# Swedish Supreme Court: cartoons are not child porn



## jklsemicolon (Jun 15, 2012)

> In a ruling issued on Friday, the court acquitted Simon Lundstr?m, who had been found guilty of child pornography crimes by two lower courts before appealing his case to Sweden's highest court.
> 
> "I'm obviously very relieved, in part because it makes life easier for me personally, but most of all I'm generally relieved for Sweden as a whole," Lundstr?m told the TT news agency in an email.
> 
> ...





#suddenoutbreakofcommonsense


----------



## baconbits (Jun 15, 2012)

Maybe the act wasn't illegal but it still shows that this man sexualizes children.  I find that sickening.


----------



## Mathias124 (Jun 15, 2012)

jklsemicolon said:


> Also, I kindly ask you to stay the fuck away from other people's sexual preferences.



Is what ill be saying when im having a threesome with your girlfriend and her labradoodle called "snuffles".

On topic: This man may only have had 39 pics out of thousands, and given his proffesion it is definately excuseable.

What happens when you find a guy with 100% animated girlie porn?
That definately shows a sick mind


----------



## davidpliskin (Jun 15, 2012)

How long till pedophilic disorder is removed from the DSM?


----------



## vampiredude (Jun 15, 2012)

it's just drawings, who gives a fuck?


----------



## Magicbullet (Jun 15, 2012)

Those damn thought-criminals and their thought-crimes.


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 15, 2012)

This is good news for artists. IIRC one of the things artists (in the professional art scene, such as museums) really hate is censorship. So this is a win-win for everyone.


----------



## jklsemicolon (Jun 15, 2012)

Mathias124 said:


> Is what ill be saying when im having a threesome with your girlfriend and her labradoodle called "snuffles".


You go ahead and do that. As long as everything's consensual, I won't say you've done anything wrong there.

What happens when you find a guy with 100% animated girlie porn?
That definately shows a sick mind[/QUOTE]
No, it doesn't show a sick mind. It shows a mind with different sexual preferences than the norm.



Mael said:


> You shot all your defense down with your idiotic last sentence.  So what if one's preference is rape or snuff?  That acceptable too?


It would be kind of silly for me to answer no to those questions, since I myself have rape fantasies. Any further questions?



davidpliskin said:


> How long till pedophilic disorder is removed from the DSM?


Between 20 and 100 years.


----------



## cnorwood (Jun 15, 2012)

yea loli isnt real child porn, but i think it still really fucking wierd


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jun 15, 2012)

so delicious cake is saved.

drawings should have no rights.


----------



## hammer (Jun 15, 2012)

THINK OF THE CHILDREN


----------



## Mael (Jun 15, 2012)

jklsemicolon said:


> It would be kind of silly for me to answer no to those questions, since I myself have rape fantasies. Any further questions?



You read it here, folks.

OP approves of rape as a sexual preference.  

How much weed have you done or how poisoned is your brain from post-modernism?


----------



## TSC (Jun 15, 2012)

Wah! What are we gonna do on the bed, Onii-chan?


----------



## stream (Jun 15, 2012)

Good. The less is considered to be a thought crime, the better.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jun 15, 2012)

hammer said:


> THINK OF THE CHILDREN


drawings are not children.


----------



## Madai (Jun 15, 2012)

Mael said:


> OP approves of rape as a sexual preference.



Well, it depends on if he means play rape with a safe word and lots of screaming (omg fun) or rape rape with roofies and a university adminstration coverup to protect the team(sick and wrong).

But since he just ok'd bestiality, clearly he doesn't grasp the meaning of consent so....

poor snuffles.


----------



## Mathias124 (Jun 15, 2012)

Hand Banana said:


> Must feel cool insulting people over the internets everyday, eh?



_He says in an insulting tone_

Op approves of rape as a sexual preference.. Lets hope karma is on its way


----------



## jklsemicolon (Jun 15, 2012)

Mael said:


> You read it here, folks.
> 
> OP approves of rape as a sexual preference.
> 
> How much weed have you done or how poisoned is your brain from post-modernism?



I have never done weed. Since postmodernism is such a broad, meaningless word I'm going to have to ask you to clarify that part.



Madai said:


> Well, it depends on if he means play rape with a safe word and lots of screaming (omg fun) or rape rape with roofies and a university adminstration coverup to protect the team(sick and wrong).




Which one do you _think_? Did I say I condone _rape_, or a sexual preference? Did I not in the very same post include that Mathias needed to make sure everything in bed was consensual from all parties?



> But since he just ok'd bestiality, clearly he doesn't grasp the meaning of consent so....


I fully grasp the concept of consent. Do you? Are you aware that animals engage in sex every day, all over the world, out of their own free will? Are you aware that they even engage in interspecies sex? OUT OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL ()!? Shocking, I know. But still fact.


----------



## drache (Jun 15, 2012)

jklsemicolon said:


> Also, I kindly ask you to stay the fuck away from other people's sexual preferences.



only so long as it's between consenting adults, last I checked that doesn't include children

your rights are not a blank check



davidpliskin said:


> How long till pedophilic disorder is removed from the DSM?



on the whole I hope never


----------



## DoflaMihawk (Jun 15, 2012)

Wait, wait. Cartoons AREN'T child porn?

You learn something new every day...


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 15, 2012)

Mathias124 said:


> Is what ill be saying when im having a threesome with your girlfriend and her labradoodle called "snuffles".
> 
> On topic: This man may only have had 39 pics out of thousands, and given his proffesion it is definately excuseable.
> 
> ...



obviously, but we don't put people in jail for being sick or whatever, we put them in jail for hurting others


----------



## Mathias124 (Jun 15, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> obviously, but we don't put people in jail for being sick or whatever, we put them in jail for hurting others



True true...

But still.. why wait until the damage has been done, in this hypothetical scenario we have a guy with... lets say 10.000 pics of hentai small girl porn.

At some point he is going to want to turn it into reality, would be a shame if it was your sister/daughter/niece hit by this ticking time bomb


Anyhow im just happy this guy didnt get any jail time or a permanent record as a p*d*p****.

I think we should discuss the limit. 
Where does it become innocent downloading loads of stuff and wanking to some borderline pedo, and where does it become an obsession society will have to deal with


----------



## jklsemicolon (Jun 15, 2012)

Mathias124 said:


> True true...
> 
> But still.. why wait until the damage has been done, in this hypothetical scenario we have a guy with... lets say 10.000 pics of hentai small girl porn.
> 
> At some point he is going to want to turn it into reality, one be a shame if it was your sister/daughter/niece.


Quite on the contrary, availability of porn reduces the occurrence of sex crimes. If Bob is a p*d*p****, we _want_ him to watch lolicon porn because that makes him _less_ likely to rape real girls.


----------



## Mathias124 (Jun 15, 2012)

Hand Banana said:


> Sure, why not. Btw which race has the highest rape statisitc while we're here?



Percentage or highest number?

Does raping the wife you bought from your cousins family count?

I'd say black people.. South africa is the rape capital of the world and central africa was one big rapefest for quite a while.

Shoutout goes to white dudes, we have a greater capacity for evil


----------



## Mathias124 (Jun 15, 2012)

Hand Banana said:


> The question was aimed at him. And since we're both in the US, I would be refering to the US.



You still have to clarify what constitutes as rape.

You know.. because there are a lot of different views on the matter.

I just read the report you're referring to and you have to consider the fact that hispanics and whites are the same.

So its white + hispanics as one group in the US.
which makes it bs


----------



## Ƶero (Jun 15, 2012)

cnorwood said:


> yea loli isnt real child porn, but i think it still really fucking wierd



This. He's not harming any children so he's not doing anything illegal but still that stuff is sick.


----------



## Draffut (Jun 15, 2012)

Mael said:


> You shot all your defense down with your idiotic last sentence.  So what if one's preference is rape or snuff?  That acceptable too?
> 
> See kids...a liberal mindset is ok but not in the hands of idiots.



Where did he say "regardless of all other actual laws"?

By your logic train, saying Sodomy shouldn't be illegal actually means raping someone in the asshole should be legal.  That's absurd.


----------



## Mael (Jun 15, 2012)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> Where did he say "regardless of all other actual laws"?
> 
> By your logic train, saying Sodomy should be illegal actually means raping someone in the asshole should be legal.  That's absurd.



I was poking at his seemingly open door policy on preference.  Law was not in the equation but it certainly could be now.


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 15, 2012)

Mathias124 said:


> True true...
> 
> But still.. why wait until the damage has been done, in this hypothetical scenario we have a guy with... lets say 10.000 pics of hentai small girl porn.
> 
> At some point he is going to want to turn it into reality, would be a shame if it was your sister/daughter/niece hit by this ticking time bomb



Can't put people in jail for crimes they might or might not commit

Haven't you seen minority report?


----------



## Mathias124 (Jun 15, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> Can't put people in jail for crimes they might or might not commit
> 
> Haven't you seen minority report?



I agreed with that...

But seriously if your baby sister was raped by a guy who the feds knew had 10000 hours of animated child porn wouldnt you think... wtf? you know he likes girlies why can he meet my sister, why isnt he somewhere he cant fuck her up


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 15, 2012)

Mathias124 said:


> You still have to clarify what constitutes as rape.
> 
> You know.. because there are a lot of different views on the matter.
> 
> ...



It's not that serious. Just poking at him as he asked for.


----------



## Bioness (Jun 15, 2012)

Hurray for common sense.

Though some of the responses in this thread, don't have any.


----------



## Draffut (Jun 15, 2012)

Still waiting on people here to realize that cartoons are not real and cartoon children are not real children.

I am not seeing how people make this connection that just because you get hard looking at a drawing you will have the same reaction to a real child.

BTW, every furry out there isn't raping puppies.


----------



## drache (Jun 15, 2012)

Bioness said:


> Hurray for common sense.
> 
> Though some of the responses in this thread, don't have any.



common sense by whose definition? while the person in question had justifiable reasons for having what he had and while it was a fraction of his collection I personally object to the notion of anything preference is okay that was suggested



Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> Still waiting on people here to realize that cartoons are not real and cartoon children are not real children.
> 
> I am not seeing how people make this connection that just because you get hard looking at a drawing you will have the same reaction to a real child.
> 
> BTW, every furry out there isn't raping puppies.



that's not really the point people are objecting to the idea of an open door (as Mael put it) policy being suggested.

And I really have to wonder because the fact is that escalation tends to be inevietable, most rapists for examples start by fantasizing, then might read about such things then probably engage in it consensually and then eventually commit the crime itself.

Now that's not to say that every kinky couple or person out there is a walking time bomb but there are some. 

And that is the biggest cause of my concern.


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 15, 2012)

Mathias124 said:


> I agreed with that...
> 
> But seriously if your baby sister was raped by a guy who the feds knew had 10000 hours of animated child porn wouldnt you think... wtf? you know he likes girlies why can he meet my sister, why isnt he somewhere he cant fuck her up



so we should lock up people who may potentially hurt people in the future because of some psych profiling?

i kind of like this idea we could probably lock up most republicans 

i mean, i guess  it's where you draw the line on freedoms. i generally believe you shouldn't be convicted of a crime if you didn't hurt or endanger anyone. it's like freedom of speech, there's these blatantly awful people out there fomenting hatred of others out there, but we don't put them in jail and I generally don't think we should even if I'd like to.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 15, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> so we should lock up people who may potentially hurt people in the future because of some psych profiling?



Wasn't there a movie based on that?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 15, 2012)

It may be sick, weird, and disturbing but at the end of the day it is fictional material, and if it can't be proven that actual children were exploited in its production then there's not much of a case to go on.


----------



## Blue (Jun 15, 2012)

Hand Banana said:


> Wasn't there a movie based on that?





Petes12 said:


> Haven't you seen minority report?


----------



## HolyHands (Jun 15, 2012)

drache said:


> that's not really the point people are objecting to the idea of an open door (as Mael put it) policy being suggested.
> 
> And I really have to wonder because the fact is that escalation tends to be inevietable, most rapists for examples start by fantasizing, then might read about such things then probably engage in it consensually and then eventually commit the crime itself.
> 
> ...



There's not much evidence that shows this to be the case, otherwise we'd be seeing school shootings daily because of all the violent games we play, or we'd be seeing absurdly high rape rates in Japan due to all their rape hentai, but neither of these scenarios are happening are they?

Simple entertainment media generally doesn't drive people to commit crimes against another. It takes a lot more deep cultural and environmental issues to get a person to kill/rape another. It's not something you can do just by picking up a book.

And not only that, but it's not like you can regulate "obscene" material as it is. Anyone with an imagination and a pen/computer can put their perverted thoughts into writing, and there's no feasible way to get rid of it other than randomly prosecute people for thought crimes. You're free to call a fetish sick or disgusting, but it's not worth putting something in jail over, nor is there much evidence showing that such a person is a danger to society.


----------



## drache (Jun 15, 2012)

HolyHands said:


> There's not much evidence that shows this to be the case, otherwise we'd be seeing school shootings daily because of all the violent games we play, or we'd be seeing absurdly high rape rates in Japan due to all their rape hentai, but neither of these scenarios are happening are they?
> 
> Simple entertainment media generally doesn't drive people to commit crimes against another. It takes a lot more deep cultural and environmental issues to get a person to kill/rape another. It's not something you can do just by picking up a book.
> 
> And not only that, but it's not like you can regulate "obscene" material as it is. Anyone with an imagination and a pen/computer can put their perverted thoughts into writing, and there's no feasible way to get rid of it other than randomly prosecute people for thought crimes. You're free to call a fetish sick or disgusting, but it's not worth putting something in jail over, nor is there much evidence showing that such a person is a danger to society.



As I said it's not a completely cause and effect relation but studies have shown that rapist and serial killers especially have a *long* period of escalation where in they start either small or innocently and end up well being rapist and serial killers.

And while I support video games I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss their effect on damaged or vulnerable children or adults.

Sure it's not an 'easy' thing to regulate 'obscene' material and frankly I am acutally more free and less regulate on that but I also think it foolish to not consider the full picture and implications.

The trick is finding the balance between freedom and protecting the public


----------



## Madai (Jun 15, 2012)

jklsemicolon said:


> I fully grasp the concept of consent. Do you? Are you aware that animals engage in sex every day, all over the world, out of their own free will? Are you aware that they even engage in interspecies sex? OUT OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL ()!? Shocking, I know. But still fact.



Instinct does not equal free will.  Even even if it did, free will *does not* equal informed consent!  Wow.  You truly are off the deep end.

on the other hand, here's another guy off the deep end:



> But seriously if your baby sister was raped by a guy who the feds knew had 10000 hours of animated child porn wouldnt you think... wtf? you know he likes girlies why can he meet my sister, why isnt he somewhere he cant fuck her up




So you advocate a sweeping invasion of privacy to prevent rape?  When  only 26% of rapes are committed by strangers?

Consider this:


> Drug use, especially alcohol, is frequently involved in rape. In 47% of rapes, both the victim and the perpetrator had been drinking. In 17%, only the perpetrator had been. 7% of the time, only the victim had been drinking.



It's not strangers wanking to anime.  It's friends you think you know, having a drink with you.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 15, 2012)

Well that'll save money not incarcerating people who aren't actually hurting anyone.  Sucks for that guy that his name will now be tied to this case for all time.


----------



## Mathias124 (Jun 15, 2012)

Madai said:


> So you advocate a sweeping invasion of privacy to prevent rape?  When  only 26% of rapes are committed by strangers?
> 
> It's not strangers wanking to anime.  It's friends you think you know, having a drink with you.



You're way off.

Where do i advocate a sweeping invasion of privacy?

All i said was that we should debate where the border is.
What i wrote there was an example of where the border could be.

If you do nothing but jack off to drawings of small girls maybe society should find some way to deal with that.
Because you know, it does say something about you if you only get off to pictures of small girls, drawn or not.

Reading entirety of the thread or at least more than a single post might be smart before joining the conversation.


----------



## HolyHands (Jun 15, 2012)

drache said:


> As I said it's not a completely cause and effect relation but studies have shown that rapist and serial killers especially have a *long* period of escalation where in they start either small or innocently and end up well being rapist and serial killers.



This is true, but the problem is that there is no real way to stop a rapist or serial killer from acquiring media that acts out their desires. As I said earlier, anyone with an imagination can make a story, and simply looking at porn isn't enough to pin someone down as a criminal. That person with a habit of viewing domination/rape porn could be a future rapist, or just some guy with a BDSM fetish.

It doesn't even have to be seedy material such as porn either. Even mainstream titles have plenty of violence that could appeal to a serial killer (see: the horror genre), and there are plenty of romance/erotica novels that involve a partner taking charge during sex that might appeal to a rapist. The most the media can really do is just keep mainstream titles somewhat family appropriate.


----------



## drache (Jun 15, 2012)

HolyHands said:


> This is true, but the problem is that there is no real way to stop a rapist or serial killer from acquiring media that acts out their desires. As I said earlier, anyone with an imagination can make a story, and simply looking at porn isn't enough to pin someone down as a criminal. That person with a habit of viewing domination/rape porn could be a future rapist, or just some guy with a BDSM fetish.
> 
> It doesn't even have to be seedy material such as porn either. Even mainstream titles have plenty of violence that could appeal to a serial killer (see: the horror genre), and there are plenty of romance/erotica novels that involve a partner taking charge during sex that might appeal to a rapist. The most the media can really do is just keep mainstream titles somewhat family appropriate.



I think we largely agree here all I am saying is that I am sympathetic to the argument that rights are not a blank check including media. Ironically I'm watching a documentary about  Barney Rosset while I type this

Personally I think people that show a history of escalation should be dealt with not necessarily in jail but if the warning signs are there they need to addressed one way or another


----------



## Madai (Jun 15, 2012)

> You're way off.
> 
> Where do i advocate a sweeping invasion of privacy?
> 
> ...



You cannot find such people *without* a sweeping invasion of privacy.




> As I said it's not a completely cause and effect relation but studies have shown that rapist and serial killers especially have a long period of escalation where in they start either small or innocently and end up well being rapist and serial killers.



studies also show serial killers breate oxygen and eat bread.  My point is, serial killers are super fricken rare.  for every deviant behavior someone wants to demonize because a serial killer did it once, there's thousands of people doing same said deviant behavior and not becoming serial killers.

Rapes mostly go un-reported, and rapists are hardly RARE. often there's not much more "escalation" than a few beers.

And drinking alcohol is not what I call "deviant" behavior.  However, it's connection to (1) impaired judgement (2) loosened inhibitions and (3) seduction are all very well established.  This is kinda "duh" territory.  

The landmine is the double standard it imposes.  Since men are offenders in 99% of rapes, it falls upon the woman to protect herself.

Sorry ladies, we really _are_ pigs.  20% of us anyway.

Only a considerably higher level of prosecution/or Lorena Bobbit style revenge mutilations is going to deter men from sexual liasons of questional consent.

Btw, Lorena Bobbitt was found not guilty, and only had to spend 45 days being evaluated at a hospital.  45 days at a hospital is a small price to pay for great justice!


----------



## drache (Jun 15, 2012)

Madai said:


> You cannot find such people *without* a sweeping invasion of privacy.



not necessarily




Madai said:


> studies also show serial killers breate oxygen and eat bread.  My point is, serial killers are super fricken rare.  for every deviant behavior someone wants to demonize because a serial killer did it once, there's thousands of people doing same said deviant behavior and not becoming serial killers.
> 
> Rapes mostly go un-reported, and rapists are hardly RARE. often there's not much more "escalation" than a few beers.
> 
> ...




Okay that was just plain silly the fact is that among serial offenders (which includes the majority of rapists both adults and children) studies have repeatedly shown a clear pattern of escalation.

And super freaken rare as defined by what? Car accidents? Lightening strikes? I think you would be surprised even horrified by the numbers of convicted serial killers in the last 50 years.

Yes a good number of rapes are committed by someone you know and alcohol often plays a role but to dig your head into the sand and ignore the clear evidence that there is often a period of escalation ranging from fantasies, to peeping, to 'role playing' with an adult to other things, I just don't understand.

I am not suggesting censorship or even a massive invasion of privacy but I do think  there are questions we should be asking ourselves about certain behavior and certainly specific sets of behavior.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 15, 2012)

drache said:


> I am not suggesting censorship or even a massive invasion of privacy but I do think  there are questions we should be asking ourselves about certain behavior and certainly specific sets of behavior.



In America we call that stereotyping.


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 15, 2012)

drache said:


> Okay that was just plain silly the fact is that among serial offenders (which includes the majority of rapists both adults and children) studies have repeatedly shown a clear pattern of escalation.



but not everyone who does one thing escalates to the next, all the way up to some capital offense


----------



## drache (Jun 15, 2012)

Hand Banana said:


> In America we call that stereotyping.



actually no



Petes12 said:


> but not everyone who does one thing escalates to the next, all the way up to some capital offense



true hence the difficulty but just because of that difficulty doesn't mean the point isn't true


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 15, 2012)

its not just difficult, its wrong and stupid. you can't throw someone in jail because they might, in the future, decide to do something really wrong


----------



## drache (Jun 15, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> its not just difficult, its wrong and stupid. you can't throw someone in jail because they might, in the future, decide to do something really wrong



I don't remember saying throw them in jail.....


----------



## Rabbit and Rose (Jun 15, 2012)

Hand Banana said:


> Sure, why not. Btw which race has the highest rape statisitc while we're here?



 I though Native American women are the most likely to get raped matter-o-fact they are 2.5 times more likely to get raped than any other women in the US. 



Do you guys think that it has to do with how history was when the European settlers came to 'merica?

Cartoons aren't child porn.
I think any realistic images need to gtfo though.


----------



## cnorwood (Jun 15, 2012)

jklsemicolon said:


> Quite on the contrary, availability of porn reduces the occurrence of sex crimes. If Bob is a p*d*p****, we _want_ him to watch lolicon porn because that makes him _less_ likely to rape real girls.



like most rapists and murders after a while fantasizing isn't enough.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 15, 2012)

Red Queen said:


> I though Native American women are the most likely to get raped matter-o-fact they are 2.5 times more likely to get raped than any other women in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's because the Native American reservations are typical in awful condition, with a high poverty, jobless, and a significant high school dropout rate.


----------



## jklsemicolon (Jun 15, 2012)

cnorwood said:


> like most rapists and murders after a while fantasizing isn't enough.



That's why I said they should have animated porn.


----------



## cnorwood (Jun 15, 2012)

jklsemicolon said:


> That's why I said they should have animated porn.



I was saying that you cant say that this stops molesters. Most murderers and rapists start murdering and raping because fantasizing isn't enough, and they need to do the real thing. Of course I'm not saying that loli turns people into real child molesters/rapists, I'm just saying that your argument isn't valid.

-But still I think its still an extremely weird thing to look at, and if your are attracted to loli/shouta you probably are attracted to real little kids.


----------



## Draffut (Jun 15, 2012)

drache said:


> Okay that was just plain silly the fact is that among serial offenders (which includes the majority of rapists both adults and children) studies have repeatedly shown a clear pattern of escalation.



Are there studies showing such an 'escalation' from watching a cartoon and raping children?

Yes sex offenders have some of the highest levels of recidivism, but that doesn't have any correlation to watching rape cartoons beforehand.

As someone previously pointed out, if this was the case Japan would have a drastically higher # of rapes a year.


----------



## Ben Tennyson (Jun 15, 2012)

no one touching my Gwen Tennyson hentai.


----------



## Kahvehane (Jun 15, 2012)

It's only a matter of time before every expatriate living in Sweden looks like this:


*Spoiler*: __


----------



## drache (Jun 15, 2012)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> Are there studies showing such an 'escalation' from watching a cartoon and raping children?
> 
> Yes sex offenders have some of the highest levels of recidivism, but that doesn't have any correlation to watching rape cartoons beforehand.
> 
> As someone previously pointed out, if this was the case Japan would have a drastically higher # of rapes a year.



The mistake you're making is confusing there being a clear line between fantasy pictures and an actual offense.

That's not what I am saying.

I am saying there should be red flags things like serial peeping, extensive fantasy porn etc etc

And I am not even sure what 'too many red flags' would mean. Like I said this is a difficult contenious issue and I believe in free speech but not limitless speech.


----------



## Rabbit and Rose (Jun 15, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> It's because the Native American reservations are typical in awful condition, with a high poverty, jobless, and a significant high school dropout rate.



Sources please. I'm wondering why blacks aren't at risk of being raped as much as Native Americans.

Hispanics also suffer from poverty too.


----------



## jklsemicolon (Jun 15, 2012)

cnorwood said:


> I was saying that you cant say that this stops molesters. Most murderers and rapists start murdering and raping because fantasizing isn't enough, and they need to do the real thing. Of course I'm not saying that loli turns people into real child molesters/rapists, I'm just saying that your argument isn't valid.


I _can_ say it stops molesters, because it _does_ stop molesters. There is a considerable body of scientific literature on this. The more available pornography is in a country, the lower rates of sex crime that country has. This is a fact, not an argument.



> -But still I think its still an extremely weird thing to look at, and if your are attracted to loli/shouta you probably are attracted to real little kids.


Probably.


----------



## drache (Jun 15, 2012)

jklsemicolon said:


> I _can_ say it stops molesters, because it _does_ stop molesters. There is a considerable body of scientific literature on this. The more available pornography is in a country, the lower rates of sex crime that country has. This is a fact, not an argument.
> 
> 
> Probably.



There is also a body of evidence showing that escalation happens, what you're proposing in a way is throwing gasoline on a fire in the hopes you smother it


----------



## jklsemicolon (Jun 15, 2012)

drache said:


> There is also a body of evidence showing that escalation happens, what you're proposing in a way is throwing gasoline on a fire in the hopes you smother it



The fact that rapists and murderers escalate their thrills in no way indicates that the availability of pornography or violent media _caused_ that escalation. What you are _actually_ pointing out, is that the availability of pornography does not stop all sex crimes. That is true, but not an argument for restricting it. It does stop a large portion of it.


----------



## Madai (Jun 15, 2012)

drache said:


> Okay that was just plain silly the fact is that among serial offenders (which includes the majority of rapists both adults and children) studies have repeatedly shown a clear pattern of escalation.



The majority of rapists are serial rapists???  NO.  Not even close.





A Rapist that is *caught* is unlikely to re-offend.  Of course, there's plenty of rapists out there SIMPLY GETTING AWAY WITH IT.

The majority of rapists are guys who took advantage of a drunk chick, got away with it, and went on to be run-of-the mill ordinary douchebags.



> And super freaken rare as defined by what? Car accidents? Lightening strikes? I think you would be surprised even horrified by the numbers of convicted serial killers in the last 50 years.




51 with over 15 victims, worldwide
121 under 15, worldwide
17 in couples category
18 hospital killers
12 disputered

so... slightly over 200 serial killers since 1900 or so have been caught.

Murders in 2010: 12,996K
car accidents fatalities. 32,885

So YES! serial killers are super freaking rare compared to car accidents and non-serial murder.  And I'm not particularly horrified by serial killers.  I am particularly horrified by the large numbers of people who get away with rape.



> Yes a good number of rapes are committed by someone you know and alcohol often plays a role but to dig your head into the sand and ignore the clear evidence that there is often a period of escalation ranging from fantasies, to peeping, to 'role playing' with an adult to other things, I just don't understand.



From my point of view I'm not digging my head in the sand at all:

Link to your study already.  AFTER, AND ONLY AFTER, you've provided a link to your "preiod of escalation" study then try to explain to me how this "period of escalation" theory can be used without invading privacy or generating hundreds of thousands of false positives.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jun 15, 2012)

One of the bad things about this case was how Lundstr?m was fired from his job as a translator. He was the official Swedish translator of One Piece, and his translation was pretty great. It had some weird stuff (Brukk instead of Brooke, Uranotopia instead of Skypea etc. etc) but also a great deal of awesomeness... Tokmunken, Bl?ppa etc. etc.


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 15, 2012)

i've always heard the majority of rapists are serial rapists too


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 15, 2012)

And the pedophiles rejoiced. 

By the way, if this ruling made you excited because you want to look at this stuff, you are a p*d*p****. The simple attraction to children of any type (including dramatic representations) makes you one. Have a nice day.


----------



## αce (Jun 15, 2012)

I agree with the court but given the rating on this thread I detect pedo's


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 15, 2012)

Good for Sweden. Artists who draw fictional people doing things don't belong in a jail cell with someone who rapes an actual child.


----------



## Evil Ghost Ninja (Jun 15, 2012)

Ben Tennyson said:


> no one touching my Gwen Tennyson hentai.



Best post in the thread.


----------



## lucky (Jun 15, 2012)

4chan loli's can breathe easy now.


----------



## Revolution (Jun 15, 2012)

Exactly what pictures was he charged for?  If they are pictures of girls being raped, thats questionable.  But if its _Japanese manga_, then why is he charged in the first place?


----------



## Evil Ghost Ninja (Jun 15, 2012)

lucky said:


> 4chan loli's can breathe easy now.



4chans servers are hosted in Sweden?


----------



## Butō Rengoob (Jun 16, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And the pedophiles rejoiced.
> 
> By the way, if this ruling made you excited because you want to look at this stuff, you are a p*d*p****. The simple attraction to children of any type (including dramatic representations) makes you one. Have a nice day.


Man...you couldn't be anymore wrong.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 16, 2012)

Butō Rengoob said:


> Man...you couldn't be anymore wrong.



No, I couldn't be anymore right, because I can read a definition.


----------



## Butō Rengoob (Jun 16, 2012)

You're entitled to believe as you will but it doesn't make you right.


----------



## cnorwood (Jun 16, 2012)

I dont get it.....
"I am turned on by something that is supposed to look exactly like a naked child's body, but I am not turned on by a naked child"

im pretty sure someone who is attracted to loli hentai likes children, the same way someone who is attracted to grown female hentai is attracted to grown females


----------



## Butō Rengoob (Jun 16, 2012)

cnorwood said:


> I dont get it.....
> "I am turned on by something that is supposed to look exactly like a naked child's body, but I am not turned on by a naked child"
> 
> im pretty sure someone who is attracted to loli hentai likes children, the same way someone who is attracted to grown female hentai is attracted to grown females


Well one thing that's wrong, Lolis do *not *look exactly like children. If you saw a child with the face, eyes, mouth and in most cases hair of a drawn loli you'd think they have some kind of genetic deformity. People also believe that loli only adheres to flat chested, narrow hipped, etc. I've seen loli with huge tits and wide hips and with big asses. Not to mention age is not within the definition of loli, you have clear cases of women with the bodies of Loli yet their age defines them as women. Also you can google Toonophilia, which is attraction to drawn and/or animated characters.

The way i see it, they are over dramatized and over sexualized characters that loosely resemble children. You get artists who draw to the exact specifications of real children but they're reaching a niche of the fanbase.

My two cents.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 16, 2012)

Butō Rengoob said:


> Well one thing that's wrong, Lolis do *not *look exactly like children. If you saw a child with the face, eyes, mouth and in most cases hair of a drawn loli you'd think they have some kind of genetic deformity. People also believe that loli only adheres to flat chested, narrow hipped, etc. I've seen loli with huge tits and wide hips and with big asses. Not to mention age is not within the definition of loli, you have clear cases of women with the bodies of Loli yet their age defines them as women. Also you can google Toonophilia, which is attraction to drawn and/or animated characters.
> 
> The way i see it, they are over dramatized and over sexualized characters that loosely resemble children. You get artists who draw to the exact specifications of real children but they're reaching a niche of the fanbase.
> 
> My two cents.



It's funny how you spring this bullshit and then on the other hand when people are called out for liking cartoon porn their first defense is that it's just a representation of ideal people doing things people can't do. 

You can't have it both fucking ways.


----------



## TSC (Jun 16, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> so we should lock up people who may potentially hurt people in the future because of some psych profiling?



Sounds like The Maggot Nest from Bleach.




cnorwood said:


> I was saying that you cant say that this stops molesters. Most murderers and rapists start murdering and raping because fantasizing isn't enough, and they need to do the real thing.



Actually murderers and rapist commit the crime because of form of power and domination. That's the true name and definition behind rape. Power control. The thing about rape isn't just to have sex with particular person, but to have control over them. That's real reason why child sex/rape is so taboo. You have an adult who knows what he's doing, have power control, and completely takes over the child who is weaker, defenseless, and also naive of situation he/she receiving.



jklsemicolon said:


> I _can_ say it stops molesters, because it _does_ stop molesters. There is a considerable body of scientific literature on this. The more available pornography is in a country, the lower rates of sex crime that country has. This is a fact, not an argument.



yeah it is bit true. Japan has some of the lowest sex rates right now and yet also has some of the largest hentai/lolicon.


----------



## Butō Rengoob (Jun 16, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's funny how you spring this bullshit and then on the other hand when people are called out for liking cartoon porn their first defense is that it's just a* representation of ideal people doing things people can't do*.
> 
> You can't have it both fucking ways.


Because...that's exactly what it is. If i kill people in GTA then am i a fucking murderer? Same god damned thing dude. It's a fantasy, not everyone that faps to Anthropomorphs goes out and fucks animals or dresses up in an animal costume and pretends they are such. Not everyone that faps to monster girls is gonna enjoy the idea of fucking a half spider (best example) half human creature. Not everyone that enjoys fapping to rape is gonna rape someone. Not everyone that faps to guro is gonna find physically mutilating their partner appealing. Not everyone that faps to Futa is gonna consider having sex with a transexual. Some people know how to disassociate the fantasy from the reality.

I'm not gonna be told that i'm a p*d*p**** or a child molester because i enjoy the occasional fap to Loli when in reality i can't even stand kids let alone find them attractive.

So if you believe that your definition is right then maybe i'm the exception to your rule.


----------



## TSC (Jun 16, 2012)

CTK is technically right though. By pure definition, a p*d*p**** is a person that likes kids. That actually doesn't really just means only love to have sex with them. Just Likes kids(in general). The same way a bibliophile is a person who loves books. Doesn't means person love to fuck books.

It's just that the name p*d*p**** having to become so synonymous with adult sexually loving kids that it now become integrate in our society and our minds now as the only definition.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jun 16, 2012)




----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 16, 2012)

Butō Rengoob said:


> Because...that's exactly what it is. If i kill people in GTA then am i a fucking murderer? Same god damned thing dude. It's a fantasy, not everyone that faps to Anthropomorphs goes out and fucks animals or dresses up in an animal costume and pretends they are such. Not everyone that faps to monster girls is gonna enjoy the idea of fucking a half spider (best example) half human creature. Not everyone that enjoys fapping to rape is gonna rape someone. Not everyone that faps to guro is gonna find physically mutilating their partner appealing. Not everyone that faps to Futa is gonna consider having sex with a transexual. Some people know how to disassociate the fantasy from the reality.
> 
> I'm not gonna be told that i'm a p*d*p**** or a child molester because i enjoy the occasional fap to Loli when in reality i can't even stand kids let alone find them attractive.
> 
> So if you believe that your definition is right then maybe i'm the exception to your rule.



No, you're a p*d*p****. Like TSC said, text book definition says that liking X makes you Y. So even if you never act on the like or tell anyone, you're no less Y. 

I point this out because your reaction shows that even you don't like what you are and even if it's legally alright to be a pedo looking at manufactured pedo porn, you don't like it. Fantasy or not. Otherwise you wouldn't be trying to combat me over it. 

If someone says "you like legs" I'm not going to spend any time arguing with them, I'll just be like "Hell yeah!"


----------



## Butō Rengoob (Jun 16, 2012)

TSC said:


> CTK is technically right though. By pure definition, a p*d*p**** is a person that likes kids. That actually doesn't really just means only love to have sex with them. Just Likes kids(in general). The same way a bibliophile is a person who loves books. Doesn't means person love to fuck books.
> 
> It's just that the name p*d*p**** having to become so synonymous with adult sexually loving kids that it now become integrate in our society and our minds now as the only definition.


*As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia, or **paedophilia, is defined as a  in  or late   (persons age 16 or older) typically characterized by a primary or  exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13  years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary).
* 
Keyword here being sexual. The act of having sex with a child is not the definition of a p*d*p****, the primary/exclusive sexual interest in a child aged under 13 years. Like, being an incredibly vague term, is not applicable.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No, you're a p*d*p****.


 No i'm not. Oh and even if we base this off of your insinuation that i must be a p*d*p**** since i like Loli i still wouldn't be as it's neither my primary or exclusive sexual attraction.



> Like TSC said, text book definition says that liking X makes you Y. So even if you never act on the like or tell anyone, you're no less Y.


Again not true, A>B>C does not work and is not a valid explanation why some one wins a battle. So X does not equal Y.



> I point this out because your reaction shows that even you don't like what you are and even if it's legally alright to be a pedo looking at manufactured pedo porn, you don't like it. Fantasy or not. Otherwise you wouldn't be trying to combat me over it.
> 
> If someone says "you like legs" I'm not going to spend any time arguing with them, I'll just be like "Hell yeah!"


So then i killed people in GTA, i'm a murderer? Same thing according to your very own words.


----------



## dummy plug (Jun 16, 2012)

if they are drawings then i dont see any wrong in it...


----------



## Mathias124 (Jun 16, 2012)

Mijuu said:


> You assume a lot.



Next time ill make a hypothetical scenario without assumptions... 

Ofc i assume a lot when im crafting a scenario are you high?


----------



## Ben Tennyson (Jun 16, 2012)

lolicon hentai is best hentai.


----------



## Fojos (Jun 16, 2012)

cnorwood said:


> yea loli isnt real child porn, but i think it still really fucking wierd



And some people want to ban everything that's "fucking weird".

Bunch of damn thought-crime morons in this thread. Move to fucking Airstrip One already.


----------



## drache (Jun 16, 2012)

jklsemicolon said:


> The fact that rapists and murderers escalate their thrills in no way indicates that the availability of pornography or violent media _caused_ that escalation. What you are _actually_ pointing out, is that the availability of pornography does not stop all sex crimes. That is true, but not an argument for restricting it. It does stop a large portion of it.



Actually what I am pointing out is escalation is a fact for offenders of this type and this very well could be part of the escalation. That said I would love to see you support that statement that allowing child porn stops a large portion of offenders.



Madai said:


> The majority of rapists are serial rapists???  NO.  Not even close.





> Rapists are more likely to be serial criminals than serial rapists. In one study, 46% of rapists who were released from prison were rearrested within 3 years of their release for another crime -- 18.6% for a violent offense, 14.8% for a property offense, 11.2% for a drug offense and 20.5% for a public-order offense. (2002 RPR94)




unforunately that doesn't help too much

I looked for more information but the records don't have a clear way of supporting this, I can provide antecedal evidence but of course that is not quite the same.

So while I don't agree I can't find enough evidence to support my position, then again I don't think you can prove your counter point either so we'll have to agree to disagree.



Madai said:


> A Rapist that is *caught* is unlikely to re-offend.  Of course, there's plenty of rapists out there SIMPLY GETTING AWAY WITH IT.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## αce (Jun 16, 2012)

lolicon is fucking disgusting
defend it all you want, and yes it isn't child porn, doesn't matter

but anyone who gets off to that shit has serious problems
and they probably got mad reading this...

just admit your a pedo and get over with it


----------



## jklsemicolon (Jun 16, 2012)

drache said:


> Actually what I am pointing out is escalation is a fact for offenders of this type and this very well could be part of the escalation. That said I would love to see you support that statement that allowing child porn stops a large portion of offenders.


But "part of the escalation" doesn't actually have anything to do with anything. It's about as relevant to point out that rapists eat food. Food doesn't make them commit the crime, and neither does the porn.

Just google for "pornography and rape", you'll get tons of hits.



♠Ace♠ said:


> lolicon is fucking disgusting
> defend it all you want, and yes it isn't child porn, doesn't matter
> 
> but anyone who gets off to that shit has serious problems


What serious problems do they have?


----------



## Kazeshini (Jun 16, 2012)

This is why we have Hentai people.


----------



## Gin (Jun 16, 2012)

Live and let live.   There are a good many reasons why pedophilia is a whole lot worse than liking "young-looking" cartoon girls.


----------



## drache (Jun 16, 2012)

jklsemicolon said:


> But "part of the escalation" doesn't actually have anything to do with anything. It's about as relevant to point out that rapists eat food. Food doesn't make them commit the crime, and neither does the porn.
> 
> Just google for "pornography and rape", you'll get tons of hits.
> 
> ...



your objection is absurd everyone eats food not everyone views child porn or rape porn.

If you have an actual point let me know


----------



## reiatsuflow (Jun 16, 2012)

The correlation here can't be ignored, and it's more than thought crimes. There should be certain issues for certain sexual proclivities where a person has to actively seek it out and obtain material for it - that's not a thought crime. It's closer to the obscenity laws the US has. Granted, I'm a little bit nervous of this because I'm an anime fan and any anime fan who browses the web runs across some objectionable stuff. A lot of the avatars and sigs on this very website are strange and borderline, and if I was randomly targeted they could probably find some obscenities stored somewhere in my computer (having just read through a lot of Berserk). But I don't think it should be punished to the degree we see in places like the US. It shouldn't be criminalized either, and is more of a behavioral issue than a substantive transgression. Before we get ahead of ourselves we have to remember that we criminalize these things because they endanger society. I'm not yet convinced drawn material endangers any society _in any way_.

For me, that's case closed. Convince me drawings endanger a society and show me examples. This basically amounts to us objecting to other people's arousal, which is fine (and understandable, considering how strange the privacy and accessibility online allows our sexual curiosities to go in all sorts of obscene directions). But I should acknowledge that and not want to criminalize it. I acknowledged the correlation between somebody who has folders and folders of loli on their computer, but there are also correlations to draw for men who are drawn to violent gore films, yet most of us should be aghast to the idea of jailing someone for watching obscene movies.


----------



## αce (Jun 16, 2012)

> What serious problems do they have?



Other than ejaculating to girls who look like they are 10?


----------



## jklsemicolon (Jun 16, 2012)

drache said:


> your objection is absurd everyone eats food not everyone views child porn or rape porn.
> 
> If you have an actual point let me know


It's not absurd. Too bad if you don't get it.

I've let you know of my point several times.



♠Ace♠ said:


> Other than ejaculating to girls who look like they are 10?


Why is that a problem?


----------



## drache (Jun 16, 2012)

jklsemicolon said:


> It's not absurd. Too bad if you don't get it.
> 
> I've let you know of my point several times.
> 
> ...



you have no point your argument is reductio ad absurdum and it utterly fails

if you find a point let me know


----------



## DeLarge (Jun 16, 2012)

There's no real correlation between jacking off to lolicon and pedophilia. Saying otherwise is blatantly absurd, given the amount of individuals who partake in such activities and never fuck a child. 

The stench of bullshit lingers in the air, mostly stemming from CTK.


----------



## jklsemicolon (Jun 16, 2012)

drache said:


> you have no point your argument is reductio ad absurdum and it utterly fails
> 
> if you find a point let me know



Good for you, you know the term reductio ad absurdum. Too bad you don't know what it means.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 17, 2012)

Butō Rengoob said:


> So then i killed people in GTA, i'm a murderer? Same thing according to your very own words.



Proof you don't understand anything going on in any of my posts. Congratulations for being completely unable to read simple words. 

By your own argument, I must think that beating off is fucking. 

But you see I'm not a complete idiot. I understand that p*d*p**** means someone who is attracted to children and it doesn't have to be any actual act with a child other than being attracted to them. 

All other bullshit you're spewing is just that. 

It is cute to see all the pedophiles around here frothing at the mouth and negging people due to their attraction to children--animated or otherwise. I'm looking at you DeLarge. 



DeLarge said:


> There's no real correlation between jacking off  to lolicon and pedophilia. Saying otherwise is blatantly absurd, given  the amount of individuals who partake in such activities and never fuck a  child.
> 
> The stench of bullshit lingers in the air, mostly stemming from CTK.



Sorry, if you beat off to lolicon you're a p*d*p****.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Jun 17, 2012)

Frankly, I hate lolicon and find the obsession with loli extremely weird.....but it is FICTIONAL !


If it were real underage people being exposed in such a matter, then yes that should be illegal.


----------



## kidgogeta (Jun 17, 2012)

Doujin Moe once a week keeps the pedo urges away and that's only IF that person is attracted to real prepubescents ( stop arguing that all of them are) Why would you want to take away a harmless outlet?

There are bigger problems that fuck over way more children like second hand smoke and obesity due to irresponsible parents but for some reason this forum is notorious for a large number of pages when it comes to this topic.


----------



## Butō Rengoob (Jun 17, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Proof you don't understand anything going on in any of my posts. Congratulations for being completely unable to read simple words.
> 
> By your own argument, I must think that beating off is fucking.
> 
> ...


So if you understand the correct definition then you know lolis aren't children correct? Then i can't be a p*d*p****. So you can go ahead and retract your statement.


----------



## DeLarge (Jun 17, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It is cute to see all the pedophiles around here frothing at the mouth and negging people due to their attraction to children--animated or otherwise. I'm looking at you DeLarge.



When did i ever say that i fap to loli ? Oh that's right, i didn't, that's just your moronic presupposition. This is the equivalent of homophobes accusing gay rights supporters of being closet homosexuals themselves.

I don't even have to point out you're stupidity, the singular act of you posting is a testament to your ignorance.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> But you see I'm not a complete idiot.



Yeah you are.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jun 17, 2012)




----------



## αce (Jun 17, 2012)

The loli fappers are pretty angry


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 18, 2012)

♠Ace♠ said:


> The loli fappers are pretty angry


I know right, and they can't come up with reasonable ways to deny what I'm saying because people who beat off the cartoons have been saying for a long time its a representation of real things they like and or can't have.



DeLarge said:


> When did i ever say that i fap to loli ? Oh  that's right, i didn't, that's just your moronic presupposition. This is  the equivalent of homophobes accusing gay rights supporters of being  closet homosexuals themselves.
> 
> I don't even have to point out you're stupidity, the singular act of you posting is a testament to your ignorance.



Lol, unlike gays which are grown people doing something legally and mentally sound, you're trying to defend the right to kind of want to fuck kids, real or imagined. No one does that without wanting to fuck kids normally.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Jun 18, 2012)

Jokes on you guys: Sweden has a civil law system. There's no real judicial review or _stares decrisis_ unlike in the US and other common law systems. What it will likely mean is that parliament will end up amending the act in the face of contradictory judicial interpretations.


----------



## Butō Rengoob (Jun 18, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I know right, and they can't come up with reasonable ways to deny what I'm saying because people who beat off the cartoons have been saying for a long time its a representation of real things they like and or can't have.


I've already disproven you and you always resort to your own misinterpretation of the definition of pedophilia. I mean i didn't know ink on paper could be considered a real child or adult for that matter  do cartoons have rights now as well?

But please do continue on in your ignorance, it's funny to watch you stumble and bullshit your way through an argument.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 18, 2012)

Butō Rengoob said:


> I've already disproven you and you always resort to your own misinterpretation of the definition of pedophilia. I mean i didn't know ink on paper could be considered a real child or adult for that matter  do cartoons have rights now as well?
> 
> But please do continue on in your ignorance, it's funny to watch you stumble and bullshit your way through an argument.


You haven't disprov*ed* shit with the exception of your lack of knowledge of what the word p*d*p**** means. All that's needed to be a p*d*p**** is thought, look it the fuck up, post a definition that support the bullshit you're spewing because other reputable posters and the dictionary agree with me, your bitching doesn't change the fucking English language.



AN ADULT WHO IS SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO YOUNG CHILDREN.Doesn't matter if they kids are imagined, if you fantasize about anything else, it's accepted that you are attracted to that. That's what fantasies are for, you don't beat off to things that you don't like, that doesn't make sense. Therefore the point stands. Prove me wrong for real or shut up.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Jun 18, 2012)

Butō Rengoob said:


> I've already disproven you and you always resort to your own misinterpretation of the definition of pedophilia. I mean i didn't know ink on paper could be considered a real child or adult for that matter  do cartoons have rights now as well?
> 
> But please do continue on in your ignorance, it's funny to watch you stumble and bullshit your way through an argument.



No, a p*d*p**** is anyone who has a sexual desire for prepubescents.

_Pederasty_ is when they act on those urges


----------



## Butō Rengoob (Jun 18, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You haven't disprov*ed* shit with the exception of your lack of knowledge of what the word p*d*p**** means. All that's needed to be a p*d*p**** is thought, look it the fuck up, post a definition that support the bullshit you're spewing because other reputable posters and the dictionary agree with me, your bitching doesn't change the fucking English language.


*As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia, or **paedophilia, is defined as a  in  or late    (persons age 16 or older) typically characterized by a primary or   exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13   years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary).

*Already posted but since you ask for it again. Now tell me where this includes ink on paper?

@ Jello, now prove to me where it says the term loli is exclusive to prepubescents? Because it isn't and never was.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 18, 2012)

Jello Biafra said:


> No, a p*d*p**** is anyone who has a sexual desire for prepubescents.
> 
> _Pederasty_ is when they act on those urges


I didn't even know that word, but the thing that some people aren't getting is that we're not talking about crime. It's not a crime to think something like this, but it doesn't change what the person is.



Butō Rengoob said:


> *As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia, or **paedophilia, is defined as a  in  or late     (persons age 16 or older) typically characterized by a primary or    exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13    years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary).
> 
> *Already posted but since you ask for it again. Now tell me where this includes ink on paper?



That's a medical definition, we're not taking about medical definitions we're talking about the root word as it's most commonly used. Thanks for proving your total lack of knowledge about what words are and any kind of etymology. p*d*p**** wasn't intended as a medical term when it was first coined, that came later. I can find a medical definition of gayness if I go back far enough, you're not changing the commonly held definition of the word.

Even then, the medical definition doesn't say they have to act on it. So you just posted a more complex version of what I already said, proving me right.


----------



## Mintaka (Jun 18, 2012)

Isn't pedastry only between men and boys?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 18, 2012)

Mintaka said:


> Isn't pedastry only between men and boys?


Pedastry is fucking while crossing streets.


----------



## Butō Rengoob (Jun 18, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That's a medical definition, we're not taking about medical definitions we're talking about the root word as it's most commonly used. Thanks for proving your total lack of knowledge about what words are and any kind of etymology. p*d*p**** wasn't intended as a medical term when it was first coined, that came later. I can find a medical definition of gayness if I go back far enough, you're not changing the commonly held definition of the word.


You've yet to prove that ink on paper is a child. The only common link between lolis and real children is body type which, as i have already explained, is not always the case. If we're arguing age here than again, it's not always the case. Loli does *not* exclusively mean a prepubescent age. Konata from Lucky Star is 18 yet has an under developed body.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Jun 18, 2012)

Butō Rengoob said:


> @ Jello, now prove to me where it says the term loli is exclusive to prepubescents? Because it doesn't and never has.


Yeah, it kind of has, considering the archetype, the eponymous character from the Vladimir Nabkorov novel, was prepubescent. Postpubescents are only grouped in for convenience sake, and I'm fairly sure that's a minority within loli fans and artists. 

I've never once heard a loli fan say "Ew, just stick with the young girls who've already hit puberty and are starting to look adult"


----------



## Jello Biafra (Jun 18, 2012)

Butō Rengoob said:


> You've yet to prove that ink on paper is a child. The only common link between lolis and real children is body type which, as i have already explained, is not always the case. If we're arguing age here than again, it's not always the case. Loli does *not* exclusively mean a prepubescent age. Konata from Lucky Star is 18 yet has an under developed body.



Konata is also a fictional character in a two-dimensional medium. Loli doesn't mean flatchested.


----------



## Butō Rengoob (Jun 18, 2012)

Jello Biafra said:


> Yeah, it kind of has, considering the archetype, the eponymous character from the Vladimir Nabkorov novel, was prepubescent. Postpubescents are only grouped in for convenience sake, and I'm fairly sure that's a minority within loli fans and artists.


The term Loli, as used by the Japanese for any girl/woman that is underdeveloped has most certainly evolved since it's conception. Any girl that has an underdeveloped body, regardless of age (be it 10, 15, 30 even unto thousands of years, etc.) is considered a Loli.



> I've never once heard a loli fan say "Ew, just stick with the young girls who've already hit puberty and are starting to look adult"


I myself am a fan of loli, occasionally fapping to it, but it's not my primary sexual attraction nor am I attracted to real children. To some I might be an exception, maybe I am. All I know is what I am and am not attracted to.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 18, 2012)

Butō Rengoob said:


> I myself am a fan of loli, occasionally fapping to it, but it's not my primary sexual attraction nor am I attracted to real children. To some I might be an exception, maybe I am. All I know is what I am and am not attracted to.



Case closed, that's pedophilia. Thanks for playing.


----------



## Butō Rengoob (Jun 18, 2012)

Jello Biafra said:


> Konata is also a fictional character in a two-dimensional medium. Loli doesn't mean flatchested.


No, it means underdeveloped body, regardless of age, hence not always a child if we're going by the Japanese standard usage of the term which is the most common.

I've been arguing that Lolis aren't children unless you account age, which even then shouldn't matter, it's ink on paper and not real.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Jun 18, 2012)

Butō Rengoob said:


> No, it means underdeveloped body, regardless of age, hence not always a child if we're going by the Japanese standard usage of the term which is the most common.
> 
> I've been arguing that Lolis aren't children unless you account age, which even then shouldn't matter, it's ink on paper and not real.



No, age has everything to do with it. Those others are merely ways to get around the inherent squick that the fetish brings. Lolicon has _always_ been straight up pedophilia, and there's no way around this. 

Seriously, you're trying to argue against the definition by trying to provide very narrow exceptions to the general definition. But like Cicero said over two thousand years ago, _exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis_. They're only exceptions because the rule exists, and they've been shunted in there because that's the place they best fit.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 18, 2012)

Butō Rengoob said:


> It's like talking to an ignorant brick wall that thinks it's right
> 
> I'm done with you, you can't prove ink on paper is a real child and yet you continue arguing with "I'm right you're wrong so there!".



No, I'm right because I have a definition backing me up so there is more like it. I'm not having to prove it's a real child. I'm just having to prove that you're knowingly attracted to something that's generally meant to represent children, whether it be ink on paper or anything else (like a statue of one or a girl who's age you're not sure of but looks too much like a child and that's the reason you're interested in her).


----------



## Butō Rengoob (Jun 18, 2012)

Jello Biafra said:


> No, age has everything to do with it. Those others are merely ways to get around the inherent squick that the fetish brings. Lolicon has _always_ been straight up pedophilia, and there's no way around this.


Konata is a loli and is 18 years old, how do you explain this then? And she is most definitely a loli, she even states this in the damn show itself.

I find it strange that you can't believe that the word has evolved to a broader definition. There are numerous instances where *women*, those of an adult age, have under developed bodies and are referred to as Lolis yet they can't be according to you because their age doesn't fit, so then what the fuck are they?

And lol at you arguing what is and isn't loli with the lolicon.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 18, 2012)

Butō Rengoob said:


> Konata is a loli and is 18 years old, how do you explain this then? And she is most definitely a loli, she even states this in the damn show itself.
> 
> I find it strange that you can't believe that the word has evolved to a broader definition. There are numerous instances where *women*, those of an adult age, have under developed bodies and are referred to as Lolis yet they can't be according to you because their age doesn't fit, so then what the fuck are they?



If Loli means underaged girl, then she's full of shit. We're not going to take a show's definition of something, we're going to take the real one. Loli comes from the word Lolita, which is about a book with an all too obviously underaged girl. 



You're fighting an up hill battle, except that hill is a sheer cliff face the height of Everest. You can win because you started off with a literal "no true scotsman".


----------



## Jello Biafra (Jun 18, 2012)

Butō Rengoob said:


> Konata is a loli and is 18 years old, how do you explain this then? And she is most definitely a loli, she even states this in the damn show itself.
> 
> I find it strange that you can't believe that the word has evolved to a broader definition. There are numerous instances where *women*, those of an adult age, have under developed bodies and are referred to as Lolis yet they can't be according to you because their age doesn't fit, so then what the fuck are they?


No she's not. Konata is an 18 year old girl with a flat chest, and a serious complex about it. In no way does that make her a loli. She's way out of the age range, even if she is a substitute that allows people to fap to her with out guilt. 

Even if we were to accept her as a loli, it would do nothing to change the definition. As I previously stated, you're trying to amend exceptions to a general rule, and then claim that changes the rules. People fap to Konanta because she superficially resembles an underage girl. And trying to place exceptions to the rule, who don't really fit except superficially, is a tacit admission that they don't belong in the category in the first place.

So, for the last time: there's a central feature to lolicon: it's prepubescence, and the physical features that come with it. Everything else is trimmings.


----------



## Butō Rengoob (Jun 18, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> If Loli means underaged girl, then she's full of shit. We're not going to take a show's definition of something, we're going to take the real one. Loli comes from the word Lolita, which is about a book with an all too obviously underaged girl.
> 
> 
> 
> You're fighting an up hill battle, except that hill is a sheer cliff face the height of Everest. You can win because you started off with a literal "no true scotsman".


Loli, as the Japanese use it, and i'm not sure why i'm still having to reiterate myself, means a girl of any age with an underdeveloped body. It's become universal.

It's like the word dog, it means a canine, but people use it to describe a friend or whatever. The word has evolved, changed definition, it's origin only describes how it came to be.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Jun 18, 2012)

Butō Rengoob said:


> Loli, as the Japanese use it, and i'm not sure why i'm still having to reiterate myself, means a girl of any age with an underdeveloped body. It's become universal.
> 
> It's like the word dog, it means a canine, but people use it to describe a friend or whatever. The word has evolved, changed definition, it's origin only describes how it came to be.


You keep using the word. It does not mean what you think it means.

Lolicon is Japan means pretty much the same thing as p*d*p****. A "loli" is just the target of a p*d*p****'s paraphilia


Butō Rengoob said:


> That is not just a girl with a flat chest and a complex about it.


She's a Moe blob that's been drawn to almost the same proportions as everyone else her age in the show. 

With the exception of those suffering from debilitating developmental diseases, there aren't prepubescent eighteen year olds.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 18, 2012)

Butō Rengoob said:


> Loli, as the Japanese use it, and i'm not sure why i'm still having to reiterate myself, means a girl of any age with an underdeveloped body. It's become universal.



That's a definition you made up. I just posted the wiki linked to the page about Loli and it says the exact same thing I'm saying to you about the definitions for all these words. I see now that since you got verbally knocked the fuck out with one word, you moved on and started bastardizing a looser, newer term (loli). 



Butō Rengoob said:


> It's like the word dog, it means a canine, but people use it to describe a friend or whatever. The word has evolved, changed definition, it's origin only describes how it came to be.



That's slang and it's spelled dogg. Also, people don't use it because their friends resemble dogs. You're grasping at straws now.


----------



## Butō Rengoob (Jun 18, 2012)

Jello Biafra said:


> You keep using the word. It does not mean what you think it means.


Then explain why, regardless of age, loli is the term used by everyone, or should i say fans of anime/manga, for a girl with an underdeveloped body. Even the people who aren't fans of it.




> She's a Moe blob that's been drawn to almost the same proportions as everyone else her age in the show.


The creator, through Konata, referred to her as a loli, unless you're claiming he doesn't know what a loli is, I choose to trust him.

Anyway, I can't be bothered to argue against ignorance, the "I'm right you're wrong" argument by two people not even apart of the culture and closed views on the matter anymore, my head's fucking killing me and it's not improving my mood. So ridicule the disgusting "p*d*p****". I'm done. I concede. Good day.


----------



## HolyHands (Jun 18, 2012)

On a purely technical level, being attracted to imaginary children still makes you a p*d*p****, so in that sense posters like CTK are correct.

That being said, being a pedo hardly translates to being an actual sexual predator, as from what I've seen, tons of people who enjoy loli either have no interest, or even detest, real-life kids. It's really no different than how people can enjoy killing in video games without being a murderer, or read about rape fantasies without being a rapist. The vast majority of people know the difference between fantasy and reality.

The main reason why lolicons try to avoid the p*d*p**** label is because most people see "p*d*p****" and "child molester" as the same thing, even though there's a huge difference between the two. Once the pedo label is slapped on a person, whether justified or not, that person can say goodbye to any reasonable discussion or treatment. The thread/debate goes to shit once the pedo accusations start flying around, and if we're talking about a person getting accused in real life, they will enjoy constant harassment from their peers. Again, it doesn't matter if the accused person hates real-life kids and would never touch one if he could help it, as long as he's seen as a pedo, rationality goes out the window.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 18, 2012)

HolyHands said:


> On a purely technical level, being attracted to imaginary children still makes you a p*d*p****, so in that sense posters like CTK are correct.
> 
> That being said, being a pedo hardly translates to being an actual sexual predator, as from what I've seen, tons of people who enjoy loli either have no interest, or even detest, real-life kids. It's really no different than how people can enjoy killing in video games without being a murderer, or read about rape fantasies without being a rapist. The vast majority of people know the difference between fantasy and reality.
> 
> The main reason why lolicons try to avoid the p*d*p**** label is because most people see "p*d*p****" and "child molester" as the same thing, even though there's a huge difference between the two. Once the pedo label is slapped on a person, whether justified or not, that person can say goodbye to any reasonable discussion or treatment. The thread/debate goes to shit once the pedo accusations start flying around, and if we're talking about a person getting accused in real life, they will enjoy constant harassment from their peers. Again, it doesn't matter if the accused person hates real-life kids and would never touch one if he could help it, as long as he's seen as a pedo, rationality goes out the window.



Eh, pretty much. I can't be arsed to care on the matter of lolicon other than like with all fictional material, it should not be conflated with the real thing, like GTA for example and made illegal on that basis. I always felt that going after lolicon was a lazy PR stunt, and in a way, an insult to the victims of child molestation. Whether or not the people that consume lolicon hentai are pedophiles or not, I don't really care as I've made my mind up on that. Those that like lolicon can have their fetishes, we can't really do anything about it in itself. What we can do about, and what is (or should be) the concern are the actual children being harmed or exploited, and the individuals abusing them.


----------



## stream (Jun 18, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> If Loli means underaged girl, then she's full of shit. We're not going to take a show's definition of something, we're going to take the real one. Loli comes from the word Lolita, which is about a book with an all too obviously underaged girl.



Quoting from that Wikipedia article:


			
				wikipedia said:
			
		

> *Definition*
> Generally, lolicon manga and anime portray sexual attraction to younger girls or to girls with youthful characteristics. Three kinds of sexual attraction to young people have been identified in adults: pedophilia, preference for prepubescent girls or boys; hebephilia, preference for early pubescent girls or boys (generally 11?14 years old); and ephebophilia, preference for mid-to-late adolescents (generally 15?19 years old).


If we really want to take Wikipedia as authority, then all three kinds of sexual attraction count as lolicon: prepubescent, 11-14 or 15-19. That means, if you are attracted by girls that are 15-19, you would be a lolicon.

Of course, ideally we should not accept the Wikipedia definition, but do a detailed sociological study of what the word means in Japan, and just to be sure, in other countries, because it is certainly different, blah blah blah?

I don't think that Lolita's age in Nabokov's novel is really meaningful, because the definition of words does not necessarily match their etymology.

Anyway, I was trying to inject moderation, but carry on flaming each other


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 18, 2012)

We're not even in here saying it should be illegal. For instance I think the age law should probably be lowered to include sixteen like some states, Canada and the UK. Of course I think the drinking law needs to go lower too and I think that people treat people of sixteen too much like children when they're right on the cusp of adulthood. 

I don't think thinking something is a crime, we were just talking about the word itself.


----------



## Draffut (Jun 18, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No, I'm right because I have a definition backing me up so there is more like it. I'm not having to prove it's a real child. I'm just having to prove that you're knowingly attracted to something that's generally meant to represent children, whether it be ink on paper or anything else (like a statue of one or a girl who's age you're not sure of but looks too much like a child and that's the reason you're interested in her).



Except it's ink on paper, a single drawing could be said to be either a 12 year old or a 22 year old, depending on what the artist wants to claim it is.  Who is to dispute i, especially when you get into the wierd alien and time travel shit and a young looking charetcers can be claimed to be thousands of years old.

So if the artist says the picture is a 12 year old it's illlegal, or bad, or means you are at all atracted to a real child, while the exact same picture of a 22 year old does not lead to the same conclusions?

The whole thing is a rediculous notion.

Again, do people honestly not realise that a child and a drawing look nothing alike?  Are they unable to distinguish fantasy from reality?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 18, 2012)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> Except it's ink on paper, a single drawing could be said to be either a 12 year old or a 22 year old, depending on what the artist wants to claim it is.  Who is to dispute i, especially when you get into the wierd alien and time travel shit and a young looking charetcers can be claimed to be thousands of years old.
> 
> So if the artist says the picture is a 12 year old it's illlegal, or bad, or means you are at all atracted to a real child, while the exact same picture of a 22 year old does not lead to the same conclusions?
> 
> ...



Already explained, if you go out looking for a girl who looks underaged because that's the look you're going for, then that's suspect. 

Also, a I said even further back, if you remember all of those times when someone calls cartoon porn and hentai stupid, all the defenders use the same argument "it's a representation of real things in an idealized fashion or something sexy that's not actually achievable". 

Well you can thank them for shooting the pedophiles in the foot.


----------



## Draffut (Jun 18, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Already explained, if you go out looking for a girl who looks underaged because that's the look you're going for, then that's suspect.



And so that specific look, which looks nothing like an actual child, means you're a pedo?  (sorry if you have to rehash, I am not reading through 160 posts)



> Also, a I said even further back, if you remember all of those times when someone calls cartoon porn and hentai stupid, all the defenders use the same argument "it's a representation of real things in an idealized fashion or something sexy that's not actually achievable".
> 
> Well you can thank them for shooting the pedophiles in the foot.



Who said this now?  Becuase someone said something ever it's the general concensus of an entire community?

Not to mention it's 'not actually achievable'.  It's like tentacle hentai or the like, there is no real parallel in reality.  Super deformed children with enormous heads and completely misshappen features generally don't exist as far as I know.  And if THAT's the reality they are comparing it to, then they have much bigger issues.


----------



## cnorwood (Jun 18, 2012)

You can be a p*d*p**** and not be a sexual predator. If you like fapping to things that look exactly (or really close) to a child's body, I wouldn't be surprised if you were aroused if you saw a real 10 year olds body.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 18, 2012)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> Who said this now?  Becuase someone said something ever it's the general concensus of an entire community?


True, but at the same time it's still important to note that we recognize something as something else only because it looks like something. I mean you can say that a girl from one anime is a badly drawn representation of a child, but the people looking at it know what it is meant to be. 

And how about those hyper realistic children drawings ( I saw someone post one on 4chan that was child porn). The drawing was photo real and would have been beautiful had it not been for content. 



> Not to mention it's 'not actually achievable'.  It's like tentacle hentai or the like, there is no real parallel in reality.  Super deformed children with enormous heads and completely misshappen features generally don't exist as far as I know.  And if THAT's the reality they are comparing it to, then they have much bigger issues.


I mean a person could be turned on by the idea of sex with an octopus. In a world where there was no stigma against it, if a person would engage in it, that might just be the case. 

And just because something isn't possible doesn't mean you can't be turned on by it, some people are turned on by furries or barbed penises and other weird stuff. Those things don't occur in nature, but it doesn't make them out of the running for things to be turned on by.


----------



## TSC (Jun 18, 2012)

HolyHands said:


> On a purely technical level, being attracted to imaginary children still makes you a p*d*p****, so in that sense posters like CTK are correct.
> 
> That being said, being a pedo hardly translates to being an actual sexual predator, as from what I've seen, tons of people who enjoy loli either have no interest, or even detest, real-life kids. It's really no different than how people can enjoy killing in video games without being a murderer, or read about rape fantasies without being a rapist. The vast majority of people know the difference between fantasy and reality.
> 
> The main reason why lolicons try to avoid the p*d*p**** label is because most people see "p*d*p****" and "child molester" as the same thing, even though there's a huge difference between the two. Once the pedo label is slapped on a person, whether justified or not, that person can say goodbye to any reasonable discussion or treatment. The thread/debate goes to shit once the pedo accusations start flying around, and if we're talking about a person getting accused in real life, they will enjoy constant harassment from their peers. Again, it doesn't matter if the accused person hates real-life kids and would never touch one if he could help it, as long as he's seen as a pedo, rationality goes out the window.




This.



I think people arguing with CTK because of the pedo stigma mentality.

As I said before, when going by the pure real definition of p*d*p****, it basically means a person who likes children. In same sense bibliophile is a person who like books. no where in both the definition for p*d*p**** or bibliophile does it even say you have to have have and sexual act upon them or even any sexual attraction even.

p*d*p**** is a person who likes kid. You can likes kids and enjoy playing with kids talk to kids etc and still be called a p*d*p**** without any or even any hint of sexual attraction and perversion.

but like with a lot of words over time, the meaning slowly change it meaning to society and people. And thus once someone calls you a p*d*p****( as society current a meaning of a sexual predator), It's understandable why people like Butō Rengoob is trying to defend his stand against CTK so defensively.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 19, 2012)

TSC said:


> This.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Someone calls you a p*d*p**** because that's what the word means. This relativism bullshit needs to stop, you're now asking people to be politically correct with someone who kind of fantasizes about fucking children. Sorry, pedophiles are pedophiles. The sooner we stop coddling people who whine about stuff like this, the sooner we can move past it.


----------



## TSC (Jun 19, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Someone calls you a p*d*p**** because that's what the word means. This relativism bullshit needs to stop, you're now asking people to be politically correct with someone who kind of fantasizes about fucking children. Sorry, pedophiles are pedophiles. The sooner we stop coddling people who whine about stuff like this, the sooner we can move past it.



Are you saying you don't agree with what I said? Especially the first paragraph? Because Earlier you were agreeing with what I said when I explain to buto what you meant. I basically define p*d*p**** in it's pure pure definition.

-phile |fʌɪl|
comb. form
denoting fondness for a specified thing: bibliophile | Francophile.
ORIGIN from Greek philos ‘loving.’


----------



## Fojos (Jun 19, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> you're trying to defend the right to kind of want to fuck kids, real or imagined. No one does that without wanting to fuck kids normally.



There's a right to want to do anything. Being attracted to children isn't illegal. No thought is illegal (yet, but possibly soon, because most people are morons).

The difference is if you act on your thoughts, most people don't.


Regarding your "discussion": Lolita means innocence and youth, nothing else. It has some to do with age, but a 30-year old could be called the same. Lolicon means you're attracted to innocence, not necessarily always children.


----------



## stream (Jun 19, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Someone calls you a p*d*p**** because that's what the word means. This relativism bullshit needs to stop, you're now asking people to be politically correct with someone who kind of fantasizes about fucking children. Sorry, pedophiles are pedophiles. The sooner we stop coddling people who whine about stuff like this, the sooner we can move past it.


I wonder what you would call people who play Grand Theft Auto?

Anyway, we are used by now to having you jump into threads about loli, and call people pedophiles just to watch them squirm


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 19, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Someone calls you a p*d*p**** because that's what the word means. This relativism bullshit needs to stop, you're now asking people to be politically correct with someone who kind of fantasizes about fucking children. Sorry, pedophiles are pedophiles. The sooner we stop coddling people who whine about stuff like this, the sooner we can move past it.



I'm curious what your proposed solution to pedophiles is.  Start locking people up for thoughts rather than actions?


----------



## Mijuu (Jun 19, 2012)

stream said:


> I wonder what you would call people who play Grand Theft Auto…
> 
> Anyway, we are used by now to having you jump into threads about loli, and call people pedophiles just to watch them squirm





Tsukiyomi said:


> I'm curious what your proposed solution to pedophiles is.  Start locking people up for thoughts rather than actions?



Let's have the Thought Police monitor peoples brain waves 24 hours a day.

*Somebody has a violent fantasy*


*door is kicked in*


"RUH ROH"


"YOU'RE UNDER ARREST FOR FUTURE MURDER AND CANNIBALISM!!!"

Cause ya know, normal people cant play violent computer games or look at _guro_ hentai and are aroused by it (visit gurochan's Death/gore board if you've never heard of it).


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 19, 2012)

I smell delicious shitstorm as the rise of the Pedo Squad vaklyrie assembles to the rescue of the poor predators who want the right to rape what they love

How I wish I had the time to bask in it

NF a kids friendly forum


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 19, 2012)

Banhammer said:


> I smell delicious shitstorm as the rise of the Pedo Squad vaklyrie assembles to the rescue of the poor predators* who want the right to rape what they love*
> 
> How I wish I had the time to bask in it
> 
> NF a kids friendly forum



Correct me if I'm wrong but raping someone would fall under acting and not under thinking.



Banhammer said:


> Ah look at that. People with sick thoughts should be immediately sent to a thought doctor, aka, a therapist, to get rid of the sickness as soon as possible
> 
> *But I guess that infringes on the predator's personal freedoms*
> 
> I mean who do those doctors and CDC think they are? The Bacteria Police?



You don't have the freedom to think whatever you want in your own head?


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 19, 2012)

I'm not against it, but I don't see what's so sexually attractive about a kid having sex when you have petitie woman all around us. But to each their own I guess.


----------



## Mijuu (Jun 19, 2012)

Hand Banana said:


> I'm not against it, but I don't see what's so sexually attractive about a kid having sex when you have petitie woman all around us. But to each their own I guess.




But what if it was _straight shota_ say involving someone and their teacher or their stepmom?

And the people consuming it place themselves (mentally) in the position of the male, and happen to enjoy Ageplay and wincest fantasy?


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 19, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> You don't have the freedom to think whatever you want in your own head?



You also have the freedom to shoot up with any HIV+ needles you can find, but guess what, once you do, you become a liability to society, and should be sanctioned as such


----------



## Mijuu (Jun 19, 2012)

> Location: The Hall Of Lolhalla Troll Kills: 58



_"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."_
— Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil



Tsukiyomi said:


> You don't have the freedom to think whatever you want in your own head?






Banhammer said:


> You also have the freedom to shoot up with any HIV+ needles you can find, but guess what, once you do, you become a liability to society, and should be sanctioned as such




Once again, actions not thoughts.


Just what are you talking about???


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 19, 2012)

You don't, because as long as you play dumb you get to pretend like you've got an argument

you're sick ->need to be treated and isolated from infectious influences
You actively seek out infectious influences -> You're not mentally competent and therefore need to be interned

But please, play it more


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 19, 2012)

Banhammer, I just pictured in mind mind shooting up with a bunch of HIV+ needles.  I didn't do it but I thought about it, pictured it several different ways.  What shall my punishment be?


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 19, 2012)

Mijuu said:


> But what if it was _straight shota_ say involving someone and their teacher or their stepmom?
> 
> And the people consuming it place themselves (mentally) in the position of the male, and happen to enjoy Ageplay and wincest fantasy?



Well regardless if it's straight or homosexual, I can't imagine enjoying watching children have sex. Role playing you're a naughty student doesn't mean you're a child seeing how any adult can go back to school. But again I'm not knocking it, I guess I just lack understanding why would someone fantasize particularly a child. Someone experienced in this would mind explaining why they are comfrontable with fantasizing children in sex media?


----------



## Blue (Jun 19, 2012)

> you're sick ->need to be treated and isolated from infectious influences
> You actively seek out infectious influences -> You're not mentally competent and therefore need to be interned


Here's Banhammer, encouraging kids to commit suicide if they have horrible lives because "it's justified" but calling pedophilia "infectious influences" needing internment.

Killing anyone, including yourself, is as sick as it gets.

You are the infectious influence

Stay classy Hammer


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 19, 2012)

Mijuu said:


> Let's be honest now. What is it USUALLY like



What is it usually like? Just a student/teacher relationship. As a child before, I fantacized about doing things with my teacher. I can't see myself still imagining I'm a child wanting to have sex with an older wonman, when I can just do that now as an adult. To me that's the big difference.

So if a person wants to fantacize a role-playing link between a student and teacher, doesn't necessarily mean they're picturing themselves as kids.


----------



## cnorwood (Jun 19, 2012)

the pedos in this thread are killing me. 
"Yes I like fapping to something that looks like little kids fucking, But Im not a p*d*p****. "

-p*d*p****=/=Child molester. But getting a hard-on to realistic drawings of little kids bodies fucking each other or older people Makes you a fucking pedo. Just like me getting a hard-on to naked chicks or realistic drawings of grown women fucking each other makes me straight.

-Youre a fucking pedo. deal with it. You dont need to get in trouble unless you are fuking little kids or looking at pics of real little kids in danger


----------



## Es (Jun 19, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Here's Banhammer, encouraging kids to commit suicide if they have horrible lives because "it's justified" but calling pedophilia "infectious influences" needing internment.
> 
> Killing anyone, including yourself, is as sick as it gets.
> 
> ...



Thing is a p*d*p**** is still has the desire to harm a fucking child, fictional or not. To someone with common sense someone who fapps to underaged children is seriously fucked up and is a pedo no matter how you fucking cut it. Coddling them and being an enabler (Like most NF Mods) is also pretty fucked up and makes me worry for humanity.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 19, 2012)

Es said:


> Thing is a p*d*p**** is still has the desire to harm a fucking child, fictional or not. To someone with common sense someone who fapps to underaged children is seriously fucked up and is a pedo no matter how you fucking cut it. Coddling them and being an enabler (Like most NF Mods) is also pretty fucked up and makes me worry for humanity.



Again what should the punishment be for THINKING about doing something harmful?


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Jun 19, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> I'm curious what your proposed solution to pedophiles is.  Start locking people up for thoughts rather than actions?



Send them to a mental institution until they recover from their insanity via the Mental Health Act 1983. Problem solved.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 19, 2012)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> Send them to a mental institution until they recover from their insanity via the Mental Health Act 1983. Problem solved.



I see, and will this apply to anyone who thinks of anything bad?


----------



## Es (Jun 19, 2012)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> Send them to a mental institution until they recover from their insanity via the Mental Health Act 1983. Problem solved.



Pretty much. Implying to them it's socially acceptable is being a fucking enabler and making it worse


Tsukiyomi said:


> I see, and will this apply to anyone who thinks of anything bad?


What are you getting at here?


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Jun 19, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> I see, and will this apply to anyone who thinks of anything bad?



No, only people who are mentally ill and dangerous to the public, such as psychopaths and pedophiles.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 19, 2012)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> No, only people who are mentally ill and dangerous to the public, such as psychopaths and pedophiles.



Do you have any evidence that people who download pictures of cartoon children are all imminent threats to the public?


----------



## Es (Jun 19, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Do you have any evidence that people who download pictures of cartoon children are all imminent threats to the public?



There's a good chance of it happening, don't be naive

You expect society should coddle them?


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 19, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Do you have any evidence that people who download pictures of cartoon children are all imminent threats to the public?



Why ask this question when you can just google search it yourself and use the facts you find in your arguments? Do you have proof they don't?

See what I did there?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 19, 2012)

Es said:


> There's a good chance of it happening, don't be naive



If its so obvious then surely you can easily find evidence to back that up.  What are the statistics of people who download these cartoons and go out and rape children vs those that download them and don't?



Hand Banana said:


> Why ask this question when you can just google search it yourself and use the facts you find in your arguments? Do you have proof they don't?
> 
> See what I did there?



So its my job to prove a negative when he made a positive claim?


----------



## Blue (Jun 19, 2012)

Banhammer said:


> Blue Logic:
> Banhammer is scum


Bingo!
But don't let me stop you, keep telling kids suicidal thoughts are normal and suicide isn't something they can help, so they should just go ahead and get it over with.



Es said:


> Thing is a p*d*p**** is still has the desire to harm a fucking child, fictional or not. To someone with common sense someone who fapps to underaged children is seriously fucked up and is a pedo no matter how you fucking cut it. Coddling them and being an enabler (Like most NF Mods) is also pretty fucked up and makes me worry for humanity.


I'm not defending pedophilia, I'm calling out Banhammer on being a puddle of hypocritical splooge.

But nice talking to you, hope to see you again soon.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 19, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> If its so obvious then surely you can easily find evidence to back that up.  What are the statistics of people who download these cartoons and go out and rape children vs those that download them and don't?
> 
> 
> 
> So its my job to prove a negative when he made a positive claim?



Yea, it's called research. And if he/she does provide stats, you're just going to disprove it like you normally do.


----------



## Es (Jun 19, 2012)

> Bingo!
> But don't let me stop you, keep telling kids suicidal thoughts are normal and suicide isn't something they can help, so they should just go ahead and get it over with.



Blue take that shit somewhere else. I've had friends who have threatened suicide and I managed to talk him out. It's not something you should be overly harsh about or you'll make shit worse. That was his point


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 19, 2012)

Hand Banana said:


> Yea, it's called research. And if he/she does provide stats, you're just going to disprove it like you normally do.



They made a claim that they're imminently dangerous to society, so its on THEM to provide evidence to back it up.  Its not on me to provide evidence to prove the negative of what they're saying.


----------



## Stalin (Jun 19, 2012)

Thing is lolicon and shotacon have quite a following and if people who find it attractive are pedophiles, then that means there are more pedos than we think.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 19, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Bingo!
> But don't let me stop you, keep telling kids suicidal thoughts are normal and suicide isn't something they can help, so they should just go ahead and get it over with.


These words you are putting in my mouth

They are almost as delicious as the clown image you make of yourself every time you try to sound witty
Almost


> I'm not defending pedophilia, I'm calling out Banhammer on being a puddle of hypocritical splooge.


You're trying Cherri

You sure are trying




Hey, maybe I could keep on lulzing as you try to champion pedophiles and bash victims of mental ilness, but what if I instead do other fun things like read the child porn mod convo thread leak where so many others do it for me?
Would you mind or does the thinly veiled attempt at faux superiority you fart with every word gets to undermined by that?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 19, 2012)

Banhammer said:


> Maybe if Tsukiomi shouts BAAAAAAAAD every time someone says "Sick" it will stick
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The point is you can't punish someone for something that is only in their thoughts.  Thoughts can't harm anyone, its impossible.  Only if they put it into action can it be dangerous and harmful and at that point punishment is appropriate.

If you start punishing people for their thoughts then there is no telling where it will end.  Until relatively recently homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder and by your standards anyone who has ever had homosexual thoughts could have been locked up.


----------



## Es (Jun 19, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> The point is you can't punish someone for something that is only in their thoughts.  Thoughts can't harm anyone, its impossible.  Only if they put it into action can it be dangerous and harmful and at that point punishment is appropriate.
> 
> If you start punishing people for their thoughts then there is no telling where it will end.  Until relatively recently homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder and by your standards anyone who has ever had homosexual thoughts could have been locked up.



Thing is a consenting adult having a relationship with another consenting adult is different then someone who wants to fuck a underaged child. It's that simple. Your basically saying we should be enablers and not try to cure something that potentially harms fucking children


----------



## Blue (Jun 19, 2012)

> These words you are putting in my mouth


Someone has to put words in your mouth, or nothing comes out but unintelligible insulting bullshit. 



Banhammer said:


> but what if I instead do other fun things like read the child porn mod convo thread leak where so many others do it for me?


Go for it, champ; I haven't posted in the mod convo since 2007 and I have zero clue what you're talking about, nor do I care.
Also keep working on that dyslexia, I can almost understand your sentence structure sometimes.


----------



## Basilikos (Jun 19, 2012)

I see that the "child friendly forum" is alive and well.


----------



## TSC (Jun 19, 2012)

This thread amaze me. From both sides.


----------



## Mijuu (Jun 19, 2012)

Stalin said:


> Thing is lolicon and shotacon have quite a following and if people who find it attractive are pedophiles, then that means there are more pedos than we think.



That's the thing.

And if people who like guro are serial-murder-cannibal-necrophiliacs...well the world just became a much scarrier place didnt it.

Also, if this is so horrible, and this is normal mostly in JAPAN: why are other countries against it not getting on JAPAN'S case?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 19, 2012)

Es said:


> Thing is a consenting adult having a relationship with another consenting adult is different then someone who wants to fuck a underaged child. It's that simple. Your basically saying we should be enablers and not try to cure something that potentially harms fucking children



How exactly is saying you can THINK whatever you want as long as you don't ACT on it "being an enabler"?  Explain that to me please.

You can fantasize about beating the shit out of someone you hate, we don't charge you with assault though unless you actually do it.  Or are you saying that allowing people to think about beating someone up is "enabling them" to commit assault?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 19, 2012)

What are we arguing about exactly?


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 19, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> The point is you can't punish someone for something that is only in their thoughts.


Only a self victimizing predator who is desperately clawing away for validation for his dangerous and devious sickness keeps trying to paste PUNISHMENT over TREATMENT



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Someone has to put words in your mouth, or nothing comes out but unintelligible insulting bullshit.



The sound of a deliciously frustrated staff member showing it's beneath parent's basement level troll of class.
rumble away, bear slayer, rumble away

My favorite sound right up there with bacon in the fryer.


----------



## Es (Jun 19, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> How exactly is saying you can THINK whatever you want as long as you don't ACT on it "being an enabler"?  Explain that to me please.
> 
> You can fantasize about beating the shit out of someone you hate, we don't charge you with assault though unless you actually do it.  Or are you saying that allowing people to think about beating someone up is "enabling them" to commit assault?



Thinking about violence against someone being a dick to you is more socially acceptable then someone who wants to fiddle little kids for one. Violence is within human nature, pedophilia is a mental illness. Nuff fucking said


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 19, 2012)

Not that having violent fantasies is healthy either.
That is a common first symptom in violent sociopaths, found for example in several people who would go on to murder their entire families


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 19, 2012)

Banhammer said:


> Only a self victimizing predator who is desperately clawing away for validation for his dangerous and devious sickness keeps trying to paste PUNISHMENT over TREATMENT



Ah yes the desperate and pathetic attempt to invalidate my arguments by insulting me.



Es said:


> Thinking about violence against someone being a dick to you is more socially acceptable then someone who wants to fiddle little kids for one. Violence is within human nature, pedophilia is a mental illness. Nuff fucking said



So how socially acceptable a _thought_ is determines whether or not you should be able to be locked up for _thinking_ it?  What about in Africa or the Middle East where homosexuality is not even remotely socially acceptable? Would it be acceptable for those countries to lock people up for having homosexual thoughts?



Banhammer said:


> Not that having violent fantasies is healthy either.
> That is a common first symptom in violent sociopaths, found for example in several people who would go on to murder their entire families



What is unhealthy about fantasizing about punching someone who pissed you off but not actually doing it?


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 19, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Ah yes the desperate and pathetic attempt to invalidate my arguments by insulting me.


Ah the the backtalk of someone  who rather use petty complaints to further his argument, rather than his merits





> What is unhealthy about fantasizing about punching someone who pissed you off but not actually doing it?



So the part where systematic fantasies are a known symptom in violent sociopaths
Is that part being ignored for the sake of memetic mutation?


----------



## HolyHands (Jun 19, 2012)

Banhammer said:


> So the part where systematic fantasies are a known symptom in violent sociopaths
> Is that part being ignored for the sake of memetic mutation?



Systematic fantasies to my knowledge are not considered nearly as important as the actual actions a person takes.

Nobody says "possible sociopath" if a person simply has fantasies, mainly because you can't really know a person's fantasies anyway unless they actually reveal them (or you invade their privacy), and also due to the fact that there's no real way to differentiate how many fantasies a person can have before it's deemed abnormal.

A true sociopath or serial killer often shows _actions_ done by them or to them that lead to suspicion, such as: harming animals, extreme anti-social behavior, their socioeconomic status, bullying, abuse from parents. Fetishes alone are never a good enough warning sign.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 19, 2012)

And you keep acting as if I've never made a distinction between a sick person and a criminal
Someone who is fucked up in the head and their brain chem, and someone who hurts people with his disease

That vehemently blind bias in reading my argument for the sake of self victimization goes only to show how thin the line between all the rape fantasizer and reality really is, but does not invalidate the point


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 19, 2012)

Banhammer said:


> And you keep acting as if I've never made a distinction between a sick person and a criminal
> Someone who is fucked up in the head and their brain chem, and someone who hurts people with his disease
> 
> That vehemently blind bias in reading my argument for the sake of self victimization goes only to show how thin the line between all the rape fantasizer and reality really is, but does not invalidate the point



You're advocating _forcing_ people in to therapy for thoughts they're having that they don't put into actions.  If they aren't ever _acting_ on those thoughts then what exactly is the point of putting them in therapy?


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 19, 2012)

I never said you should punish people for having rape fantasies. 
The closest connection you can make is "proper sanctions" which I hold true.
People with HIV+, even those who isn't their fault can't work in certain high risk jobs, or give blood, and pedophiles for example, shouldn't be allowed to work around children, as teachers, or other types of school staff.

But people want to think I said you should punish them, because if they have an oppressor, they have a cause, and if they have a cause, they have a path to acceptability, be it of their sickness or of hurting people with it.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 19, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> You're advocating _forcing_ people in to therapy for thoughts they're having that they don't put into actions.  If they aren't ever _acting_ on those thoughts then what exactly is the point of putting them in therapy?



Did you know that the law defines Risk and Danger as different things?

We heal sick people, but they have the chance to refuse treatment when they don't put the society at risk, like someone with an infectious disease, or someone infected with something while they themselves might be immune to, they may still harm other people

This becomes an even more important matter when the topic at hand is a mental state, and therefore their judgment making decisions are compromised

Pedophiles are a risk, greater than the one presented by any given person on any given time

Until they are healed, they don't have much in the ways of right to refuse treatment

At least, they should be locked well away from higher risk situations


----------



## HolyHands (Jun 19, 2012)

Banhammer said:


> Did you know that the law defines Risk and Danger as different things?
> 
> We heal sick people, but they have the chance to refuse treatment when they don't put the society at risk, like someone with an infectious disease, or someone infected with something while they themselves might be immune to, they may still harm other people
> 
> ...



You're trying to equate diseases with sex fetishes, which is a pretty different issue. Obviously a person with HIV or an infectious disease needs to be restricted.

The problem of course is trying to define a sexual preference as a mental disease. We already tried that with homosexuality, and homosexuality is indeed a mental/chemical imbalance. We only stopped calling it such simply because we don't see gay sex as harmful; it had nothing to do with the actual physical aspects of homosexuality, it was purely a social issue. Pedophilia could start being referred to as a disease to be cured, but then that raises the question as to what to do with every other sexual fetish out there. Do we start treating people with rape fantasies differently? BDSM fetishes? Beastiality fetishes?


----------



## Mijuu (Jun 19, 2012)

Es said:


> Thinking about violence against someone being a dick to you is more socially acceptable then someone who wants to fiddle little kids for one. Violence is within human nature, pedophilia is a mental illness. Nuff fucking said



Maybe it's just within the other negative aspects of human  nature.

*I dont knoooow.............*



*Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Japanese (no surprise), Koreans, and Meso Americans* must have had some sort of culturally bound mental syndrome that was widely accepted. (We just gloss over those parts of Greece and Rome because we just fuckin LOVE THOSE GUYS founders of Western civili-fuckin-zation)

Or its within human nature, the negative parts, just like violence for sport -ala fights to the death in front of massive crowds.




HolyHands said:


> You're trying to equate diseases with sex fetishes, which is a pretty different issue. Obviously a person with HIV or an infectious disease needs to be restricted.
> 
> The problem of course is trying to define a sexual preference as a mental disease. We already tried that with homosexuality, and homosexuality is indeed a mental/chemical imbalance. We only stopped calling it such simply because we don't see gay sex as harmful; it had nothing to do with the actual physical aspects of homosexuality, it was purely a social issue. Pedophilia could start being referred to as a disease to be cured, but then that raises the question as to what to do with every other sexual fetish out there. Do we start treating people with rape fantasies differently? BDSM fetishes? Beastiality fetishes?



Beastality is legal in some states, and there are internet forums just out there in the open about it. I have been there and seen maaaaaaaaaaaaany people wax poetic about tying the "knot" (and that's not marriage).


----------



## cnorwood (Jun 19, 2012)

just to make sure, the people who get sexual arousal from loli/shouta do realize they are pedos right?


----------



## Shukumei (Jun 19, 2012)

Pedos or ephebophiles?


----------



## cnorwood (Jun 19, 2012)

well I dont search for loli/shouta so I dont have the most knowledge on the pictures, but judging from what I have seen from peoples sigs and stuff, the shit i usually see looks like the kids in the sexual pictures are between the ages of 5-12


----------

