouldn't want to ban them.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jun 2, 2008)

Oh damn. Them Brits gotta fap to post-pubescent porn now.


----------



## Disquiet (Jun 2, 2008)

> "This is a welcome announcement which makes a clear statement that drawings or computer-generated images of child abuse are as unacceptable as a photograph."


Saying that images of children who don't exist are _exactly as unacceptable_ as photographs is an insult to every real child who has been abused, and I find myself genuinely offended by that.

I can see the logic behind what they're doing, though I disagree in the strongest possible terms, but to _equate_ lolicon with actual child porn as though they were the same thing is moronic.

Paedophiles who are nice enough not to want to spend their time abusing children need an outlet, regardless, and why shouldn't lolicon be that outlet when nobody is harmed in the process?  I can only really see this ruling having a detrimental effect, and being impossibly hard to enforce since you can't really ask the age of a person who doesn't exist; there are a lot of fairly loli-ish images out there where the characters depicted, well, could be either kids or a little older than kids due to the necessarily youthful look of anime characters.  There's too fine a line there.

If we wanted to start banning art forms which depict controversial stuff that doesn't actually hurt anybody, we'd surely have banned movie and TV violence ages ago.  Things like Dexter, Lost and 24 certainly wouldn't exist, and that would suck.



			
				Cardboard Tube Knight said:
			
		

> Whatever though, loli is pretty fucking nasty. Especially hard stuff....


I find any hardcore pornography (hentai or otherwise) pretty nasty, but I also find Barbara Streisand's singing voice pretty nasty.  I wouldn't try to ban either.


----------



## 海外ニキ (Jun 2, 2008)

> The Obscene Publications Act makes it illegal to sell or distribute photos of child abuse but it is legal to own drawings and computer-generated images.



Oh, so, it's ok to have it in your posession, but not to distribute it.


OK.


(Maybe I should start researching U.S. law . . .)


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 2, 2008)

How are they gonna do this anyway? The UK sites that host loli just switch servers in other countries and that's it. Most porn sites are hosted in the USA, anyway so this law is just plain old horseshit.


----------



## Disturbia (Jun 2, 2008)

That'll never happen


----------



## Chanel (Jun 2, 2008)

I think loli is nasty.  I don't really care much, anyway.


----------



## dreams lie (Jun 2, 2008)

I really don't see the big deal either.  Loli is generally pretty damn disturbing.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 2, 2008)

Willaien said:


> There are plenty of things that I find pretty nasty, but I wouldn't want to ban them.



Some things need to be banned, this isn't artistic expression. This is people trying to feed a need for child pornography by skirting laws. Every time I talk to some idiot who wants to defend Hentai as just like real porn, they talk about how the characters drawn are a realistic and a representation of what people want to see. People who want to see little kids in sexual acts need help, not to have their desire fed. 



Megaharrison said:


> Oh damn. Them Brits gotta fap to post-pubescent porn now.



I know its so sad. 



BrianTheGoldfish said:


> I find any hardcore pornography (hentai or otherwise) pretty nasty, but I also find Barbara Streisand's singing voice pretty nasty.  I wouldn't try to ban either.



We should work on getting that banned next.


----------



## Clearmoon (Jun 2, 2008)

lol, I welcome the decision. Also, I'm pretty sure the US has or will have a version of this law, at least from what I've read.


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Jun 2, 2008)

They're idiots if they think this is a good idea.

Lolicon is a way for some pedophiles to get their fix without actually looking for real child porn, or worse yet, acting agaisnt real children.

If you deprive them of the drawings, then chances are more LIKELY that they will become active offenders.


----------



## Hothien (Jun 2, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Some things need to be banned, this isn't artistic expression. This is people trying to feed a need for child pornography by skirting laws. Every time I talk to some idiot who wants to defend Hentai as just like real porn, they talk about how the characters drawn are a realistic and a representation of what people want to see. People who want to see little kids in sexual acts need help, not to have their desire fed.



This is not a psychology issue, this is a legal rights issue. Free speech isn't just about speech you approve of.


----------



## Clearmoon (Jun 2, 2008)

Anomander Rake said:


> They're idiots if they think this is a good idea.
> 
> Lolicon is a way for some pedophiles to get their fix without actually looking for real child porn, or worse yet, acting agaisnt real children.
> 
> If you deprive them of the drawings, then chances are more LIKELY that they will become active offenders.



There are plenty of other options if the p*d*p**** doesn't like what they are doing/seeing. Lolicon isn't the nicotine equivalent to RL pedophilia.

Also, Lolicon can also act as a bridge towards pedophilia. And please don't compare it to videogames or movies, they are completely different.


----------



## Hellion (Jun 2, 2008)

Clearmoon said:


> There are plenty of other options if the p*d*p**** doesn't like what they are doing/seeing. Lolicon isn't the nicotine equivalent to RL pedophilia.
> 
> *Also, Lolicon can also act as a bridge towards pedophilia. And please don't compare it to videogames or movies, they are completely different.*



Explain please


----------



## Juno (Jun 2, 2008)

Wreaks of thought crime.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 2, 2008)

Willaien said:


> This is not a psychology issue, this is a legal rights issue. Free speech isn't just about speech you approve of.



And it could be seen as something that could promote people to start acting out against children. Not everything that we want to do falls under free speech, especially when it could cause someone to harm someone else. 



Anomander Rake said:


> They're idiots if they think this is a good idea.
> 
> Lolicon is a way for some pedophiles to get their fix without actually looking for real child porn, or worse yet, acting agaisnt real children.
> 
> If you deprive them of the drawings, then chances are more LIKELY that they will become active offenders.



By the same right it could promote someone who has a vague idea in their head to want to act on it.


----------



## Hothien (Jun 2, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And it could be seen as something that could promote people to start acting out against children. Not everything that we want to do falls under free speech, especially when it could cause someone to harm someone else.



You need proof that it is actually harming someone else, or causing people to do so. There has been no definitive link demonstrated, just suggested by those like yourself. Until then, it IS a free speech issue.

Edit: Would you like to see fake-rape porn outlawed as well? Same logic that you're using could be used against it.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jun 2, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Ahh look at the Loli-Lovers run...I don't see the big deal, it was bound to be done by someone sooner or later basically considering the fact that it could be said to promote people to feed their urge. Of course it could also be said to fight back the urge.
> 
> Whatever though, loli is pretty fucking nasty. Especially hard stuff....



Who care's if it's nasty or not? Fucking SCAT PORN is nasty. Tubgirl is fucking disgusting. Let's not mention goa... Oh wait.

No really. The problem with this law is that not only will it throw perfectly innocent people in prison for a crime that should not be a crime outside of religious shitholes. The main problem is that you have a problem of definition. What hentai is lolicon, really? What about borderline hentai? It's all going to get fucking illegal. They'll have to draw lines somewhere and there is no actual basis to draw a line as there is no definite age of any cartoon character.




Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Some things need to be banned, *this isn't artistic expression*. This is people trying to feed a need for child pornography by skirting laws. Every time I talk to some idiot who wants to defend Hentai as just like real porn, they talk about how the characters drawn are a realistic and a representation of what people want to see.





"When someone says it's not about free speech, it's about free speech".



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> People who want to see little kids in sexual acts need help, not to have their desire fed.



I want you to say that to homosexuals. Seriously.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> We should work on getting that banned next.



Why? What's the problem with hardcore porn?



Clearmoon said:


> And please don't compare it to videogames or movies, they are completely different.



Explain plz. Both are free-speech issues.


----------



## Lezard Valeth (Jun 2, 2008)

they should also outlaw "thoughts" about lolicons [/sarcasm]



> And it could be seen as something that could promote people to start acting out against children. Not everything that we want to do falls under free speech, especially when it could cause someone to harm someone else.


And some would argue those things prevent real harm to children since it allows substitute fantasies.


----------



## Juno (Jun 2, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And it could be seen as something that could promote people to start acting out against children. Not everything that we want to do falls under free speech, especially when it could cause someone to harm someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> By the same right it could promote someone who has a vague idea in their head to want to act on it.



That's the same kind of nonsense people use to condemn games. If someone abuses children, they already had that capacity within them, not because they saw some cartoons on the internet.

What is illegal here is child porn and that alone is what should stay illegal. Just because there is a correlation between child abusers and people who possess fake images doesn't mean you can broaden the definition of the crime. That would be like saying that because all rapists watch violent porn, therefore possession of violent porn should be a crime, regardless of the people who can watch violent porn and not be moved to commit sex crimes.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Jun 2, 2008)

T4R0K said:


> I wonder what they'd consider "lolicon"...? I mean, it means good bye to Haruhi porn too ? (She's still just 16.)
> 
> And whatever, MILFs all the way !



Haruhi porn ? what is that......let's see on google


----------



## Clearmoon (Jun 2, 2008)

Kaze said:


> Explain please



Basically, after looking at lolicon and enjoying what they are seeing, it propels them towards looking at real child porn. While I'm sure that probably won't happen with a large majority of people who enjoy lolicon, there will always be some that do take this route. 

And since lolicon is already frowned upon and considered perverse, it probably isn't as big of a jump to go from that to child porn, compared to playing GTA (for example) and then going out and killing someone.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jun 2, 2008)

well the UK sucks arresting some one for someting fake lol.

i not leave there but even if it become illegal were i live i would kelp my loicon.


----------



## Hothien (Jun 2, 2008)

Clearmoon said:


> Basically, after looking at lolicon and enjoying what they are seeing, it propels them towards looking at real child porn. While I'm sure that probably won't happen with a large majority of people who enjoy lolicon, there will always be some that do take this route.
> 
> And since lolicon is already frowned upon and considered perverse, it probably isn't as big of a jump to go from that to child porn, compared to playing GTA (for example) and then going out and killing someone.



So, you admit that your argument is based on a non-sequitor? ...nice.

Seriously, there might be a logical link in your mind, but you need to actually demonstrate it. Until then, it is a group of people banning something they don't like, using fear-mongering techniques like 'think of the children!'.


----------



## chaosakita (Jun 2, 2008)

Aw, I guess I'm not going to move there.


----------



## Hellion (Jun 2, 2008)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> The main problem is that you have a problem of definition. What hentai is lolicon, really? What about borderline hentai? It's all going to get fucking illegal. They'll have to draw lines somewhere and there is no actual basis to draw a line as there is no definite age of any cartoon character.


That's the biggest problem is definition.  Will a person get thrown into jail for Bleach or Naruto Hentai? What category does Nell fall into to? 

The problem comes when you have older people policing things that they have no idea how to police it.

For example my sig; would that fall under th e category of loli.  I have no idea how old she is. (thats not a good example but I am just trying to make a point.)


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jun 2, 2008)

Clearmoon said:


> Basically, after looking at lolicon and enjoying what they are seeing, it propels them towards looking at real child porn. While I'm sure that probably won't happen with a large majority of people who enjoy lolicon, there will always be some that do take this route.



That is pure speculation.

In fact some studies show in negative connection between the availability of pornography and rape statistics. The apparent connection is that as more porn is available, the rape crime frequency goes down. This is a slow process.

Two more studies were done on the subject and one showed no effect whatsoever on the crime rate, and one showed a small decrease.

Meaning that the connection between rape frequency and porn availability means that AT WORST, porn has a small to no effect at all, and AT BEST is has a severely dampening effect.



Clearmoon said:


> And since lolicon is already frowned upon and considered perverse, it probably isn't as big of a jump to go from that to child porn, compared to playing GTA (for example) and then going out and killing someone.



What? You equal CHILD PORN WITH MURDER?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 2, 2008)

Seabear said:


> That's the same kind of nonsense people use to condemn games. If someone abuses children, they already had that capacity within them, not because they saw some cartoons on the internet.
> 
> What is illegal here is child porn and that alone is what should stay illegal. Just because there is a correlation between child abusers and people who possess fake images doesn't mean you can broaden the definition of the crime. That would be like saying that because all rapists watch violent porn, therefore possession of violent porn should be a crime, regardless of the people who can watch violent porn and not be moved to commit sex crimes.



No its not the same logic, not to mention two similar streams of logic don't denote both things being wrong. Reason why, people who play video games come from all types of life, while some may hurt others, the vast majority are normal functioning humans...

People who view Loli are a vast _minority _and they're viewing something that is vastly unaccepted by the general populace and that could lead them to commit unlawful acts. It doesn't always happen, but by the same right, we're talking about a group that isn't mentally normal. Being attracted to children isn't a healthy thing. So why should that indulgence be fed if even only one kid a year is molested because of it.


----------



## Hothien (Jun 2, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No its not the same logic, not to mention two similar streams of logic don't denote both things being wrong. Reason why, people who play video games come from all types of life, while some may hurt others, the vast majority are normal functioning humans...
> 
> People who view Loli are a vast _minority _and they're viewing something that is vastly unaccepted by the general populace and that could lead them to commit unlawful acts. It doesn't always happen, but by the same right, we're talking about a group that isn't mentally normal. Being attracted to children isn't a healthy thing. So why should that indulgence be fed if even only one kid a year is molested because of it.



Oh, so its OK because they're a minority, and its OK because you don't like it.

Please demonstrate this supposed link you keep suggesting. "But it could be!" isn't a good excuse.


----------



## Hellion (Jun 2, 2008)

Clearmoon said:


> Basically, after looking at lolicon and enjoying what they are seeing, it propels them towards looking at real child porn. While I'm sure that probably won't happen with a large majority of people who enjoy lolicon, there will always be some that do take this route.
> 
> And since lolicon is already frowned upon and considered perverse, it probably isn't as big of a jump to go from that to child porn, compared to playing GTA (for example) and then going out and killing someone.



That is the same thing.  

You are saying that out of lets 100,000 people that look at lolicon 10 of them go and molest a child it was the lolicon that did it?

That's what they do to video games.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 2, 2008)

Kaze said:


> That is the same thing.
> 
> You are saying that out of lets 100,000 people that look at lolicon 10 of them go and molest a child it was the lolicon that did it?
> 
> That's what they do to video games.



Only difference is they probably didn't do it because of games, but anything to take the blame off themselves. If I shoot someone because they shot at me, and they find a copy of GTA in my house, they can try to blame it all they want. 

If I rape someone though and they find a bunch of those rape fantasy videos I would say that the link seems clearer than the link between GTA and shooting.



Willaien said:


> Oh, so its OK because they're a minority, and its OK because you don't like it.
> 
> Please demonstrate this supposed link you keep suggesting. "But it could be!" isn't a good excuse.



No, I said because of mental stability. When you start reading, I will provide more links, you haven't addressed what I gave you. 

What's really sad about this is Britain as great a country as it is has been drowning itself in Political correctness, in fighting between Muslims and the other residents there, proposals that the country might one day be under religious law, the idea that the word 'black board' is offensive and that guns are illegal...and you people are worried about simulated Child Porn being banned.


----------



## Clearmoon (Jun 2, 2008)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> That is pure speculation.
> 
> In fact some studies show in negative connection between the availability of pornography and rape statistics. The apparent connection is that as more porn is available, the rape crime frequency goes down. This is a slow process.
> 
> ...



Terrible analogy. Its legal to have sex with a consenting woman, unlike with children or child pornography, so why would porn have a significant factor on rape statisics. Also, you are comparing watching porn to the actual act of rape, while I am comparing someone looking at lolicon to looking at child porn. 



> What? You equal CHILD PORN WITH MURDER?



You completely missed the point of my second paragraph, well done. I was saying that the jump from going from lolicon to child porn is smaller than from playing videogames to killing someone, since lolicon is frowned upon and considered perverse while videogames are arguably mainstream these days. I compared videogames and lolicon as people earlier compared them.


----------



## Hothien (Jun 2, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No, I said because of mental stability. When you start reading, I will provide more links, you haven't addressed what I gave you.
> 
> What's really sad about this is Britain as great a country as it is has been drowning itself in Political correctness, in fighting between Muslims and the other residents there, proposals that the country might one day be under religious law, the idea that the word 'black board' is offensive and that guns are illegal...and you people are worried about simulated Child Porn being banned.



I said that this isn't a psychology lesson. This is a rights issue. Now, demonstrate your supposed link or give up your only argument.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 2, 2008)

Willaien said:


> I said that this isn't a psychology lesson. This is a rights issue. Now, demonstrate your supposed link or give up your only argument.



Demonstrate how the psychologically unfit have the right to skirt around a law, or feed their desire until it ends up causing them to commit a crime and I will. You're the one who decided to try and forfeit an entire section of text about how laws don't relate to psychology...this is for all those pleas of insanity. But they aren't legal issues right. What about when someone pleas that loli led him to rape a child, the UK isn't waiting for that to happen, this is preemptive action.


----------



## Juno (Jun 2, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No its not the same logic, not to mention two similar streams of logic don't denote both things being wrong.



That is EXACTLY the same logic.

"Oh noes! People who play realistic games where they get to commit realistic and brutal murders will turn into murderers themselves!"

"Oh noes! People who look at drawings of children will turn into child abusers!"

How the hell is that any different?



> Reason why, people who play video games come from all types of life, while some may hurt others, the vast majority are normal functioning humans...



So are the vast majority of paedophiles. Not all of them are child molesters. Just because you possess drawings of children does not mean you should be criminalised the same as someone who possesses real footage of child abuse or who goes out child molesting. 



> People who view Loli are a vast _minority _and they're viewing something that is vastly unaccepted by the general populace and that could lead them to commit unlawful acts.



Strange. But I was under the impression that there is a modicum of freedom in the west where we don't ban and criminalise things just because they perturb the majority. For heaven's sake, gay sex squicks the majority of people, yet that is not going to be made illegal any time soon.



> It doesn't always happen, but by the same right, we're talking about a group that isn't mentally normal.



And? So? Lolicon doesn't hurt anybody, unlike child porn, which is the reason why child porn is a crime. It isn't illegal because it's gross, but because there are real victims.



> Being attracted to children isn't a healthy thing. So why should that indulgence be fed if even only one kid a year is molested because of it.



The urge to murder people isn't a healthy thing, so why should that indulgence be fed with graphic, gory video games, even if only one person is a year is murdered because of it?


----------



## Lezard Valeth (Jun 2, 2008)

Kaze said:


> Explain please



smoke = real life child abuse
nicotine = fantasy


----------



## Hothien (Jun 2, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Demonstrate how the psychologically unfit have the right to skirt around a law, or feed their desire until it ends up causing them to commit a crime and I will. You're the one who decided to try and forfeit an entire section of text about how laws don't relate to psychology...this is for all those pleas of insanity. But they aren't legal issues right. What about when someone pleas that loli led him to rape a child, the UK isn't waiting for that to happen, this is preemptive action.



You need to demonstrate that there is a substantive link between viewing lolicon and actually harming children. You keep screaming 'think of the children!', yet haven't demonstrated that there's an actual problem, instead you'd rather subvert human rights of a group you don't like.

I don't give a damn about whether it is healthy for a person to view such things - people are allowed to do things that are harmful to themselves, so long as it doesn't harm others. They're allowed to make their own decisions.

You also dodged an earlier question: what is your stance on simulated rape?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 2, 2008)

Willaien said:


> You need to demonstrate that there is a substantive link between viewing lolicon and actually harming children. You keep screaming 'think of the children!', yet haven't demonstrated that there's an actual problem, instead you'd rather subvert human rights of a group you don't like.
> 
> I don't give a damn about whether it is healthy for a person to view such things - people are allowed to do things that are harmful to themselves, so long as it doesn't harm others. They're allowed to make their own decisions.
> 
> You also dodged an earlier question: what is your stance on simulated rape?



I didn't see the question, simulated rape is kind of nasty to me...don't really care for it. If I see it in porn or anything it gives me a bad feeling and I don't watch basically. But should it be illegal, its questionable since most of the time it isn't really hard to tell its simulated and its not like any of it resembles real rape, how many victims just go with it half way through? 

And if we're allowed to make any decision about ourselves as long as it doesn't harm others, how come I have to wear a damn seatbelt? 



Seabear said:


> That is EXACTLY the same logic.
> 
> "Oh noes! People who play realistic games where they get to commit realistic and brutal murders will turn into murderers themselves!"
> 
> ...



It looks like your grasping, instead of defending the point, you're using the "but look they're doing it too," defense. I pointed out how games are different and now I'm done with you.


----------



## Hothien (Jun 2, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I didn't see the question, simulated rape is kind of nasty to me...don't really care for it. If I see it in porn or anything it gives me a bad feeling and I don't watch basically. But should it be illegal, its questionable since most of the time it isn't really hard to tell its simulated and its not like any of it resembles real rape, how many victims just go with it half way through?
> 
> And if we're allowed to make any decision about ourselves as long as it doesn't harm others, how come I have to wear a damn seatbelt?



Well, you're allowed to pick a shitty career, or choose to drink and smoke. Or do many things that could potentially be mentally damaging. (For example, joining a cult). I disagree with some of those baby-sitting laws for this very reason as well. 

Anyways, you do realize that the same arguments can be used in both instances? If its really the rape aspect that they like, then its not really all that different. In fact, at least with lolicon, its not even a real person being simulated. You say that rape-porn isn't very realistic... well, we're talking about a drawing here.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 2, 2008)

Seriously people, this is complete BS, hell *I*like loli, yet i don't want to go outside and molest some young girl. Does that mean i should go to jail too, or be incarcerated? 

It is an ARTFORM. And there is a PURE DISTINCTION between fictitious images and REAL PEOPLE.

Jeeze, its like talking to a hardcore conservative republican(which equates to a brick wall) with some of you.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 2, 2008)

Willaien said:


> Well, you're allowed to pick a shitty career, or choose to drink and smoke. Or do many things that could potentially be mentally damaging. (For example, joining a cult). I disagree with some of those baby-sitting laws for this very reason as well.
> 
> Anyways, you do realize that the same arguments can be used in both instances? If its really the rape aspect that they like, then its not really all that different. In fact, at least with lolicon, its not even a real person being simulated. You say that rape-porn isn't very realistic... well, we're talking about a drawing here.



But the people involved are consenting adults, even though the idea is nasty and it could also lead to rapists committing a crime...if they outlawed it too I would see the line of thought there.


----------



## Hothien (Jun 2, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> But the people involved are consenting adults, even though the idea is nasty and it could also lead to rapists committing a crime...if they outlawed it too I would see the line of thought there.



What they're acting out doesn't involve consenting adults, however. And lolicon involves nothing but drawings, not even any people at all!


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 2, 2008)

Inuhanyou said:


> Seriously people, this is complete BS, hell *I*like loli, yet i don't want to go outside and molest some young girl. Does that mean i should go to jail too, or be incarcerated?
> 
> * It is an ARTFORM.* And there is a PURE DISTINCTION between fictitious images and REAL PEOPLE.
> 
> Jeeze, its like talking to a hardcore conservative republican(which equates to a brick wall) with some of you.



I'm done right there...that's it for me. Williean and that other guy didn't at least try to piss on my leg and tell me its raining...this thread is gone to Hell officially.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 2, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I'm done right there...that's it for me. Williean and that other guy didn't at least try to piss on my leg and tell me its raining...this thread is gone to Hell officially.



 What exactly is it you are implying?


----------



## Hellion (Jun 2, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> But the people involved are consenting adults, even though the idea is nasty and it could also lead to rapists committing a crime...if they outlawed it too I would see the line of thought there.



So what you are saying is that if things offend others they should be policed.

There are plenty of things that I don't agree with, and certain ones that I personally want to be illegal and thrown away. But I know that the more things that are obscure and less mainstream that get banned, the closer we get to a point where the things that are mainstream get heavily regulated.


----------



## Clearmoon (Jun 2, 2008)

Inuhanyou said:


> What exactly is it you are implying?



That it isn't art. At least, people don't look at lolicon hentai for the same reason that people look at most forms of art.


----------



## Hothien (Jun 2, 2008)

Clearmoon said:


> That it isn't art.



Sure it is. Art is subjective. If I say it is art, it is art to me.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 2, 2008)

Think of this another way...most girls(or boys)on this very forum watch anime right? Think about the fangirls or fanboys who think "so and so is hawt" from whichever series..now many times the character they are talking about is under a certain age that would be considered legal. Does that mean they should be thrown in jail?


----------



## vervex (Jun 2, 2008)

I think this law is a good idea. Watching children being raped is quite sick and, I believe, only encourages some sick minds to look for real children pornography.

I also think anyone who is aroused when watching a 5 year old, real or not, being put in the ass, has serious mental issues.


----------



## Clearmoon (Jun 2, 2008)

Inuhanyou said:


> Think of this another way...most girls(or boys)on this very forum watch anime right? Think about the fangirls or fanboys who think "so and so is hawt" from whichever series..now many times the character they are talking about is under a certain age that would be considered legal. Does that mean they should be thrown in jail?



There is a big difference between finding a fictional image of a (underage) character attractive, and acting on sexual desire and masturbating over naked pictures of said underage characters.


----------



## Hellion (Jun 2, 2008)

vervex said:


> I think this law is a good idea. Watching children being raped is quite sick and, I believe, only encourages some sick minds to look for real children pornography.
> 
> *I also think anyone who is aroused when watching a 5 year old, real or not, being put in the ass, has serious mental issues.*



Loli like that I agree shouldn't exist.  My problem comes when they have a definition of loli that is up to a judges interpretation.


----------



## vervex (Jun 2, 2008)

Kaze said:


> Loli like that I agree shouldn't exist.  My problem comes when they have a definition of loli that is up to a judges interpretation.



That will be tricky, I admit. Pedophilia though is only considered such when the kids haven't reached puberty yet. After that, it becomes abuse but in the eyes of the law, the criminals are considered differently, not as mentally ill for instance. In Canada for example, the legal age for having sex with adults is 14. At 14, most of us have already hit puberty, if we leave aside exceptions.

I want to believe that the lolicon that will be outlawed will be 12 and below, the lolicon that depics very young girls and boys that are still kids being raped. I don't think they'll make a case on a picture of a girl that is around 15. We cannot ask the cartoon how old it is anyway, to it's very subjective. Kids are pretty obvious though and there's no way a girl of 18 will have a flat chest, a baby face and will only be 3-4 feet tall.


----------



## scottlw (Jun 2, 2008)

less perves there


----------



## Juno (Jun 2, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I didn't see the question, simulated rape is kind of nasty to me...don't really care for it. If I see it in porn or anything it gives me a bad feeling and I don't watch basically. But should it be illegal, its questionable since most of the time it isn't really hard to tell its simulated and its not like any of it resembles real rape,



And lolicon doesn't really resemble real child porn. So here we have you agreeing that rape porn is fine because it's fake, but lolicon is not fine because... it's also fake.




> It looks like your grasping, instead of defending the point, you're using the "but look they're doing it too," defense. I pointed out how games are different and now I'm done with you.



You didn't point out how games were different. You just said something to effect of 'games are different' and never elaborated. I, however, did. Please explain the difference in logic between those who say fake murder leads to real murder and those who say fake child porn leads to child abuse. Both imitate real, vile crimes. The only difference here is that one is mainstream and the other is not, but because something is only enjoyed by a minority is not reasonable enough grounds to criminalise it.

Please don't get dismissive with me when you haven't even addressed this. 

I'll say it again. Child porn is illegal because it victimises children. You cannot lock someone up for possessing drawings for what they MIGHT do later as a result of possessing the fake pictures. THAT is nothing but thought crime.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 2, 2008)

90% of japan has _serious_ mental issues../sarcasm


----------



## Clearmoon (Jun 2, 2008)

vervex said:


> That will be tricky, I admit. Pedophilia though is only considered such when the kids haven't reached puberty yet. After that, it becomes abuse but in the eyes of the law, the criminals are considered differently, not as mentally ill for instance. In Canada for example, the legal age for having sex with adults is 14. At 14, most of us have already hit puberty, if we leave aside exceptions.
> 
> I want to believe that the lolicon that will be outlawed will be 12 and below, the lolicon that depics very young girls and boys that are still kids being raped. I don't think they'll make a case on a picture of a girl that is around 15. We cannot ask the cartoon how old it is anyway, to it's very subjective. Kids are pretty obvious though and there's no way a girl of 18 will have a flat chest, a baby face and will only be 3-4 feet tall.



The problem comes is when artists still draw the people within lolicon looking the same age (aka: early teens or younger) and just use a disclaimer saying that everyone depicted within are over the age of 18. 

However, since most of this stuff is made in Japan for japanese people, there may not be too much of a problem.


----------



## Hellion (Jun 2, 2008)

vervex said:


> That will be tricky, I admit. Pedophilia though is only considered such when the kids haven't reached puberty yet. After that, it becomes abuse but in the eyes of the law, the criminals are considered differently, not as mentally ill for instance. In Canada for example, the legal age for having sex with adults is 14. At 14, most of us have already hit puberty, if we leave aside exceptions.
> 
> I want to believe that the lolicon that will be outlawed will be 12 and below, the lolicon that depics very young girls and boys that are still kids being raped. I don't think they'll make a case on a picture of a girl that is around 15. We cannot ask the cartoon how old it is anyway, to it's very subjective. Kids are pretty obvious though and there's no way a girl of 18 will have a flat chest, a baby face and will only be 3-4 feet tall.



See then the problem would be that all of the early hentai's ,were they didn't have pubic hair, can be used against anybody.

Anyway I am done here.  There are people in the BHC again.

For the record, I think that the law is a good idea.


----------



## 海外ニキ (Jun 2, 2008)

So what I understand from some of the comments said in this thread is, If you like lolicon, that makes you a p*d*p****?

Seriously, I want to understand this, because I like lolicon myself.


----------



## Dionysus (Jun 2, 2008)

The fact that anyone can be put in jail for a drawing is laughable.  Or would be laughable if it didn't happen.  If you agree that someone drawing a nude kid (or something more graphic) should go to jail, why not drawing someone being murdered?

Has anyone considered loli as an outlet for actual paedophiles?  (I'm not saying everyone who likes loli is a paedo.)  If true, this kind of law would be a punishment to someone who found a way to sate their desires without molesting children.

This kind of law doesn't seem logical or just to me.  Anyone care to outline how one could become a paedo from looking at loli?


----------



## mislead (Jun 2, 2008)

Until someone actually does some proper research on how possession of lolicon and possession of child porn relate to each other, statistically, this discussion is completely baseless.


----------



## Hellion (Jun 2, 2008)

Denis said:


> So what I understand from some of the comments said in this thread is, If you like lolicon, that makes you a p*d*p****?
> 
> Seriously, I want to understand this, because I like lolicon myself.



Yeah thats what people are saying to justify the law. 

In reality that is not the case, if what you like about drawn characters is true.  then 75% ot the people here are gay, like transvestites, or sleep with little children


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 2, 2008)

Kaze said:


> Yeah thats what people are saying to justify the law.
> 
> In reality that is not the case, if what you like about drawn characters is true.  then 75% ot the people here are gay, like transvestites, or sleep with little children



You mean, if what people here were to be equated with liking IRL?


----------



## Dionysus (Jun 2, 2008)

mislead said:


> Until someone actually does some proper research on how possession of lolicon and possession of child porn relate to each other, statistically, this discussion is completely baseless.


Unfortunately leady, that doesn't stop governments from making laws.  Kinda forces the argument prematurely.


----------



## Juno (Jun 2, 2008)

Denis said:


> So what I understand from some of the comments said in this thread is, If you like lolicon, that makes you a p*d*p****?
> 
> Seriously, I want to understand this, because I like lolicon myself.



In the eyes of the British government. Yes. Because liking lolicon may mean you will hypothetically be led to harming children one day, so you will be locked up today for the safety of hypothetical children tomorrow.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 2, 2008)

Dionysus said:


> Unfortunately leady, that doesn't stop governments from making laws.  Kinda forces the argument prematurely.



Seeing a little boy version of the sauce in a dress in your avatar shows me your stance on this subject, not that i don't agree with you, just an interesting note.


----------



## Hothien (Jun 2, 2008)

Seabear said:


> In the eyes of the British government. Yes. Because liking lolicon may mean you will hypothetically be led to harming children one day, so you will be locked up today for the safety of hypothetical children tomorrow.



Which is a thought crime. Yay for fascism.


----------



## Clearmoon (Jun 2, 2008)

Denis said:


> So what I understand from some of the comments said in this thread is, If you like lolicon, that makes you a p*d*p****?
> 
> Seriously, I want to understand this, because I like lolicon myself.



According to the basic definition of Pedophilia:-
noun Psychiatry.
sexual desire in an adult for a child.

Yes, it would. It makes no mention to whether the child is fictional, its just for Loli fans, the word p*d*p**** is associated with shame and mental disturbance, while loli can be passed off as "sort of ok". Therefore most of them will claim not to be a p*d*p****.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 2, 2008)

Yes i suppose i should be considered a pedo because i look at fictitious images, let me donate myself to the police for the cause of stopping paedophilism /moresarcasm

@adonis - actually, there is a bathhouse that you can access in NF, you only need to be 18+ 

That argument is not valid.


----------



## Juno (Jun 2, 2008)

Clearmoon said:


> According to the basic definition of Pedophilia:-
> noun Psychiatry.
> sexual desire in an adult for a *child*.




Child. Not drawings. There is an important difference, with one being a living, breathing person with rights and the other is ink/pixels.

How many of the users on this site who have loli in the sigs actually desire real children?


----------



## Dionysus (Jun 2, 2008)

Inuhanyou said:


> Seeing a little boy version of the sauce in a dress in your avatar shows me your stance on this subject, not that i don't agree with you, just an interesting note.


Even if this were not the case, I don't see how the avatar is relevant at all.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jun 2, 2008)

well the law is stupid i been watching lolicon since i was 13(now im 19) and im 100% sane and nothing wrong whit me.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 2, 2008)

Dionysus said:


> Even if this were not the case, I don't see how the avatar is relevant at all.



Cause the shota could somehow be turned around in the eyes of the law, as being pro homosexual andor deviant towards little boys, but i'm pretty sure your not which is the point i was trying to make


----------



## mislead (Jun 2, 2008)

Dionysus said:


> Unfortunately leady, that doesn't stop governments from making laws.  Kinda forces the argument prematurely.



In all honesty, I doubt that this law even targets lolicon. From what I make of the article, they want to make it harder to avoid anti-childporn laws through technical manipulation of images, rather than criminalize genuine, victimless art.

In the end, it will all be up to the subjective interpretation of a judge, but additionally clarifying that the depictions in question would need to be "realistic" could be enough. I seriously doubt any sane person would see lolicon as "realistic".


----------



## Clearmoon (Jun 2, 2008)

Seabear said:


> Child. Not drawings. There is an important difference, with one being a living, breathing person with rights and the other is ink/pixels.
> 
> How many of the users on this site who have loli in the sigs actually desire real children?



Please.. they are drawings depicting a underage child with the same characteristics of children. Whether it is a drawing or a photo, it's the same thing under the definition of pedophilia. People just don't like the word, so they try and get round it with bad logic.

By the way, I am not talking about lolicon where the girl could be either way but it isn't made clear, I'm talking about when it is very clear that the girl is way under the legal age.


----------



## Dionysus (Jun 2, 2008)

Inuhanyou said:


> Cause the shota could somehow be turned around in the eyes of the law, as being pro homosexual andor deviant towards little boys, but i'm pretty sure your not which is the point i was trying to make


OK, my last post on this since this may derail things.

I see what you're trying to do... but the description of the law doesn't seem to deal with cross-dressing or pictures of kids in general.  I agree that the law is, at best premature in its reasoning, and at worst a witch hunt, but lets not exaggerate too much.


----------



## E (Jun 2, 2008)

you guys are fucked 


hmm...*checks /cake/ *


----------



## Dionysus (Jun 2, 2008)

mislead said:


> In all honesty, I doubt that this law even targets lolicon. From what I make of the article, they want to make it harder to avoid anti-childporn laws through technical manipulation of images, rather than criminalize genuine, victimless art.
> 
> In the end, it will all be up to the subjective interpretation of a judge, but additionally clarifying that the depictions in question would need to be "realistic" could be enough. I seriously doubt any sane person would see lolicon as "realistic".


Oh, I agree that everyone here might be arguing over nothing.  I'd have to read the actual proposed law and hope it mentions actual photos of abused children that are doctored to not look legit.  Drawings, 3D modelling, etc. should not be crimes.

(Outside of their use in conspiracies, etc.)


----------



## Gecka (Jun 2, 2008)

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Poor little fapless chumps


----------



## Dark Aether (Jun 2, 2008)

Ya know, there's plenty of rape, gang rape, and guro hentai all over the net. But it's not banned, you just need to be 18+ as if it was regular porn.  Lolicon is the least of their problems if this blasphemy continues.


----------



## Batman (Jun 2, 2008)

I smell the makings of a slippery slope.


----------



## Detonator_Fan (Jun 2, 2008)

I'm not a fan of lolicon hentai (I usually think that loli anime girls are moe, not sexy) but I'm against this ban on loli hentai.

It's not because I played GTA that I'm going to steal some cars.

If they think that way, maybe they should also ban the books written by Marquis de Sade that had underage people being raped in the most gruesome ways possible, and where in some of the scenes there was a large attention to detail.

Maybe they should also ban Lolita and even the Quran (since I'm quite sure they depict Mohammed's marriage with Aisha in a positive light) and the Bible.


----------



## full_metal_ninja (Jun 2, 2008)




----------



## ~Flippy (Jun 2, 2008)

someone finally does the damn right thing.


----------



## iLurk (Jun 2, 2008)

ROFL.

YOU GOT OWNED.

Hahahaha!

My Loli is safe with me!


----------



## Tleilaxu (Jun 2, 2008)

So what does this mean for Naruto hentai? Also making it harder is the fact Naruto and co are in an adult profession and behaving like adults as well,*Having killed people* so are they treated like adults?


----------



## DremolitoX (Jun 2, 2008)

Inuhanyou said:


> Seriously people, this is complete BS, hell *I*like loli, yet i don't want to go outside and molest some young girl. Does that mean i should go to jail too, or be incarcerated?



Alrighty then, I *had* to call out this bullshit.

This is just like saying "I like blowjob porn, but that doesn't mean I want to go out and get one." When you jack off to your "child" pornography, what is going through your mind sir?


----------



## Adonis (Jun 2, 2008)

Seabear said:


> Child. Not drawings.



Alright, let's say you had a friend who 'fapped' exclusively gay hentai. Would you argue, "He's not gay because he only masturbates to _drawings_ of men having sex, not _real_ men having sex!" No, you wouldn't because, hopefully, you'd realize how fucking stupid that'd sound. I'm not saying loli fans are a mere hop and a skip from fucking children; I'm saying they get their jollies to sexual DEPICTIONS of children. They have pedophilic tendencies.

In case that didn't get through, let me try another example:

Let's say a kid drew a picture of black people being hanged or a recreation of the Holocaust for his enjoyment. Upon finding these, would you fault a jew or a black person for being offended. But why are they offended? It's just a drawing, right? It's not _real _. They're offended by what it depicts. Same thing, here. Is it real children? No, and I conceded that point and admitted this legislation was faulty on the grounds of amounting to a thought crime. But don't act as if the reasoning is just bat-shit, "OMG, I can't see how someone could think that!" insane. 

People get their rocks off to cartoon depictions of girls with the physiology of a 9 year old. I'll leave it at that.



> There is an important difference, with one being a living, breathing person with rights and the other is ink/pixels.



Again, I already acknowledged this but you seem oblivious to the fact these pixels have a nasty habit of creating an image depicting something; in this case, that something is prepubescent children in sexual situations 



> How many of the users on this site who have loli in the sigs actually desire real children?



I'm no psychic and my opinion wouldn't help your case. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a 50/50 split.



Inuhanyou said:


> Yes i suppose i should be considered a pedo because i look at fictitious images, let me donate myself to the police for the cause of stopping paedophilism /moresarcasm



Way to completely not understand what was typed and haphazardly attempt wit.

Since my typing slower won't make any difference, you'll just have to be less of an idiot for a second or two, 'kay?

First, I established pedophilia (that's the noun form, btw) is not a crime in and of itself.



> @adonis - actually, there is a bathhouse that you can access in NF, you only need to be 18+
> 
> That argument is not valid.



If only you _understood_ my argument. My argument is if it all boils down to "just pictures," why are certain pictures relegated to an 18+ section? A picture can be taboo for depicting nudity or sex but not for depicting a child? I call bullshit. If hentai depicts sex, loli depicts a child in a provocative/sexual situation. Oh, double standards!


----------



## DaNuKA_SAN (Jun 2, 2008)

Time to fork out cash for a new laptop...

Nope...just swaping the HD won't work...it's embedded into my bios and fused with my CPU. 0.0


----------



## Adonis (Jun 2, 2008)




----------



## iLurk (Jun 2, 2008)

So sad.

You're missing out on some great stuff.

Ah well, you can still illegally watch it.

I mean, killing and raping children is against the law, but people still do it.


----------



## The Sentry (Jun 2, 2008)

good job britain....finaly pedophilia and perversion will come to an end


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Jun 2, 2008)

Fuck me, I thought it was already outlawed. It's essentially paedophiliac art. Can't be sure of this, but I don't think an artist making a song depicting paedophilia is allowed, or even racism for that matter. No people are physically harmed as a result, nor would they be if paedophilia was depicted and possible through video games etc. I mean you could sell sex dolls that come in baby sizes and no human would be directly harmed. It's fucked up enough for me to condemn it though.


----------



## Dionysus (Jun 3, 2008)

Snake_108 said:


> Fuck me, I thought it was already outlawed. It's essentially paedophiliac art. Can't be sure of this, but I don't think an artist making a song depicting paedophilia is allowed, or even racism for that matter. No people are physically harmed as a result, nor would they be if paedophilia was depicted and possible through video games etc. I mean you could sell sex dolls that come in baby sizes and no human would be directly harmed. It's fucked up enough for me to condemn it though.


Why would you condemn it?  I don't get this mentality.  Do you think it will make people, who previously liked postpubescent people, want to have sex with prepubescents?  If a paedophile has no catharsis, wouldn't he be more likely to seek other means of sating his desires?

You acknowledge no one is harmed, or rather need be harmed.  (I'm not sure what indirect harm you are talking about, nor what or who is to blame for it.)  To condemn, to ban?  To lock people up for it?  (You don't directly support prison terms, perhaps I'm going a bit far with your usage of "condemn".) It seems a travesty to me.  The harm is entirely from mob rule against these "deviants".

It's essentially a witch hunt, but some don't seem to bothered by it.  (I suppose another analogy would be drugs.  Individual choice, only physically harms the user, but the mob denies the choice and makes a criminal out of addicts and casual users.)

And something no one here can explain to me:  Drawings of murder.  Novels describing violence and rape.  TV and movies where a shooting looks so real it's as if it actually happened.  Why would these remain legal, but a nude of an anime girl be illegal?  Does this say something about the violent (and sexually violent) nature of man _and_ his propensity to shun those different from him?

More and more, I'm having to argue against thoughtcrime...


----------



## ZeroBlack (Jun 3, 2008)

The Sentry said:


> good job britain....finaly pedophilia and perversion will come to an end



Not in the slightest. The moraly "righteous" (not saying they're right or wrong for their actions) have tried for centuries to no avail, what makes you think this will stop people? Ever heard of the internet? Also loli doesn't make one a p*d*p****.

Also, good thing I don't live in the UK, my loli is safe wit me


----------



## Adonis (Jun 3, 2008)

Dionysus said:


> Why would you condemn it?



I'm guessing the idea of wanking it to cartoon depictions of prepubescent girls? Just because people, not necessarily Snake108 admittedly, acknowledge that it's fallacious to criminalize such lascivious thought considering legality and morality are not one in the same doesn't mean one can't still object the idea.

The idea of a thought crime is to punish a thought, right? The thought in the case of lolicon is sexual arousal from a depiction of a child in a sexual context. The thought's what's being condemned.



> I don't get this mentality.  Do you think it will make people, who previously liked postpubescent people, want to have sex with prepubescents?



That's built around the assumption a person with a post-pubescent preference _would_ opt for loli. I find that notion ridiculous. It _is_ possible to have both preferences and, if you asked me, the attraction toward loli couldn't exist without lingering pedophilic attraction.



> If a paedophile has no catharsis, wouldn't he be more likely to seek other means of sating his desires?



So, you and others are equating loli to a pedophilic outlet while simultaneously trying to claim the two are not related? I find that just rich.



> You acknowledge no one is harmed, or rather need be harmed.  (I'm not sure what indirect harm you are talking about, nor what or who is to blame for it.)  To condemn, to ban?



Condemn and ban are not the same thing.

If my friend perpetually had fantasies about engaging in sex with children, I'd condemn that despite no child being hurt. The eroticizing of a child is what I condemn.

Yet, from a legal standpoint, I wouldn't (and honestly couldn't) do a thing because, as has been said multiple times, no child is harmed.

Morality and Legality occasionally intersect but are not synonymous.



> To lock people up for it?  (You don't directly support prison terms, perhaps I'm going a bit far with your usage of "condemn".)



You acknowledged that you were making grievous insinuations so there's no need for me to correct you.



> It seems a travesty to me.  The harm is entirely from mob rule against these "deviants".



Well, frankly, how can you expect one who isn't a p*d*p**** to emphasize with a desire to have sex with children? I don't support a witch hunt for people who have such thoughts, hence why I don't agree with the law, but that doesn't mean I have to by extension support the idea of pedophilia.



> It's essentially a witch hunt, but some don't seem to bothered by it.



Strange. Clearly, we're on the same wavelength because I used the term "witch hunt" before I saw you use it in this sentence.



> (I suppose another analogy would be drugs.  Individual choice, only physically harms the user, but the mob denies the choice and makes a criminal out of addicts and casual users.)



It depends on the drug. Also, bad analogy comparing loli to an activity that ranges from casual weed smoking to a full-blown crack addiction. Have you ever seen someone addicted to crack? 



> And something no one here can explain to me:  Drawings of murder.  Novels describing violence and rape.  TV and movies where a shooting looks so real it's as if it actually happened.  Why would these remain legal, but a nude of an anime girl be illegal?  Does this say something about the violent (and sexually violent) nature of man _and_ his propensity to shun those different from him?



Hmmm? I must admit you raise a fairly interesting point but I already explained  why none of those things _could_ be banned. The legal system, in the US at least, doesn't work that way.

As for the rest, it depends on context. If those events were an extension of a story, that's why they're accepted. When Jack Bauer kills in 24, there's no outraged because it's necessitated by the plot.  A rape scene depends on what light it's presented in and how it relates to the plot. And, as has been established oh so many times, it's not real.

Yet, let's say the murder was under the context of an anti-semitic sentiment and the rape was glorified as male empowerment. As I said, CONTEXT.

The context here for loli is a means of sexual arousal. I'd have the same scruples if rape or even murder were presented in the same way. For example, if I had a friend who masturbated to drawings of murder, I'd be weirded the fuck out. That doesn't mean I'd seek to have him arrested (I may possibly suggest psychiatric help but that's another story.)


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 3, 2008)

Actually, they should outlaw action movies, too since they promote murder and stuff


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Jun 3, 2008)

Dionysus said:


> Why would you condemn it?  I don't get this mentality.  Do you think it will make people, who previously liked postpubescent people, want to have sex with prepubescents?  If a paedophile has no catharsis, wouldn't he be more likely to seek other means of sating his desires?



If you're referring to the baby sex dolls, I'd condemn it morally at least. I don't think people who like postpubescents would want to purchase such an item, and it'd be paedophiles simulating sex in their own privacy with a baby/child figure. I'm not sure I can agree with your point about paedophiliac paraphernalia placating paedophiles away from human child molestation, I'm thinking it could be argued that it's a 'slippery slope' situation. 



Dionysus said:


> You acknowledge no one is harmed, or rather need be harmed.  (I'm not sure what indirect harm you are talking about, nor what or who is to blame for it.)  To condemn, to ban?  To lock people up for it?  (You don't directly support prison terms, perhaps I'm going a bit far with your usage of "condemn".) It seems a travesty to me.  The harm is entirely from mob rule against these "deviants".



The usage of "condemn" was in moral terms, whatever that counts for to you. 



Dionysus said:


> It's essentially a witch hunt, but some don't seem to bothered by it.  (I suppose another analogy would be drugs.  Individual choice, only physically harms the user, but the mob denies the choice and makes a criminal out of addicts and casual users.)



Heavy drug usage harms the state since they have a responsibility to treat them either when they have to be taken to hospital as a result of 'overdose' or through drug rehabilitation. Not to mention the potential of anyone else close to the drug users (or alcohol for that matter) coming under harm.



Dionysus said:


> And something no one here can explain to me:  Drawings of murder.  Novels describing violence and rape.  TV and movies where a shooting looks so real it's as if it actually happened.  Why would these remain legal, but a nude of an anime girl be illegal?  Does this say something about the violent (and sexually violent) nature of man _and_ his propensity to shun those different from him?
> 
> More and more, I'm having to argue against thoughtcrime...



I'll take the example of a video game with strong violence since it probably makes for a harder case than those. It's probably because the psychological 'step' between simulating murder through a video game to murdering a human being (crime) is considerably greater than the psychological step between looking at paedophiliac art and looking at paedophiliac images of humans (crime). I'm guessing here, I'm no psychologist or expert on the matter.


----------



## Adonis (Jun 3, 2008)

Saufsoldat said:


> Actually, they should outlaw action movies, too since they promote murder and stuff





I know you're being coy, now, cuz there's no way you're obtuse enough to not make the distinction.

For one, no one (except maybe Snake108) is opposing loli with the slippery slope fallacy or on the grounds it will lead to the real thing.

I've never been arguing in defense of this law; I've called it asinine every post I've posted in this thread. 

What I _am_ arguing is the bullshit claim that loli is in no shape or form pedophilic on the grounds it is simply a drawing of a cartoon girl, not an actual one. That's total bollocks and I have a sneaking suspicion a good chunk of loli fans know it.

I'll bring up the question DremolitoX alluded to: Why the hell _are_  you guys so obsessed with loli?


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Jun 3, 2008)

Meh, you can stick your human rights up your arse, I can't be bothered to try and bend my morals to fit the law's requirements of 'em. I'm saying I oppose it morally, and so personally don't give a shite if it gets outlawed.


----------



## Dionysus (Jun 3, 2008)

Adonis said:


> I'm guessing the idea of wanking it to cartoon depictions of prepubescent girls? Just because people, not necessarily Snake108 admittedly, acknowledge that it's fallacious to criminalize such lascivious thought considering legality and morality are not one in the same doesn't mean one can't still object the idea.


I only dispute the notion of punishment.



Adonis said:


> The idea of a thought crime is to punish a thought, right? The thought in the case of lolicon is sexual arousal from a depiction of a child in a sexual context. The thought's what's being condemned.


When someone is punished for a crime, they often end up in jail.  Think poorly about whomever you like, I just don't want to see someone doing 5 years (potentially becoming a real criminal) and having their life fucked due to a drawing.



Adonis said:


> That's built around the assumption a person with a post-pubescent preference _would_ opt for loli. I find that notion ridiculous. It _is_ possible to have both preferences and, if you asked me, the attraction toward loli couldn't exist without lingering pedophilic attraction.


I was hoping someone would bite on this one.   It's precisely my point.  Who would want to look at it and why?  The idea that it will make people want to harm kids seems lamer when you think of it like that.

Things can also be more complex.  It could be a preference for a cartoon someone watched when they were growing up, and not in general.  Perhaps some mentally project a character's age to be postpubescent, despite evidence to the contrary.  But, I agree that, in general, it suggests attraction to prepubescents, if not the desire to act on it.



Adonis said:


> So, you and others are equating loli to a pedophilic outlet while simultaneously trying to claim the two are not related? I find that just rich.


I never claimed the two were not related...  Please don't use other peoples' arguments with mine.

I'm saying: 1) Who the fuck's business is it?  2) This could have the unintended consequence of endangering real kids.  Probably not many, but it'd be rather ironic for a law designed to "protect the children" to actually have the opposite effect.




Adonis said:


> Condemn and ban are not one and the same.


But if the condemnation leads to support for these kinds of laws, I see the need to point out the logical flaws.  (I also can't be sure how people are using the word condemn.  It also mean to sentence to a punishment.  It seems Snake_108 didn't mean it like that though.)



Adonis said:


> If my friend perpetually had fantasies about engaging in sex with children, I'd condemn that despite no child being hurt. The eroticizing of a child is what I condemn.


I was never arguing against who people should or shouldn't _passively_ condemn.



Adonis said:


> Yet, from a legal standpoint, I wouldn't (and honestly couldn't) do a thing because, as has been said multiple times, no child is harmed.


I don't care to argue over who should be reviled, as that's as much a personal choice as what to masturbate over.  As such...



Adonis said:


> Morality and Legality occasionally intersect but are not synonymous.


...I am concerned about legality, denying freedom.  Personal moral issues, which this would be, are up to those with loli on their hard drives.




Adonis said:


> Well, frankly, how can you expect one who isn't a p*d*p**** to emphasize with a desire to have sex with children? I don't support a witch hunt for people who have such thoughts, hence why I don't agree with the law, but that doesn't mean I have to by extension support the idea of pedophilia.


Who is asking you to support paedophilia?




Adonis said:


> Strange. Clearly, we're on the same wavelength because I used the term "witch hunt" before I saw you use it in this one.


I used it in an earlier post.




Adonis said:


> It depends on the drug. Also, bad analogy comparing loli to an addiction that ranges from casual weed smoking to a full-blown crack addiction. Have you ever seen someone addicted to crack?


It's not a bad analogy at all, since the main thrust was personal choice and harm.  (I'd also have trouble discounting the power of sexual addictions like you do, but I'm hardly a psychologist.)

I have seen crack addicts, by the way.




Adonis said:


> Hmmm? I must admit you raise a fairly interesting point but I already explained  why none of those things could be banned. The legal system, in the US at least, doesn't work that way.


I would imagine there is too much money involved and it's too widespread.



Adonis said:


> As for the rest, it depends on context. If those events were an extension of a story, that's why they're accepted. When Jack Bauer kills in 24, there's no outrage because it's necessitated by the plot and the action is directed at "bad guys."  A rape scene depends on what light it's presented and how it relates to the plot. And as has been established oh so many times, it's not real.


Yeah.  Not real.  Didn't actually happen or at least not as depicted or implied.



Adonis said:


> Yet, let's say the murder was under the context of an anti-semitic sentiment and the rape was glorified as male empowerment. As I said, CONTEXT.


I wouldn't ban media unless it's used in a scheme to actually commit some crime.  Such as actively inciting genocide.  But without proof of that, I won't support a ban.



Adonis said:


> The context here for loli is a means of sexual arousal. I'd have the same scruples if rape or even murder were presented in the same way. For example, if I had a friend who masturbated to drawings of murder, I'd be weirded the fuck out.


But the issue here is sending people to jail.  What you think about these people is meaningless.


I would fight these kinds of bullshit laws regardless if I find the act reprehensible.  Drug use (state heathcare is not an argument here, unless you want to ban cheeseburgers; a drug addict should be held accountable for any crimes they commit, but no one (say, a loved one) is implicitly protected from psychological harm in all its forms).  Euthanasia.  Gambling.  Name it, and if it only actively harms the one (or willing party) doing it there should be no law against it.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 3, 2008)

Adonis said:


> I'll bring up the question DremolitoX alluded to: Why the hell _are_  you guys so obsessed with loli?



Dunno, why the hell am I so obsessed with homosexuality? Oh wait, I'm not, I just want them to be able to marry.

Why the hell am I so obsessed with violent video games? Oh wait, I hardly play any, I just want them to stay legal.

Now why the hell am I so obsessed with loli? Probably because I want to see real cp and because I'm a pedo, yes, that must be it.


----------



## Mintaka (Jun 3, 2008)

nuke the UK!

FOR GREAT JUSTICE!


----------



## Pilaf (Jun 3, 2008)

Snake_108 said:


> Meh, you can stick your human rights up your arse, I can't be bothered to try and bend my morals to fit the law's requirements of 'em. I'm saying I oppose it morally, and so personally don't give a shite if it gets outlawed.



Poor, weak argument.

I personally am against consumption of alcohol and tobacco from a moral and ideological standpoint, but I don't want any of that outlawed. Because it just puts more people in jail.

Every fucking thing that's outlawed cripples the already laughable justice system more and does jack shit to deter the things that cause people to do these things in the first place. There's got to be real social progress and that's a lot harder than rounding people up and throwing them in jail..so people like you condone the easy path..a waste of tax dollars..a waste of breath. A waste of fucking time are your solutions.


----------



## Dionysus (Jun 3, 2008)

I guess I'm obsessed with freedom.


----------



## Lord Yu (Jun 3, 2008)

Real CP disgust me and burns my eyes, however with loli I've been bombarded with it so much and trapped with it so much it doesn't even bother me anymore. I'm not a pedo I dislike kids for the most part. But as far as delicious lolipops it seems more of a joke to me than something related to real kids.

Does this look like a real person to you?


----------



## vervex (Jun 3, 2008)

Adonis said:


> Alright, let's say you had a friend who 'fapped' exclusively gay hentai. Would you argue, "He's not gay because he only masturbates to _drawings_ of men having sex, not _real_ men having sex!" No, you wouldn't because, hopefully, you'd realize how fucking stupid that'd sound. I'm not saying loli fans are a mere hop and a skip from fucking children; I'm saying they get their jollies to sexual DEPICTIONS of children. They have pedophilic tendencies.



Quoted for truth. Expresses my thoughts exactly.


----------



## Adonis (Jun 3, 2008)

Dionysus said:


> I only dispute the notion of punishment.



I'm not arguing that punishment is legitimate thus your insistence on arguing it is pointless.



> When someone is punished for a crime, they often end up in jail.



Good thing I don't agree with the law...



> Think poorly about whomever you like, I just don't want to see someone doing 5 years (potentially becoming a real criminal) and having their life fucked due to a drawing.



Neither do I. I heard there was this great bit of reading you could do to get an accurate reperesentation of Adonis's opinion on the matter called "Adonis' first post in 'UK to ban lolicon' thread." You should give it a read 



> I was hoping someone would bite on this one.   It's precisely my point.  Who would want to look at it and why?  The idea that it will make people want to harm kids seems lamer when you think of it like that.



I must be reading my posts wrong because I'm implying none of the claims I'm being accused of making if not outright posting contrary claims.



> Things can also be more complex.  It could be a preference for a cartoon someone watched when they were growing up, and not in general.



Yet, a lot of loli is general. I get what you're saying but lolicon isn't relegated to hentai based on popular anime and the bottom line is it's still an attraction to a character with prepubescent features.



> Perhaps some mentally project a character's age to be postpubescent, despite evidence to the contrary.



I'm not contesting loli where a character is technically 14 but has the anatomy of a 20 year old. I'm contesting loli where the girl depicted, regardless of age, has clearly prepubescent features.

And if you're suggesting people take a base picture where a character looks 10 and imagines them to look older, that's ludicrous.



> But, I agree that, in general, it suggests attraction to prepubescents, if not the desire to act on it.



That's all I'm saying.

I don't care how much of it you have on your harddrive nor do I agree with the egregious UK ban. If you want to wank it to cartoon 2nd graders, more power to you. Simply don't bullshit me and claim, "No, it's in no way pedophilic!" Congrats, you found a loophole and are abusing semantic; don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining, though, Chief.



> I never claimed the two were not related...  Please don't use other peoples' arguments with mine.



My apologies.



> I'm saying: 1) Who the fuck's business is it?



No one's but this _is_ a public forum...



> 2) This could have the unintended consequence of endangering real kids.



Maybe, though I don't consider "Pedophiles may go after real children!" a good defense for loli. That sort of connection is detrimental.



> Probably not many, but it'd be rather ironic for a law designed to "protect the children" to actually have the opposite effect.



I love irony.




> But if the condemnation leads to support for these kinds of laws,



True, but it's an extreme.



> I see the need to point out the logical flaws.



As do I.




> I was never arguing against who people should or shouldn't _passively_ condemn.



Alright, then, we agree.



> I don't care to argue over who should be reviled, as that's as much a personal choice as what to masturbate over.  As such...



True, I'm simply expressing my opinion on the matter.




> Who is asking you to support paedophilia?



I don't know, loli fans?




> I used it in an earlier post.



Mystery solved!




> It's not a bad analogy at all, since the main thrust was personal choice and harm.  (I'd also have trouble discounting the power of sexual addictions like you do, but I'm hardly a psychologist.)



I guess (at this point, you can probably tell I'm tired thus giving filler answers)...



> I wouldn't ban media unless it's used in a scheme to actually commit some crime.  Such as actively inciting genocide.  But without proof of that, I won't support a ban.



I never suggested supporting a ban of such content; I simply presented a context that would garner such distaste as loli.



> But the issue here is sending people to jail.  What you think about these people is meaningless.



That's why I don't agree with the law.



> I would fight these kinds of bullshit laws regardless if I find the act reprehensible.  Drug use (state heathcare is not an argument here, unless you want to ban cheeseburgers; a drug addict should be held accountable for any crimes they commit, but no one (say, a loved one) is implicitly protected from psychological harm in all its forms).  Euthanasia.  Gambling.  Name it, and if it only actively harms the one (or willing party) doing it there should be no law against it.



This is a separate debate entirely and one I'm not in the mood to partake in, honestly.



			
				 Saufsodat said:
			
		

> Dunno, why the hell am I so obsessed with homosexuality? Oh wait, I'm not, I just want them to be able to marry.



Way to strawman.

I've established in my very first post that I don't agree with the law or criminalizing loli. 

Knowing this, is it not obvious I meant "obsessed" in the context of possessing it and deriving pleasure from it's viewing.

But no, you'd rather ignore that and step up on your high horse labeling me the harbinger of censorship and slavery. Cute.



> Why the hell am I so obsessed with violent video games? Oh wait, I hardly play any, I just want them to stay legal.



Still strawman and it should have been obvious I wasn't talking to people who neither possess nor enjoy loli (hence you.)



> Now why the hell am I so obsessed with loli? Probably because I want to see real cp and because I'm a pedo, yes, that must be it.



Context. What the fuck is that? 



Lord Yu said:


> Does this look like a real person to you?



Post a naked version of that pic and see what the mods think 

YU: Omg! It's not a real naked child! Why am I banned!? Why is it even against the rules? If it doesn't even look like a real person, how could it look like a naked one!!!

Your logic is infallible, Lord Yu


----------



## Lord Yu (Jun 3, 2008)

You post anything naked and you get banned. That statement is falling on swords.


----------



## Pilaf (Jun 3, 2008)

Okay..listen....I'm gonna recount something I brought up in an MSN conversation with a friend.

My friend argued that a depictation of child rape, even if not based on real people, is child rape.

I argued that if loli were rape, than Dragonball and Naruto are murder.

 Do you see what I'm getting at now?


----------



## Adonis (Jun 3, 2008)

Pilaf said:


> Okay..listen....I'm gonna recount something I brought up in an MSN conversation with a friend.
> 
> My friend argued that a depictation of child rape, even if not based on real people, is child rape.
> 
> ...



Good thing I'm not a bloody moron like your friend; otherwise, you'd be talking about how you pwned my argument by stating the obvious.

This isn't the cornfield, so stop setting up strawmen.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 3, 2008)

i'm plenty pissed at this thread, so this'll be my last post. I'm sick of hearing people condemning others as something they arent. I'm mostly affronted because some of the accusations got to me personally and i didn't like that one bit. Agree or disagree with the law if you want, but don't slap a label on others cause you don't understand their point of view or their position.


----------



## Dionysus (Jun 3, 2008)

Adonis said:


> I'm not arguing that punishment is legitimate thus your insistence on arguing it is pointless.
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing I don't agree with the law...


Originally, you responded to my post.  Why are you getting rude and acting like I wasted your time?  You then misconstrued my post causing me to respond.  I never intended to discuss this with you at all.  Hence why I never bothered to read your posts beyond what you wrote to me.

Keep your arguments self-contained and you won't have an issue.  (I never accuse you of anything.  You merely notice the logical flaw that many, including law makers, don't.)

Also, my response to you was filled in bottom to top, so it seems redundant....


----------



## Lovewitches (Jun 3, 2008)

So they want to remove the only thing the pedos have to keep themselves from going for the children on the streets? I dont see the use of it, at all. i say that they should let at least the lolicon stay, but all other child abuse things shouldn't be allowed.

Otherwise, a certain kind of raperate will rise in the UK.


----------



## Pilaf (Jun 3, 2008)

Lovewitches said:


> So they want to remove the only thing the pedos have to keep themselves from going for the children on the streets? I dont see the use of it, at all. i say that they should let at least the lolicon stay, but all other child abuse things shouldn't be allowed.
> 
> Otherwise, a certain kind of raperate will rise in the UK.



I agree strongly..perhaps loli is the only thing to satiate the urge of pedophiles who would otherwise abuse children? That wouldn't make it right but it would mean they'd have a way to release their frustration without abusing a child.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 3, 2008)

For once I have to agree with Adonis, the point to which you people defend child porn is absurd. I know I said I was leaving...people are saying how it doesn't look real. But the funny thing is when I criticize hentai the first thing people pull up is that stupid explanation from that dumb anime about how hentai makes sense because its an acurate representation of humans and what's attractive in them. 

All of a sudden this dumb rule doesn't apply to loli?


----------



## Franklin Stein (Jun 3, 2008)

i swear it was already illeagal


----------



## Adonis (Jun 3, 2008)

Dionysus said:


> Originally, you responded to my post.  Why are you getting rude and acting like I wasted your time?  You then misconstrued my post causing me to respond.  I never intended to discuss this with you at all.  Hence why I never bothered to read your posts beyond what you wrote to me.
> 
> Keep your arguments self-contained and you won't have an issue.
> 
> Also, my response to you was filled in bottom to top, so it seems redundant....



If I were you, I'd simply accept that I'm a bastard and submit to the sense of inevitability my being a bastard entails.


----------



## Pilaf (Jun 3, 2008)

I just don't think jailing people for sexual deviations is the ultimate solution..if it turns out there's some chemical cause in the brain for pedophilia, I would think treatment or counseling would be more effective to society than shutting these people away and wasting tax dollars.


----------



## Dionysus (Jun 3, 2008)

I have yet to see a post defending child porn, CTK.  Way to go trying to smear everyone though.  I do apoligise that I, in general, don't give a rat's ass what people draw and find it abhorrent that someone can go to jail for a victimless crime.  I think you'll find that's what's getting most people's backs up.



Adonis said:


> If I were you, I'd simply accept that I'm a bastard and submit to the sense of inevitability my being a bastard entails.


Yeah, I know.  Though your grammar is a little screwed up.


----------



## Adonis (Jun 3, 2008)

Dionysus said:


> Yeah, I know.  Though your grammar is a little screwed up.



Low blow, dude, low blow.

*ignores he accused half of people in thread of pedophilia*


----------



## Dionysus (Jun 3, 2008)

Low blow, but the sentence calls either you or I a bastard.

You might have called people paedos, but I don't think you've accused people of defending child porn.


----------



## Adonis (Jun 3, 2008)

Dionysus said:


> Low blow, but the sentence calls either you or I a bastard.



You know, I noticed that as I typed it but I couldn't think how to fix it. Any suggestions?


----------



## Dionysus (Jun 3, 2008)

> If I were you, I'd simply accept that Adonis is a bastard and submit to the sense of inevitability that bastardy entails.


The simplest would be third person.  I take poetic licence with the usage of bastardy, but it's slang anyways.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 3, 2008)

Dionysus said:


> I have yet to see a post defending child porn, CTK.  Way to go trying to smear everyone though.  I do apoligise that I, in general, don't give a rat's ass what people draw and find it abhorrent that someone can go to jail for a victimless crime.  I think you'll find that's what's getting most people's backs up.
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know.  Though your grammar is a little screwed up.



Its a road to the crime. Its the idea that this is a loop hole. If this truly is a way for them to indulge this sweet tooth of theirs we don't need them doing that. Let me ask you this, why is it that animal porn is illegal here? Technically there is no victim, if the animal didn't want you fucking them they would surly run off. 

Yet is illegal to view and illegal to do except in one state...so how is it that this isn't part of freedom of speech? I mean don't they have a right to indulge their sweet tooth, even if they aren't allowed to fuck them, why can't they view animal porn made in other countries? 

Because its seen as wrong and as something that could cause someone to commit the crime.


----------



## mislead (Jun 3, 2008)

So, has anyone demonstrated a significant link between liking lolicon and pedophilic urges, or are y'all still talking out of your asses? Seriously, it's far from obvious, and this thread has made me curious.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Its a road to the crime. Its the idea that this is a loop hole. If this truly is a way for them to indulge this sweet tooth of theirs we don't need them doing that. Let me ask you this, why is it that animal porn is illegal here? Technically there is no victim, if the animal didn't want you fucking them they would surly run off.
> 
> Yet is illegal to view and illegal to do except in one state...so how is it that this isn't part of freedom of speech? I mean don't they have a right to indulge their sweet tooth, even if they aren't allowed to fuck them, why can't they view animal porn made in other countries?
> 
> Because its seen as wrong and as something that could cause someone to commit the crime.



I'm fairly certain that fucking animals is considered abuse, and thus illegal. Animals, you see, can't really express consent. It's the same reasoning that leads to criminalizing child porn.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jun 3, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Its a road to the crime. Its the idea that this is a loop hole. If this truly is a way for them to indulge this sweet tooth of theirs we don't need them doing that.



We don't need homosexuals to indulge their sweet tooth either.

In fact. We don't need anyone to indulge their sweet tooth. In fact we should ban everything. Because, after all, if  you can't justify a NEED there's no reason for it to be legal, right?

Oh wait. Then we become afghanistan. lol



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Let me ask you this, why is it that animal porn is illegal here? Technically there is no victim, if the animal didn't want you fucking them they would surly run off.



Flawed comparison.

The fact that there's a retarded law (ban on animal porn) does not mean that you can justify another retarded law. Let me give you an example. The fact that in Afghanistan it's illegal to own electronical devices with which to produce music does not mean that it is justified to throw someone in prison for eating a pork sandwich. Both laws are fucking retarded.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yet is illegal to view and illegal to do except in one state...so how is it that this isn't part of freedom of speech? I mean don't they have a right to indulge their sweet tooth, even if they aren't allowed to fuck them, why can't they view animal porn made in other countries?



Well animal porn isn't discussed because this thread is about lolicon.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Because its seen as wrong and as something that could cause someone to commit the crime.



And now that idiotic non-argument again.


----------



## Tatsuki (Jun 3, 2008)

Why waste their time removing lolicon, when they need to spend their money on arresting serial killers.


----------



## Nao Yuki (Jun 3, 2008)

Why don't people see that lolicon are made by God as a gift from heaven?


----------



## Blue_Panter_Ninja (Jun 3, 2008)

good luck with the law,you still can go to the country with the most lolicon:JAPAN


----------



## Adonis (Jun 3, 2008)

Orange Kun said:


> So what? Is having pedophilic tendencies against the law or something?



In the UK it is 

Too easy...


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 3, 2008)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> We don't need homosexuals to indulge their sweet tooth either.
> 
> In fact. We don't need anyone to indulge their sweet tooth. In fact we should ban everything. Because, after all, if  you can't justify a NEED there's no reason for it to be legal, right?
> 
> ...



Wow you really then you're clever, don't you. 

Sorry the way you argue laws in court is by holding up similar laws and proving why they stand...sorry I took a legal way of arguging as opposed to your...well your method of quoting someone, calling them argument idiotic without addressing it and moving on.

*Edit:  *And can indulge their sweet tooth because gays aren't little kids being fucked by grown people or animals. Did you want to try and compare gays to animals or children in hope that they would thank you for their plight?


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Jun 3, 2008)

Pilaf said:


> Poor, weak argument.
> 
> I personally am against consumption of alcohol and tobacco from a moral and ideological standpoint, but I don't want any of that outlawed. Because it just puts more people in jail.
> 
> Every fucking thing that's outlawed cripples the already laughable justice system more and does jack shit to deter the things that cause people to do these things in the first place. There's got to be real social progress and that's a lot harder than rounding people up and throwing them in jail..so people like you condone the easy path..a waste of tax dollars..a waste of breath. A waste of fucking time are your solutions.



It's not an argument for sending them to jail at all.. I simply gave an emotional response (you're allowed to do that, even in the Cafe you know) towards the situation because I couldn't be bothered at the time to discuss whether it should actually be _outlawed_ for all that entails was too much for my mind at the time. My emotion is such that I don't care for protecting the rights of wanking over paedophiliac art, whether you see that as 'hate' or not is down to you mate.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jun 3, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Wow you really then you're clever, don't you.



Yes. LAW and COMMONS SENSE often DO NOT CORRELATE.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Sorry the way you argue laws in court is by holding up similar laws and proving why they stand...sorry I took a legal way of arguging as opposed to your...well your method of quoting someone, calling them argument idiotic without addressing it and moving on.



But this is NOT COURT. Court is not about how sensible something is. That's what we're talking about here.

If a country has a law that says brown cars are illegal and suddenly someone proposes that white cars should be illegal too (because "white cars show their dirt easily and brown cars are illegal already so it's no problem to ban them")

Both laws are retarded. The fact that one is used to justify another does not make either law ress retarded.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> *Edit:  *And can indulge their sweet tooth because gays aren't little kids being fucked by grown people or animals. Did you want to try and compare gays to animals or children in hope that they would thank you for their plight?



It doesn't matter what the hell they fap to seeing as they're just drawings. It's like i don't give a flying fuck if someone is indulging in scatophilia with his wife in his own bedroom. It's their choice.

Also you apply some kind of fallacy there, though i'm not sure what it is called. You argue against one thing by using the very extreme of that thing in a way to support your argument. Like: "Some cars are rusty, therefore all cars are rusty, therefore i argue my hate against cars by always referring to them as rusty."


----------



## scottlw (Jun 3, 2008)

lolicon is basically kiddy porn... Thats why its being banned

it is all girls looking to be around 10 years old that have boobs and do sexual stuff.


----------



## Hothien (Jun 3, 2008)

scottlw said:


> lolicon is basically kiddy porn... Thats why its being banned
> 
> it is all girls looking to be around 10 years old that have boobs and do sexual stuff.



Umm. No. You see, there's a difference between fantasy and reality. One of them involves real girls being abused, another involves a drawing of an artist's imagination. If you cannot see the difference, then you have some serious issues.

This is why gratuitous murder is fine in a movie, but not in real life. One is real, and one is not.


----------



## Hiruko (Jun 3, 2008)

OH SHI-

*cry*


----------



## Batman (Jun 3, 2008)

Willaien said:


> Umm. No. You see, there's a difference between fantasy and reality. One of them involves real girls being abused, another involves a drawing of an artist's imagination. If you cannot see the difference, then you have some serious issues.
> 
> *This is why gratuitous murder is fine in a movie, but not in real life. One is real, and one is not*.



*waits for someone to argue that pedophilia is more illegal than murder*


----------



## KuronoX54 (Jun 3, 2008)

First the U.K next the U.S oh well for loli


----------



## Gunners (Jun 3, 2008)

I think what many people fail to reason is many laws are based on morality and not over ''whether it causes harm to someone''.

I support their decision to make it illegal, though instead of putting the individuals in prison they should put them in therapy as giving them a prison setence isn't really solving the issue.


----------



## Chidori Mistress (Jun 3, 2008)

Wow.

Well I don't look at that stuff so I don't really care.


----------



## Xelt (Jun 3, 2008)

I didn't know there were so many lolifans.


----------



## LayZ (Jun 3, 2008)

Xelt said:


> I didn't know there were so many lolifans.


It takes all kinds.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 3, 2008)

Chidori Mistress said:


> Wow.
> 
> Well I don't look at that stuff so I don't really care.



Well, I'm not black, does that mean I shouldn't care about slavery?


----------



## Catterix (Jun 3, 2008)

Whilst I agree with this sick fantasy fulfilment, the part of putting people in prisons is fucking retarded.

The UK's prisons are way overcrowded as it is. We hardly need any more in there.


----------



## The Fireball Kid (Jun 3, 2008)

Pictures aren't children. Looking at lolicon does NOT HURT CHILDREN. Honestly, why outlaw drawings?


----------



## Catterix (Jun 3, 2008)

Saufsoldat said:


> Well, I'm not black, does that mean I shouldn't care about slavery?



How is that applicable?

The only way that could work would be if you cared for the slave drivers who no longer had slaves to beat and were very sad because of it 

Cartoon pedophilia intended for masturbation is very different from slavery.

And there's no "should" involved here. He doesn't watch lolicon and so, it doesn't affect him that it's being banned. But the imprisonment sentence is a little too strong.



> Pictures aren't children. Looking at lolicon does NOT HURT CHILDREN. Honestly, why outlaw drawings?



Because it has the potential to promote the real life pedophilia. Instead of getting therapy, potential pedophiles are getting fulfillment from watching pretend pedophilia. This is not only just morally wrong on so many levels, but could cause the person to act out on this desire.

Not every law is done because "it can cause harm" to someone.


----------



## Creator (Jun 3, 2008)

About time is all i say.


----------



## The Fireball Kid (Jun 3, 2008)

> Because it has the potential to promote the real life pedophilia. Instead of getting therapy, potential pedophiles are getting fulfillment from watching pretend pedophilia. This is not only just morally wrong on so many levels, but could cause the person to act out on this desire.
> 
> Not every law is done because "it can cause harm" to someone.



What about all of the Naruto hentai? By nature, it's lolicon seeing as the characters range from 11 to 15. Your argument falls through, mainly because you could use it on anything. You could say that Dragon Ball promotes violence as a way of solving problems (even though, it's usually them defending themselves, but that's a whole other story). Lolicon doesn't make them go out and rape children. They do it on their own, it's not the fault of an inanimate object. It's just like guns don't kill people, people kill people. Besides,


----------



## Xelt (Jun 3, 2008)

Saufsoldat said:


> Well, I'm not black, does that mean I shouldn't care about slavery?


You can't really compare lolicon to the African slave trade.


----------



## Batman (Jun 3, 2008)

Let me see if I can weigh in on this argument with my own perspective. First of all, I don?t care either way whether this law is passed or not, or whether it bleeds over into the US or not. But its still an interesting topic of discussion.

Based upon what?s been stated so far, and my own limited understanding of what qualifies as lolicon, I?d have to side with the people who are against the ban. Now why would I do this? Does this make me in favor of pedophilia? Not in the slightest. It just means that I don?t see lolicon and pedophilia as the same. Technically they're not. Nor do I see lolicon as the gateway into pedophilia. The reason is because there?s no proof (at least that I?ve seen) that one leads to the other. If there is then I haven?t seen it. And if other?s have, then it hasn?t been posted. This is the basis of the problem as I see it, as people aren?t really arguing about whether banning lolicon will lead to the harm of others (at least not anymore). I?ve read a few posts that stated that, that?s not important. That people?s choice of selected viewing, should be regulated because seeing something in this form is more ?harmful? (for lack of a better word) than them viewing other fictitious crimes. I think that pulls too far away from what this new law seeks to accomplish. I was under the assumption that it was being created as a way to prevent the creation of the desire, or the courage to harm real life children.

Because if I look at this honestly, I don?t really see how someone watching lolicon one day all of a sudden thinks ?hmm that?s not a bad idea, I?ll try that out in tomorrow?. I just don?t see it. It?s the same how we?ve come to terms with violence. People want to ignore this argument, (almost entirely for some reason :S ) but I see it as valid. If studies have been shown that watching violence on television/movies/games is not ?encouraging? the viewer perform violent acts, in some cases abhorrent and torturous acts (see SAW) . . . (lol I think I just said see-saw), then how can one form of fictitious medium be more compelling than another? It goes down to that telltale understanding that pedophilia is (according to many) more illegal than other hardcore crimes like serial murder.

How can you tell? Well in looking at the social system in prisons, pedophiles are the ones most likely to be attacked. ?Honor amongst thieves? is standard and those who harm children are at the bottom of the . . . barrel. People aren?t looking at this from a logical perspective. I think that people are looking at this from a personal based, subjective belief that lolicon will lead to pedophilia because it is a crime they detest more than violent crimes. To say that this will be more likely to cause someone to imitate, more so than any other form of medium is a bias in itself.

We can?t have our cake and eat it too. If you?re against censorship of fictitious violence in video games/T.V./Films, how can you be against censorship of fictitious sexual situations? Differentiating between one by choosing to accept one as one person?s freedom as it causes no real harm, but assuming the other will cause harm without any different or more compelling reasons (aside from your one?s own personal bias of 'I hate this crime more than that crime') is asinine and downright hypocritical.


----------



## mislead (Jun 3, 2008)

Batman said:


> *waits for someone to argue that pedophilia is more illegal than murder*



I vaguely recall a "What is the worse crime - rape or murder?" thread in the debate corner, and a good amount of people actually nominated rape. So, with all the hysteria surrounding pedophilia at the moment, I really wouldn't be surprised.



Jio said:


> I think what many people fail to reason is many laws are based on morality and not over ''whether it causes harm to someone''.
> 
> I support their decision to make it illegal, though instead of putting the individuals in prison they should put them in therapy as giving them a prison setence isn't really solving the issue.



The problem isn't whether laws based on nothing more than moral principles exist - though it would be nice if you could provide an example. It's whether they *should* be based on morality alone. Personally, I think it's not only fucking stupid, but also totalitarian in nature to criminalize acts based solely on public opinion (which is what "morality" comes down to in practice).



Catterix said:


> Because it has the potential to promote the real life pedophilia. Instead of getting therapy, potential pedophiles are getting fulfillment from watching pretend pedophilia. This is not only just morally wrong on so many levels, but could cause the person to act out on this desire.
> 
> Not every law is done because "it can cause harm" to someone.



Until someone actually does some legit research on the issue, this is all just baseless speculation.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jun 3, 2008)

Xelt said:


> You can't really compare lolicon to the African slave trade.



He wasn't comparing lolicon and the slave trade. He was saying that you can SUPPORT/OBJECT to something without being personally involved in it. For example, i'm against any form of discrimination of people (say black people for example), yet i'm not black.

I would object to the idea of genocide against jews, yet i'm not a jew.

Lolicon is exactly the same way. Scat porn the same. Gay porn the same.



mislead said:


> The problem isn't whether laws based on nothing more than moral principles exist - *though it would be nice if you could provide an example*. It's whether they *should* be based on morality alone. Personally, I think it's not only fucking stupid, but also totalitarian in nature to criminalize acts based solely on public opinion (which is what "morality" comes down to in practice).



This is a list of some of what is illegal in afghanistan under the taliban tyranny:

"pork, pig, pig oil, anything made from human hair, satellite dishes, cinematography, and equipment that produces the joy of music, pool tables, chess, masks, alcohol, tapes, computers, VCRs, television, anything that propagates sex and is full of music, wine, lobster, nail polish, firecrackers, statues, sewing catalogs, pictures, Christmas cards."


----------



## Gunners (Jun 3, 2008)

> The problem isn't whether laws based on nothing more than moral principles exist - though it would be nice if you could provide an example. It's whether they should be based on morality alone. Personally, I think it's not only fucking stupid, but also totalitarian in nature to criminalize acts based solely on public opinion (which is what "morality" comes down to in practice).


Animal cruelty is a law based on morality. Thinking about it killing people is a law based on morality also, you decide that because it hurts someone it is morally wrong therefore it is illegal.

I don't know why people get so shocked when they find out laws are set based on morale values. Lolicon doesn't directly hurt individuals but it can lead to it as it is giving leeway to slack behaviour.

People making video game comparisons don't have a leg to stand on either, games like manhunt are banned in the UK I think or modifications had to take place. Like I said certain things promote or allow people to further develop certain types of behaviour which is why they outlawed it.

Granted I think imprisoning the said person is the wrong way to go about it, I think they should get therapy. Getting off to images of minors being sexually assaulted or anyone as a matter of fact is disturbing. If someone plays a game constantly getting pleasure out of killing people hearing their screams etc. that too would be disturbing.


----------



## Catterix (Jun 3, 2008)

Cell said:


> What about all of the Naruto hentai? By nature, it's lolicon seeing as the characters range from 11 to 15. Your argument falls through, mainly because you could use it on anything. You could say that Dragon Ball promotes violence as a way of solving problems (even though, it's usually them defending themselves, but that's a whole other story).



That wasn't my argument. I was explaining the reason for the law. See, I'm capable of looking at things from other people's perspectives 

And yes, Naruto hentai is pretty much lolicon. What's your point? There's no way the UK law officials won't include that in their banning.

And anyway, my argument doesn't fall through. Again, I was using the official perspective. And from their's, Dragonball (Along with WWE, Rap Music, and other over the top violence shows) does "promote" violence but it gets ignored because it's never anything too extreme, or something that if real, would be illegal.



Cell said:


> Lolicon doesn't make them go out and rape children. They do it on their own, it's not the fault of an inanimate object. It's just like guns don't kill people, people kill people. Besides,



No, lolicon doesn't make them go out and rape children. But it _could_ cause it, in the UK Law Official's eyes. And because raping a child is a far more horrible act than a kid trying to beat up another in the school ground because Goku shot a Kamehameha at Vegeta, and is also OBVIOUSLY an immoral thing on it's own, it gets banned.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people... But I think the gun helps... 

Same with lolicon.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jun 3, 2008)

Jio said:


> Animal cruelty is a law based on morality. Thinking about it killing people is a law based on morality also, you decide that because it hurts someone it is morally wrong therefore it is illegal.



Doh. Animal cruelty hurts ANIMALS.



Jio said:


> I don't know why people get so shocked when they find out laws are set based on morale values. Lolicon doesn't directly hurt individuals but it can lead to it as it is giving leeway to slack behaviour.



Taliban laws are based on moral values.

And what does "giving leeway to slack behavior" mean? If that means what i think you want it to mean, then japan should be rife with rape crime, but japan has only 1/10th of the swedish rape frequency.



Jio said:


> People making video game comparisons don't have a leg to stand on either, games like manhunt are banned in the UK I think or modifications had to take place. Like I said certain things promote or allow people to further develop certain types of behaviour which is why they outlawed it.



Evidence please.



Jio said:


> Granted I think imprisoning the said person is the wrong way to go about it, I think they should get therapy. Getting off to images of minors being sexually assaulted or anyone as a matter of fact is disturbing. If someone plays a game constantly getting pleasure out of killing people hearing their screams etc. that too would be disturbing.



Atleast that was sensible in a way. I don't agree with punishing anyone for enjoying something though, unless they hurt someone else in the process.


----------



## Catterix (Jun 3, 2008)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> Doh. Animal cruelty hurts ANIMALS.



But that isn't what LAW is based on.

Laws are set in place for, and only for, the safety and well-beings of humans. There is never any hint of law that looks after animals. It is then because for humans it is immoral to hurt animals that bans and laws are given. It's not for the safety of the animal, but for the morality of the human and then the other humans who might be negatively affected by this/





> Evidence please.



That isn't an argument. Debates don't need evidence. Cases and court sessions do. With debates you either have to have faith that what they're saying is true, or do some research of your own.




> Atleast that was sensible in a way. I don't agree with punishing anyone for enjoying something though, unless they hurt someone else in the process.



The problem is that people getting hurt by this is (pretty much) our only way of knowing that these sorts of things happen. Police don't barge down the door and ask; "Did you wank off to child porn? No, OK then, bye" because then there'd be complaints. 

What happens though, is people then get hurt and so all those that _do_ fap off to child porn are seen as potential criminals. 

Something should be done to anyone who gets sexual enjoyment out of people being injured, children being raped, etc. but prison automatically is not the way. In a world with such indepth knowledge of psychology, it's shocking that so many countries still use imprisonment as a way of treating people.


----------



## mislead (Jun 3, 2008)

Jio said:


> Animal cruelty is a law based on morality. Thinking about it killing people is a law based on morality also, you decide that because it hurts someone it is morally wrong therefore it is illegal.



Actually, killing isn't forbidden because of it's immoral nature, but because a society cannot function otherwise. In reality, killing is also considered immoral for this very same reason. 

As for the animal cruelty example, are you trying to imply that it doesn't hurt animals? Though, admittedly, this is a question of how we separate objects from living agents in our society.



Jio said:


> People making video game comparisons don't have a leg to stand on either, games like manhunt are banned in the UK I think or modifications had to take place. *Like I said certain things promote or allow people to further develop certain types of behaviour which is why they outlawed it.*
> 
> Granted I think imprisoning the said person is the wrong way to go about it, I think they should get therapy. Getting off to images of minors being sexually assaulted or anyone as a matter of fact is disturbing. If someone plays a game constantly getting pleasure out of killing people hearing their screams etc. that too would be disturbing.



In every post I make in this thread, I ask for some evidence to support the bolded claim, and have yet to see any. Come on.


----------



## Gunners (Jun 3, 2008)

> Doh. Animal cruelty hurts ANIMALS.


And why do we care? Morals. We decide it is wrong to hurt animals because we see it as morally wrong.



> Taliban laws are based on moral values.
> 
> And what does "giving leeway to slack behavior" mean? If that means what i think you want it to mean, then japan should be rife with rape crime, but japan has only 1/10th of the swedish rape frequency.


I don't know what the state in Japan is but I will say this much looking at a countries rape statistics is inaccurate as you only know what you are told. In the Swedish society people would may feel less ashamed about being raped or feel they can come out with it. In other cultures that may not be the same.



> Evidence please.


Evidence for what?



> Atleast that was sensible in a way. I don't agree with punishing anyone for enjoying something though, unless they hurt someone else in the process.


Yes I somewhat agree with this, if someone shows disturbing signs that have not yet affected outsiders they should be helped. They shouldn't be left for that said behaviour to grow worsen the same way you wouldn't bury a cancer patient.



> Actually, killing isn't forbidden because of it's immoral nature, but because a society cannot function otherwise. In reality, killing is also considered immoral for this very same reason.
> 
> As for the animal cruelty example, are you trying to imply that it doesn't hurt animals? Though, admittedly, this is a question of how we separate objects from living agents in our society.


Killing humans was a bad example as that was more or less done for the protection of society as a whole and on another level that is a link as to why certain laws are made so that society may function. Lolicon could end up lowering the bare minimums of society which would be a reason added to it being outlawed.

The animal example stands though, reason why the laws were passed was an issue of morals.



> In every post I make in this thread, I ask for some evidence to support the bolded claim, and have yet to see any. Come on.


What type of evidence? You can probably dig up researches which support this but nothing directly. Anyway the easiest thing to say would be if you allowed your child to kill animals without punishing him don't be supprised when he becomes a killer.

Things escalating isn't something you need evidence for, it may or may not happen the point is you don't leave it unadressed on the off chance that it may not.


----------



## impersonal (Jun 3, 2008)

Hermit said:


> i think the point they were trying to make was that it _encourages_ real child abuse.
> 
> btw, what counts as 'child abuse' in loli? Does it literally mean rape, or just underage sex?



Underage sex is always rape, under most legal systems. The point being that a child has no clue about what he is doing, thus can't consent. This is less true for teenagers, but the law still applies.



			
				Jio said:
			
		

> Things escalating isn't something you need evidence for, it may or may not happen the point is you don't leave it unadressed on the off chance that it may not.


Things are more complex than this; for example political activism may or may not lead to terrorism, yet we all can see why political activism shouldn't be banned.

In the case of lolicon thought , I tend to agree; banning it will probably do more good than harm. I don't think anybody wants to like lolicon, and I don't think that anybody will like it without being exposed to it first. But this of course requires a medical confirmation.


----------



## mislead (Jun 3, 2008)

Jio said:


> What type of evidence? You can probably dig up researches which support this but nothing directly. Anyway the easiest thing to say would be if you allowed your child to kill animals without punishing him don't be supprised when he becomes a killer.



Then dig some up, that's all I'm asking for. If you can find any, that is, which might turn out to be somewhat difficult. I want to know what percentage of people who like lolicon also go on to molest real children. You're making an assertion about a group of humans, and I want to know whether this assertion has any basis in reality.



Jio said:


> Things escalating isn't something you need evidence for, it may or may not happen the point is you don't leave it unadressed on the off chance that it may not.



If you're going to criminalize things based on "an off chance", then nothing will be legal. You wish to punish people based on what they might do - and that's not how the law works, and for a good reason.


----------



## Kahvehane (Jun 3, 2008)

Kurumie Tsurashima said:


> And yet they do nothing for Shotacon?



According to the article, shotacon would fall under the same category for the same retarded reasons. 

Their reasoning is nonsense! Children don't get hurt during the making of this porn. Pencil tips may break, but that's it.


----------



## Batman (Jun 3, 2008)

Light Artist said:


> According to the article, shotacon would fall under the same category for the same retarded reasons.
> 
> Their reasoning is nonsense! Children don't get hurt during the making of this porn. *Pencil tips may break, but that's it.*



lol the makings of a great euphemism.


----------



## buff cat (Jun 3, 2008)

Unless it's actually rape in the loli stuff, let people watch it/look at it.  Not _everybody_ turns into a child rapist.  If they do, they probably would have become one anyway, regardless of the hentai they have.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 4, 2008)

Xelt said:


> You can't really compare lolicon to the African slave trade.



The same logic applies. "It doesn't affect me, so they may restrict other people's freedoms".


----------



## Koi (Jun 4, 2008)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> "When someone says it's not about free speech, it's about free speech".


..Except that Dada wasn't about free speech.   And neither is that work by Duchamp.  It was about defying the concept of art in a postwar period.. essentially it had its roots in chaos.  Right after WWI, more specifically.  I think the bracket dates for Dada were 1916-23.. something like that, anyway.  The work you posted was about challenging the ideas of art, and what can be viewed and taken as true art, as the world around the artists struggled to rebuild itself.


----------



## Adonis (Jun 4, 2008)

Saufsoldat said:


> The same logic applies. "It doesn't affect me, so they may restrict other people's freedoms".



I'll bite and be blunt:

The logic applies, I suppose, but the fact you compare wanking it to cartoon kids to fucking slavery is a disproportionate analogy and egregious.


----------



## Aldrick (Jun 4, 2008)

Jail me, poms


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 4, 2008)

Aldrick said:


> Jail me, poms



This belongs to the bath house  You might get banned for posting such kind of extreme porn


----------



## Dark Aether (Jun 4, 2008)

Aldrick said:


> Jail me, poms



JESUS CHRIST

SOMEONE BRING THE BANHAMMER QUICK

The police should be catching all the *child molesters* not the pedophiles that they may think that they may become child molesters without solid proof besides fapping to drawn pictures. IMO.


----------



## Hothien (Jun 4, 2008)

Jio, you seem to think that legislating morality is OK.

Now, would you think its OK if they ban all forms of expression that involve nudity, because some lawmaker thinks its immoral? Or ban all movies that depict violence, because some lawmaker thinks its immoral? Or ban everything, since someone will think that its immoral. Or, hell, ban same-sex pornography because there's plenty who would think thats immoral.

Free-speech includes that which you hate.


----------



## Vergil (Jun 4, 2008)

it's a freaking drawing. no-one got hurt.

it's a completely stupid law if it comes to pass. I doubt it will though


----------



## Adonis (Jun 4, 2008)

Saufsoldat said:


> This belongs to the bath house  You might get banned for posting such kind of extreme porn



Yes, because loli, in actuality, amounts to crudely drawn stick figures 

All I have to say is the same reason he isn't banned is the same reason that drawing as an argument fails.

You guys slay me, really, you do.


----------



## DremolitoX (Jun 4, 2008)

Aldrick said:


> Jail me, poms





Here is a picture of a man. Now apply the same amount of detail this picture has to a picture of a little girl being raped. It should be allowed right? It's just a picture, no real children were actually harmed.

Moron


----------



## Hothien (Jun 4, 2008)

DremolitoX said:


> Here is a picture of a man. Now apply the same amount of detail this picture has to a picture of a little girl being raped. It should be allowed right? It's just a picture, no real children were actually harmed.



Actually, yes, it should be allowed, if no children were actually harmed.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 4, 2008)

If that's the case how come kids aren't allowed to look at cartoon porn here, I mean its obvious that its no harm to anyone since there's no real people involved. It can't put any ideas in their heads...because a kid drawing a line between cartoons and real life is silly. Cartoon porn is just freedom of speech, everyone should be able to whack off to kids if the kid is drawn.


----------



## DremolitoX (Jun 4, 2008)

Willaien said:


> Actually, yes, it should be allowed, if no children were actually harmed.



Hahaha. I caught one!

Ok then let's say somebody were to photoshop a dick into the mouth of the little girl pictured below. Why shouldn't that be allowed if realistic drawings are? After all, she isn't actually blowing anybody!


----------



## Hothien (Jun 4, 2008)

DremolitoX said:


> Hahaha. I caught one!
> 
> Ok then let's say somebody were to photoshop a dick into the mouth of the little girl pictured below. Why shouldn't that be allowed if realistic drawings are? After all, she isn't actually blowing anybody!



If it is done to the point to where you cannot tell the difference between it and the real thing, then there's an issue. Otherwise, no, I don't think it should be illegal.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> If that's the case how come kids aren't allowed to look at cartoon porn here, I mean its obvious that its no harm to anyone since there's no real people involved. It can't put any ideas in their heads...because a kid drawing a line between cartoons and real life is silly. Cartoon porn is just freedom of speech, everyone should be able to whack off to kids if the kid is drawn.



That is just idiotic.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 4, 2008)

Willaien said:


> That is just idiotic.



No this is: 



Willaien said:


> If it is done to the point to where you cannot tell the difference between it and the real thing, then there's an issue. Otherwise, no, I don't think it should be illegal.



If its so well done that you can't tell, but there is proof undeniable that it never happened whats the big deal? The little girl never sucked his dick, she could be dead 20 years ago, and the guy could live in Austria. How is it a problem, its just pretend. After all people can draw damn good pictures, what would the difference be if someone did a photo realistic sketch with the dick in that girls mouth using two pictures as reference.


----------



## Hothien (Jun 4, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> If its so well done that you can't tell, but there is proof undeniable that it never happened whats the big deal? The little girl never sucked his dick, she could be dead 20 years ago, and the guy could live in Austria. How is it a problem, its just pretend. After all people can draw damn good pictures, what would the difference be if someone did a photo realistic sketch with the dick in that girls mouth using two pictures as reference.



The reason why its a problem if it is done to the point to where it is indistinguishable from the real thing, is because authorities would not be able to tell the difference.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jun 4, 2008)

Jio said:


> And why do we care? Morals. We decide it is wrong to hurt animals because we see it as morally wrong.



We see it as morally wrong yes, but it also happens to hurt a living being. Just like, you know, murder and rape. Fapping to drawings doesn't hurt anybody afaik as it's an activity disconnected from other people or living beings.



Jio said:


> I don't know what the state in Japan is but I will say this much looking at a countries rape statistics is inaccurate as you only know what you are told. In the Swedish society people would may feel less ashamed about being raped or feel they can come out with it. In other cultures that may not be the same.



Of course, but a 10 times difference? If you assume that there are unreported rapes in Japan then surely you must agree that there must be unreported rapes in Sweden too. Even if only 10-20% of rapes in sweden go unreported that's still more than the entire rape frequency in japan.

What's interesting too is that porn availability in japan went up gradually, and rape frequency lowered gradually as well in roughly the same time frame. Basically: As porn availability went up, rape frequency went down.



Jio said:


> Killing humans was a bad example as that was more or less done for the protection of society as a whole and on another level that is a link as to why certain laws are made so that society may function. Lolicon could end up lowering the bare minimums of society which would be a reason added to it being outlawed.



Lowering the bare minimums of society? What does that mean?

That sounds awfully close to something that Hitler would say about modern art.



Jio said:


> Things escalating isn't something you need evidence for, it may or may not happen the point is you don't leave it unadressed on the off chance that it may not.



That argument supports the banning of PRACTICALLY EVERYTHING.

Games: Lead to violence. Ban.
Sports: Lead to violence. Ban. (don't try to contest this one, just google  "football + riots" or "soccer + riots")
Alcohol: Leads to traffick deaths. Ban.
Etc. etc.



Yūhi Kurenai said:


> ..Except that Dada wasn't about free speech.   And neither is that work by Duchamp.  It was about defying the concept of art in a postwar period.. essentially it had its roots in chaos.  Right after WWI, more specifically.  I think the bracket dates for Dada were 1916-23.. something like that, anyway.  The work you posted was about challenging the ideas of art, and what can be viewed and taken as true art, as the world around the artists struggled to rebuild itself.



Notice that the post i'm replying there seems to say something about the definition of art. I posted that picture to demonstrate what some people consider art might not be what other people consider art.

The quote has nothing to do with the picture, but i posted it anyway because it rings very true.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 4, 2008)

Willaien said:


> The reason why its a problem if it is done to the point to where it is indistinguishable from the real thing, is because authorities would not be able to tell the difference.



Not going to fly dude, they might have to detain a person for an hour or two before someone could look at the average shop and tell its fake. The only argument you could have made was that the girl is a real person, thus making it harmful to her future if anyone saw the picture or thought it might be a representation of the real thing.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jun 4, 2008)

DremolitoX said:


> Here is a picture of a man. Now apply the same amount of detail this picture has to a picture of a little girl being raped. It should be allowed right? It's just a picture, no real children were actually harmed.
> 
> Moron



Quit calling people moron.

As for the picture. Yes, that picture as you describe it should be perfectly legal. There's no sensible reason why not.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> If that's the case how come kids aren't allowed to look at cartoon porn here, I mean its obvious that its no harm to anyone since there's no real people involved. It can't put any ideas in their heads...because a kid drawing a line between cartoons and real life is silly. Cartoon porn is just freedom of speech, everyone should be able to whack off to kids if the kid is drawn.



We're not talking about showing porn to kids. We're talking about a law that throws people in prison for looking at illegal drawings.

Replace illegal drawings with Heretical Text and you get some fanatical religious shithole like Afghanistan. (i assume no one from Afghanistan will read this and feel insulted, because owning a computer in Afghanistan can land you in prison)


----------



## Hothien (Jun 4, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Not going to fly dude, they might have to detain a person for an hour or two before someone could look at the average shop and tell its fake. The only argument you could have made was that the girl is a real person, thus making it harmful to her future if anyone saw the picture or thought it might be a representation of the real thing.



"average shop" != "indistinguishable from the real thing"

As for 'potential harm'... aren't there entire groups who try to make porn that is as realistic as possible, of celebrities? Via 'shopping? Should that be illegal?


----------



## adil (Jun 4, 2008)

a loop-hole paedephiles are using, lolicon? Well i suppose prevention is better than cure.


----------



## Adonis (Jun 4, 2008)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> We see it as morally wrong yes, but it also happens to hurt a living being. Just like, you know, murder and rape. Fapping to drawings doesn't hurt anybody afaik as it's an activity disconnected from other people or living beings.



This is going off on a tangent but if that's the case, why is hunting for
 sport legal? You can kill an animal to assuage boredom but it suddenly has rights when some perv wants to fuck it? The right not to be fucked apparently supersedes an animal's right to life. 



> That sounds awfully close to something that Hitler would say about modern art.



Godwin's Law.

Stop with the emotional appeals and disproportionate parallels.

And for me to continue into this point I would have to delve into a debate about what does constitute art which I'd rather not. 

If you want to argue this as a thought crime infringing on one's ability to have dubious thoughts and expressing them in the form of cartoon porn, fine. But don't turn this into some "Loli is art!" defense. You fucking wank to it. I guess Penthouse is a postmodern abstract on the female condition, right?



> Notice that the post i'm replying there seems to say something about the definition of art. I posted that picture to demonstrate what some people consider art might not be what other people consider art.



Yet the question is, frankly, is anyone appreciating loli as art? There's another debate on another naruto forum where some asshat was trying to say anyone who instantly perceives a pic of a naked kid as sexual is a closet perv and has their mind in the gutter; it could be art, he claims.

While technically true, believing such on a whim would require astounding naivety on my part and perceiving the picture as sexual is the result of cynicism toward the creator's and perceived audience's intent. Let's say I found a binder full of nude pics of kids in a friend's binder. According to that guy, and a lesser extent you, I'd be wrong for reacting like, "WTF, DUDE!?" because I'm assuming the worse. Maybe he finds naked kids artistic. But again, I'd have to be a gullible simpleton to buy that crock. Who really views a naked kid, in and of itself, as art? I'm not talking Baby Jesus or some shit, I'm talking about just a kid doing something naked; it's funny how such artists have a tendency to also be pedophiles.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 4, 2008)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> Quit calling people moron.
> 
> As for the picture. Yes, that picture as you describe it should be perfectly legal. There's no sensible reason why not.
> 
> ...



You're the reason why slippery slope is a fallacy...how does this have anything to do with religious texts in a Muslim country.



Willaien said:


> "average shop" != "indistinguishable from the real thing"
> 
> As for 'potential harm'... aren't there entire groups who try to make porn that is as realistic as possible, of celebrities? Via 'shopping? Should that be illegal?



Yeah I think it should actually. Why? Because it could be considered defamation and ruin your personal life.


----------



## Hothien (Jun 4, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yeah I think it should actually. Why? Because it could be considered defamation and ruin your personal life.



Then you can use that argument against shopping in this case, if the person is still alive.


----------



## Kazuma the Shell Bullet (Jun 4, 2008)




----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jun 4, 2008)

Adonis said:


> Godwin's Law.
> 
> Stop with the emotional appeals and disproportionate parallels.



The fact that i invoked Godwin's law does not negate my argument.

As for the disproportionate paralells... Hitler wanted to ban books that were socially unhealthy. The anti-lolicon people want to ban things that they consider immoral or whatever. It's basically the same thing. They argue in support of a ban of something fictional because they consider it bad and they have no valid argument to support their claims aside from that "it COULD lead to crime".



Adonis said:


> Yet the question is, frankly, is anyone appreciating loli as art? There's another debate on another naruto forum where some asshat was trying to say anyone who instantly perceives a pic of a naked kid as sexual is a closet perv and has their mind in the gutter; it could be art, he claims.
> 
> While technically true, believing such on a whim would require astounding naivety on my part and perceiving the picture as sexual is the result of cynicism toward the creator's and perceived audience's intent. Let's say I found a binder full of nude pics of kids in a friend's binder. According to that guy, and a lesser extent you, I'd be wrong for reacting like, "WTF, DUDE!?" because I'm assuming the worse. Maybe he finds naked kids artistic. But again, I'd have to be a gullible simpleton to buy that crock. Who really views a naked kid, in and of itself, as art? I'm not talking Baby Jesus or some shit, I'm talking about just a kid doing something naked; it's funny how such artists have a tendency to also be pedophiles.



Why does it matter if it's art? I never said i judged anything based on whether or not it is art. You would have a point if i actually used "artistic value" as an argument but i don't, because no one can agree on artistic value. What's art to one person might not be art to someone else.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You're the reason why slippery slope is a fallacy...how does this have anything to do with religious texts in a Muslim country.



I haven't even mentioned slippery slope in this thread afaik.

My argument is essentially that anything that infringes upon human rights must have a VERY VALID argument to support it. Lolicon is free speech. Child porn could be argued to be free speech too, actually, but it involves REAL CHILDREN as opposed to drawings. Thus i can consider a ban on child porn actually valid, while i cannot say the same for a law against lolicon.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 4, 2008)

Willaien said:


> Then you can use that argument against shopping in this case, if the person is still alive.



I'm the one against all of this remember...


----------



## Hothien (Jun 4, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I'm the one against all of this remember...



But your entire argument boils down to "I think its wrong" or "I think it'll lead them to do whats depicted". Both arguments are used against video games, pornography and violence (in movies, etc.)


----------



## Adonis (Jun 4, 2008)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> The fact that i invoked Godwin's law does not negate my argument.



No, but you're attempting to get a rise out people by arguing what essentially boils down to:

Do you know who else would ban loli?
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...

HITLER!

It's an argument built around the assumption that because Hitler was an evil man any thing he supports must be evil by association. You're using Hitler's name as a means to invoke a negative view without substantiating your point. Hitler was also a vegetarian. I guess vegetarianism is a stepping stone toward ethnic genocide.



> As for the disproportionate paralells... Hitler wanted to ban books that were socially unhealthy. The anti-lolicon people want to ban things that they consider immoral or whatever. It's basically the same thing. They argue in support of a ban of something fictional because they consider it bad and they have no valid argument to support their claims aside from that "it COULD lead to crime".



First, I'm anti-loli and I *DON'T* support a ban for the reason I explained in my first post.

Second, have you seen me use the "It could lead to crime" argument? Personally, I find that argument as full of shit as the idea of Grand Theft Auto leading to crime. I think that just as violent media naturally attracts violent people, people with pedophilic tastes are attracted to pedophilic art, in this case loli. There isn't causation but there is correlation.




> Why does it matter if it's art? I never said i judged anything based on whether or not it is art. You would have a point if i actually used "artistic value" as an argument but i don't, because no one can agree on artistic value. What's art to one person might not be art to someone else.





			
				you said:
			
		

> Notice that the post i'm replying there seems to say something about the definition of art. I posted that picture to demonstrate what some people consider art might not be what other people consider art.



If you weren't arguing that, you went off-topic and I accidentally followed.


----------



## Xyloxi (Jun 4, 2008)

I find Lolicon disturbing, but I don't believe it should be banned. I'd rather pedophiles looked at pictures of fictional characters and not real child porn.


----------



## Batman (Jun 4, 2008)

I had to go back and read the article again. It was getting lost amid all of the, well . . . 

If this is the case, (from the article on page one)


> The government has acknowledged that paedophiles may be circumventing the law by using computer technology to manipulate real photographs or videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons.


 then what are your thoughts? Do you believe that pedos are taking real images and modifying them or making cartoon duplicates of them? Or do you believe that this is a shield that the prosecuting government might hide behind to 'protect' what could be deemed as un . . . patriotic, I suppose? I don't know about constitutional rights overseas, but what I mean is unconstitutional.

Thoughts?


----------



## Tleilaxu (Jun 4, 2008)

Manipulating a real event into a cartoon is still childporn and that should not be allowed however from what I have seen in this thread for examples of loli that should be allowed since they dont resemble real people at all and are fisctional characters.


----------



## Hothien (Jun 4, 2008)

Tleilaxu said:


> Manipulating a real event into a cartoon is still childporn and that should not be allowed however from what I have seen in this thread for examples of loli that should be allowed since they dont resemble real people at all and are fisctional characters.



Well, I'm all for a ban on modified real photos into cartoons...


----------



## Batman (Jun 4, 2008)

I'm curious as to how often something like that actually happens.


----------



## Bill G (Jun 4, 2008)

I think lolicon based on anime girls is fine.  But turning real young girls into "anime" lolicon...? Debatable.  I'm not for it nor am I against it.  I find it interesting.  Based on our society, we view sexual acts with children as wrong.  One day, there was a man that said, "having sex with children is wrong, we shouldn't be doing this."  Look back on the Romans (bad example, I know. But, an example nonetheless).  Because of how they were raised in their society, they saw sexual acts with children just fine.  So, there is no wrong and right in stone.  It's ones own personal views.  For me, if the children are being forced in it, having no idea what's going on I say "No, that shouldn't happen."  But, if they know exactly what's going on, they know they would be used for sexual purposes, and they are perfectly fine with it (even liking it if possible), I say "OK.  A little unorthodox, but if they know what they're in for or what could happen to them, I guess it's fine."  I can't see *many*children willingly participating in such acts, but still.


----------



## LiveFire (Jun 5, 2008)

Sounds good to me, I approve.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jun 5, 2008)

Adonis said:


> No, but you're attempting to get a rise out people by arguing what essentially boils down to:
> 
> Do you know who else would ban loli?
> ...
> ...



No. The point is that Hitler banned things he found "socially unhealthy". I'm not saying it's bad specifically because Hitler did it (i was brainstorming for a scenario similar to the suggested law). I guess i could've used a more neutral example.

I wasn't interested in Hitler as a person. More about the fact that he wanted something banned because he didn't like it. Just like how the UK has now, for example, made it illegal to posses BDSM porn.



Adonis said:


> It's basically a totally emotional and unsubstantiated ban on material that so far hasn't proven to actually be harmful to anyone (the UK bdsm ban is based on some murder/rape case in which the rapist was apparently a fan of bdsm porn and thus the parents of the victim started a huge anti-bdsm campaign that led to possession of the material becoming illegal)



Bdsm porn does not make you a rapist. However, rapists might prefer bdsm porn over other kinds.



Adonis said:


> First, I'm anti-loli and I *DON'T* support a ban for the reason I explained in my first post.



I know. I never said you supported the ban. When i said anti-loli people i mean specifically those people who support the ban.



Adonis said:


> Second, have you seen me use the "It could lead to crime" argument? Personally, I find that argument as full of shit as the idea of Grand Theft Auto leading to crime. I think that just as violent media naturally attracts violent people, people with pedophilic tastes are attracted to pedophilic art, in this case loli. There isn't causation but there is correlation.



You haven't used that argument and i am fully aware of that, i was mainly referring to Jio and Cardboard when i said it.



Adonis said:


> If you weren't arguing that, you went off-topic and I accidentally followed.



I didn't really go off topic 

The thing is, far back in the thread Jio said something about artistic value. I simply countered with something to demonstrate how ridiculous "artistic value" can be.

Honestly, i see no point in defending something on the basis that it has artistic value just like i see no point in attacking something because it supposedly lacks that same thing.


----------



## Adonis (Jun 5, 2008)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> No. The point is that Hitler banned things he found "socially unhealthy". I'm not saying it's bad specifically because Hitler did it (i was brainstorming for a scenario similar to the suggested law). *I guess i could've used a more neutral example*.



That's what I was saying but I'll admit I overlooked the "socially unhealthy" explanation. I'm not calling loli "socially unhealthy", though, so it's a moot point.



> I wasn't interested in Hitler as a person. More about the fact that he wanted something banned because he didn't like it. Just like how the UK has now, for example, made it illegal to posses BDSM porn.



That's certainly going overboard.




> Bdsm porn does not make you a rapist. However, rapists might prefer bdsm porn over other kinds.



Where'd you get this quote from because I never even mentioned BDSM.

Honestly, there's no reason for us to continue because we agree on the essential point that the ban is wrong.


----------



## Yagami1211 (Jun 5, 2008)

Evangeline is outlaw ! Nooooo !


----------



## Red (Jun 5, 2008)

DremolitoX said:


> Here is a picture of a man. Now apply the same amount of detail this picture has to a picture of a little girl being raped. It should be allowed right? It's just a picture, no real children were actually harmed.
> 
> Moron


But loli pics in general do not have that amount of details. I think we can all agree that this: isn't based on any real life models and I'm pretty sure this bill doesn't ban images like this.

And I also want to throw something out there, Lolicon doesn't make people go out and rape little children, on the contrary it does the opposite.


----------



## Fang (Jun 5, 2008)

Good for the UK.


----------



## Axl Low (Jun 5, 2008)

Get that crap outta here! 


More Porn bans in Britain.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jun 5, 2008)

Adonis said:


> Where'd you get this quote from because I never even mentioned BDSM.
> 
> Honestly, there's no reason for us to continue because we agree on the essential point that the ban is wrong.



Yeah we seem to pretty much agree.

As for the quote: I honestly don't know what happened. I had some text written up but it must've been lost in copy-pasting. Just ignore it and all is well. We probably agree on that point anyway >_>


----------



## TasteTheDifference (Jun 5, 2008)

This is probably a good thing


----------



## Xelt (Jun 5, 2008)

Red said:


> But loli pics in general do not have that amount of details. I think we can all agree that this: isn't based on any real life models and I'm pretty sure this bill doesn't ban images like this.


People get off to that shit?


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jun 5, 2008)

Xelt said:


> People get off to that shit?



Some people get off to shit too.


----------



## Mr. Obvious (Jun 5, 2008)

LEAVE LOLICON ALONE!!!!!!!


----------



## Vanity (Jun 5, 2008)

Hmm...I don't know if this is a good idea or not.

I'm not interested at all in stuff like that on kids, even fictional ones and I do find it very disturbing but obviously it's at least not real and I feel like if the guys who like this stuff can't at least have stuff like that on fictional characters they're more likely to harm real children.

I mean if they don't have anything they can 'use' for their fantasies they're more likely to go out and actually harm a real child right? The stuff on fictional characters probably helps to stop some of that from happening, even though it is also disturbing.


----------



## Vicious-chan (Jun 5, 2008)

prolly been said but.. lolZaxxon


----------



## Mintaka (Jun 5, 2008)

If you give them no avenues to let out there tensions guess whats most likely to happen.

They'll build up until finally they do do something utterly fucking dumb.  Leave the lolicon alone as no ones being harmed by it.


----------



## Vanity (Jun 5, 2008)

Vicious-chan said:


> prolly been said but.. lolZaxxon



If he doesn't live in the UK it really doesn't matter though. XD


----------



## Dreikoo (Jun 5, 2008)

This isn't about lolicon, this is about slightly altered real pics/vids of kiddy porn that are altered but not nearly enough for them to be considered lolicon (cause if it was indistinguishable...why would people get through the trouble of doing that to a child and then altering it into lolicon when there's the just regular purely imagined kind of lolicon already there...?)  in order to bypass the law.

No lolicon or hentai can physically look as something like that...so the whole thing is moot.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 5, 2008)

Kyasurin Yakuto said:


> If he doesn't live in the UK it really doesn't matter though. XD



Even if he was I'm sure he's got enough of a supply that he'll make it.


----------



## Red (Jun 6, 2008)

Xelt said:


> People get off to that shit?


you'd be very surprised at what other things people get off of.


----------



## Zer Kaizer (Jun 6, 2008)

The stuff based on real child porn should be banned. But Lolicon doesn't harm anybody.

You shouldn't be able to prosecute anybody over a thought crime.


----------



## Vicious-chan (Jun 6, 2008)

Kyasurin Yakuto said:


> If he doesn't live in the UK it really doesn't matter though. XD



ya but it'll follow suit in the rest of the world eventually  it actually did become illegal (or they are still working toward it) here in the US. I just remember reading news that they wanna get all images, drawn and such, banned  soon Zaxxon will have nowhere in the world and thus.. lolZaxxon


----------



## maximilyan (Jun 6, 2008)

lame. it wont get outlawed.

thousands off geeks will rise up in opposition of losing there fictional fap material


----------



## Juno (Jun 6, 2008)

DremolitoX said:


> Here is a picture of a man. Now apply the same amount of detail this picture has to a picture of a little girl being raped. It should be allowed right? It's just a picture, no real children were actually harmed.





By your logic the artist here is just as guilty as someone who videotapped bestiality.

Are you suggesting that there just be a law on what people are permitted to imagine and paint? So the numerous masterpieces depicting child abuse or rape are to be removed and anyone who possesses copies to be prosecuted like pedophiles? How about films that depict child rape? Are the actors and directors and anyone who owns the film to be carted off to prison because it was too realistic?

Learn the difference between reality and fantasy. If a painting drives someone to commit a crime against children, then prosecute them for the crime. You cannot however prosecute them for possessing paintings that may or may not influence them to do anything, no more than you can prosecute teens for possessing violent films that may or may not influence them to commit violence.

First you have to prove unequivocally that one ALWAYS leads to the other, or else you're imprisoning people on an uncertain 'maybe one day they might have'.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> If that's the case how come kids aren't allowed to look at cartoon porn here, I mean its obvious that its no harm to anyone since there's no real people involved. It can't put any ideas in their heads...because a kid drawing a line between cartoons and real life is silly. Cartoon porn is just freedom of speech, everyone should be able to whack off to kids if the kid is drawn.



Yeah because privately owned forum = the ruling power in a political society. 

This place isn't supposed to be reflective of the wider free society. You can get banned for saying 
*Spoiler*: __ 



"Yondi is Naruto's daddy'


 in the wrong section. Drawing comparisons between NF and the real world is LOL-worthy.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 6, 2008)

Seabear said:


> Yeah because privately owned forum = the ruling power in a political society.
> 
> This place isn't supposed to be reflective of the wider free society. You can get banned for saying _[idiotic spoiler here]_ in the wrong section. Drawing comparisons between NF and the real world is LOL-worthy.



Cartoon pron is such an art form....

Oh and when I said here I meant in the fucking US idiot, not the form. People not following context clues is LOL-worthy. Just as much as someone making a point to spoil Naruto in the wrong section while saying it breaks a rule.


----------



## Aldrick (Jun 6, 2008)

I wish to defend my artwork since it contains large amounts of detail and is, in fact, incredibly realistic. After all, the man does have an erection which is realistic and the erection is erect just like in real life. And the child is small and naked, like in real child porn.


----------

