# Man faces minimum year in prison due to 'child pornography' manga found on his laptop



## Sanity Check (Jun 25, 2011)

> *The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund today announces that it is forming a coalition to support the legal defense of an American citizen who is facing criminal charges in Canada that could result in a mandatory minimum sentence of one year in prison for comics brought into the country on his laptop.*  This incident is the most serious in a trend the CBLDF has been tracking involving the search and seizure of the print and electronic comic books carried by travelers crossing borders.
> 
> CBLDF Executive Director Charles Brownstein says, “Although the CBLDF can’t protect comic fans everywhere in every situation, we want to join this effort to protect an American comic fan being prosecuted literally as he stood on the border of our country for behavior the First Amendment protects here, and its analogues in Canadian law should protect there.”
> 
> ...





Good to see tax dollars well spent.


----------



## Stunna (Jun 25, 2011)

Wait, loli hentai's illegal now?

inb4 mass disappearance of dozens of NF members.


----------



## Ennoea (Jun 25, 2011)

Why the fuck were they searching through his manga folders to begin with?


----------



## EJ (Jun 25, 2011)

I'm pretty sure this type of stuff was already illegal, but it was mostly in a grey area.


----------



## Clay Man Gumby (Jun 25, 2011)

I can practically hear the rectums of NF members tightening at the very moment.


----------



## Santo (Jun 25, 2011)

What the fuck?

This is retarded.


----------



## Sanity Check (Jun 25, 2011)

Stunna said:


> Wait, loli hentai's illegal now?
> 
> inb4 mass disappearance of dozens of NF members.




Awhile ago courts ruled comic depictions of underage nudity could be considered 'child pornography'.

AFAIK, this is the first case where they're attempting to prosecute someone for it.

Customs searched his laptop initially without a warrant which is probably illegal also.  (Though, I don't know for 100% certain.)



Ennoea said:


> Why the fuck were they searching through his manga folders to begin with?



Probably because they need money to offset the deficit and invent more ways to fine people to 'collect funding'?  

Maybe I'm cynical, but that's what I tend to think...


----------



## Mexicano27 (Jun 25, 2011)

Guess I'll have to make sure to delete all my /ss/ comics if I ever decide to go to Canada with my laptop.


----------



## Negative (Jun 25, 2011)

Wait, since when was Lolicon/Shotcon illegal? They are just drawings and nothing more. They are not "real" kids nor have anything in common with those in the real world. 

This is utterly retarded.


Welps, If I ever go to canada, I guess I have to email my stuff


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jun 25, 2011)

~Zaxxon~ said:


> So no driving into Canada with my region-free Kodomo no Jikan dvds.
> 
> 
> Gotcha.



Run Zaxxon RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Moyo (Jun 25, 2011)

lol he smuggled a manga across the border on his laptop. Really he should have sent it over their first lmao.


----------



## Razgriez (Jun 25, 2011)

~Zaxxon~ said:


> So no driving into Canada with my region-free Kodomo no Jikan dvds.
> 
> 
> Gotcha.



Dude. Your sig and avatar will probably get us all arrested in a public area.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 25, 2011)

As questionable as his tastes are, it was fictional content, so I don't really see the validity in charging him with CP...it really is an insult to compare it to that, in which actual children are exploited. Not to mention, a waste of resources.


----------



## martryn (Jun 25, 2011)

This actually scares the shit out of me.  I mean, who knows what sort of shit is hiding on my laptop.  God knows I save enough images.  I'll have to dreg them before I take this thing back overseas with me.


----------



## Razgriez (Jun 25, 2011)

martryn said:


> This actually scares the shit out of me.  I mean, who knows what sort of shit is hiding on my laptop.  God knows I save enough images.  I'll have to dreg them before I take this thing back overseas with me.



Throw a password on it.

There is also the ability to make some folders hidden.


----------



## neko-sennin (Jun 25, 2011)

> This incident is the most serious in a trend the CBLDF has been tracking involving the *search and seizure of the print and electronic* comic books carried by travelers crossing borders.



Wait just a damn minute... What fucking country is this again? 

I swear, both us and Canada are becoming more Assbackwardstan every time I turn my back for a minute... 

...And they still haven't figured out that the internet itself is borderless, making the seizure of individual computers both a waste of money, and a travesty of privacy.

And so the Witch Hunt continues, while real people are violated by real predators out there, they pat themselves on the back for punishing images.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 25, 2011)

Canada... my pride in you sunk a notch


----------



## Griever (Jun 25, 2011)

It warms my heart to know that governments can tell the difference between reality and fiction *runs before i'm arrested for playing first person shooters under conspiracy to commit murder charges.*


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 25, 2011)

the guy was a p*d*p**** and Canada has all kinds of laws about hatecrimes in music and the media, I think its funny. And I also love how people are so quick to defend the pedo, if you look at kids having sex, drawn or otherwise, you're by definition a p*d*p****. Have fun.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 25, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> the guy was a p*d*p**** and Canada has all kinds of laws about hatecrimes in music and the media, I think its funny. And I also love how people are so quick to defend the pedo, if you look at kids having sex, drawn or otherwise, you're by definition a p*d*p****. Have fun.



You really must learn to think a little more critically on this matter. It's the acting on that desire against actual children or consuming material that involves exploitation of living, breathing, children that requires action to be taken against it and the individuals involved in exploiting the children. You do this so many times...no one is defending his tastes, but they are acknowledging that the material he had ultimately is fictional. It's a waste of time and resources to attempt to prosecute him based on that alone.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 25, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You really must learn to think a little more critically on this matter. It's the acting on that desire against actual children or consuming material that involves exploitation of living, breathing, children that requires action to be taken against it and the individuals involved in exploiting the children. You do this so many times...no one is defending his tastes, but they are acknowledging that the material he had ultimately is fictional. It's a waste of time and resources to attempt to prosecute him based on that alone.


Canada tried to kick people like Eminem and Snoop Dogg out for hate crimes, it didn't seem to be on anyone's radar then. 

Just because it involves anime people all of a sudden care. Much like you feel like its a waste of time and resources to prosecute him, I feel like its a waste of time to give a darn.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 25, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Canada tried to kick people like Eminem and Snoop Dogg out for hate crimes, it didn't seem to be on anyone's radar then.



Yes it was! People came to defend them in droves, I especially remember with Eminem's case that was true. 



> Just because it involves anime people all of a sudden care. Much like you feel like its a waste of time and resources to prosecute him, I feel like its a waste of time to give a darn.



You're getting it wrong. Because it involves anime, because it's fictional, people feel it's no one's business but his own. It's a waste of time to go after his for CP charges because it's trivializing the actual issue of child exploitation.


----------



## blue berry (Jun 25, 2011)

He's a computer programmer and they found his images...? 

 

Next time try harder at hiding


----------



## abcd (Jun 25, 2011)

The reason why having cp is considered illegal is because it encourages the business for the people who exploit children. There is a massive slippery slope and people are sliding down to the medieval ages


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 25, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> the guy was a p*d*p**** and Canada has all kinds of laws about hatecrimes in music and the media, I think its funny. And I also love how people are so quick to defend the pedo, if you look at kids having sex, drawn or otherwise, you're by definition a p*d*p****. Have fun.



I guess I'm also a sociopathic serial killer because I play first person shooter without remorse or empathy. Doesn't matter that it's fictional, right?


----------



## Jello Biafra (Jun 25, 2011)

In light of this, I've decided, as unelected tyrant of the Cafe, to begin sanitizing the Cafe to the standards provided by Her Majesty's Canadian Government.


----------



## Griever (Jun 25, 2011)

abcd said:


> The reason why having cp is considered illegal is because it encourages the business for the people who exploit children. There is a massive slippery slope and people are sliding down to the medieval ages



True, but in the end real and fake are still two completely different things. For example: i really do like games, movies, manga, anime and so on which has hack and slash gore, however, i do not enjoy seeing autopsy photos and the like. 

Real and fake just don't belong togather.


----------



## abcd (Jun 25, 2011)

Griever said:


> True, but in the end real and fake are still two completely different things. For example: i really do like games, movies, manga, anime and so on which has hack and slash gore, however, i do not enjoy seeing autopsy photos and the like.
> 
> Real and fake just don't belong togather.



thats what i said


----------



## Griever (Jun 25, 2011)

abcd said:


> thats what i said



Well then, nevermind me


----------



## Skywalker (Jun 25, 2011)

Idiot guy.


----------



## tari101190 (Jun 25, 2011)

> True, but in the end real and fake are still two completely different things. For example: i really do like games, movies, manga, anime and so on which has hack and slash gore, however, i do not enjoy seeing autopsy photos and the like.
> 
> Real and fake just don't belong togather.


are you trying to say that child porn is 'ok' as long as it's drawn/animated/fake rather than photographic/real?

child porn in any form should be illegal. can't believe anyone would think otherwise...

dunno why a mans electronic stuff was searched through at customs, but being charged for child porn makes sense.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 25, 2011)

tari101190 said:


> are you trying to say that child porn is 'ok' as long as it's drawn/animated/fake rather than photographic/real?
> 
> child porn in any form should be illegal. can't believe anyone would think otherwise...
> 
> dunno why a mans electronic stuff was searched through at customs, but being charged for child porn makes sense.



Why should it be illegal when it's not real and more importantly why do you think real child porn is illegal in the first place?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 25, 2011)

tari101190 said:


> are you trying to say that child porn is 'ok' as long as it's drawn/animated/fake rather than photographic/real?



1. It's not CP
2. Yes, it's not exploiting actual children.



> child porn in any form should be illegal. can't believe anyone would think otherwise...



It is only CP when living, breathing, children are being exploited. Say all you want about how tasteful something like lolicon or whatever is, and people as suspicious as you like of the individual consuming such material, but at the end of the day, it is fictional and no child was exploited in its production. To go after an individual for possession of content that is entirely fictional is a waste of resources and trivializes the issue of child exploitation.



> dunno why a mans electronic stuff was searched through at customs, but being charged for child porn makes sense.



That's absolutely idiotic. Hey, you watch Bleach I presume? That means you are an accessory to murder! Don't try and deny it!


----------



## xpeed (Jun 25, 2011)

How is it child porn if it's not even an actual child?


----------



## Dionysus (Jun 25, 2011)

Canada has had a socially conservative government since 2006. They don't make sense on a number of social issues, particularly order and justice. For some reason, the Conservatives look at the US justice and prison systems and think, "wow, we have to emulate such a well thought-out machine!" It might be prudent to look elsewhere for intelligence progress on social policies... for at least 4 years.

Anyway. If it's anything you don't want other's to see--illegal or not: 

It's rather bullshit that a drawing can get you into prison, or any sort of criminal trouble. No victims, it's just thoughtcrime.


----------



## Zaru (Jun 25, 2011)

Galactic level bullshit.



martryn said:


> This actually scares the shit out of me.  I mean, who knows what sort of shit is hiding on my laptop.  God knows I save enough images.  I'll have to dreg them before I take this thing back overseas with me.


That's exactly my worry as well. I surely don't have any pictures on my current laptop but I had pretty much my entire image folder on my last one - which I entered the USA with once, too.
If you look hard enough you could probably accuse me of pedophilia, antisemitism, racism, as well as fetishes for muscular japanese cartoon females and naked cartoon hitler with a 20 inch penis. And that's probably not even the worst of it.
The image folder of any average young person could probably compromise a political career at the LEAST, not because they're actually into any of the things saved there, but because those images are simply THERE.


----------



## Evil Ghost Ninja (Jun 25, 2011)

Dionysus said:


> Canada has had a socially conservative government since 2006. They don't make sense on a number of social issues, particularly order and justice. It might be prudent to look elsewhere for intelligence progress on social policies... for at least 4 years.
> 
> Anyway. If it's anything you don't want other's to see--illegal or not:



to add to this they have also had pretty strict obscenity laws when comes to media for a while.


----------



## martryn (Jun 25, 2011)

> Throw a password on it.
> 
> There is also the ability to make some folders hidden.



I don't know how to do that shit.  I have no redeemable skills or qualities.  I'm fucking screwed.


----------



## Dionysus (Jun 25, 2011)

Yeah, there are restrictions on free speech and have been for a long while. It's not easy to be locked away for it though, and few actually run afoul of it despite vast numbers of Canadians spewing hateful speech online. (ie. law enforcement establishment doesn't care unless it's widely broadcast.) It's a travesty in its own right, but nothing compared to the monumental errors that the current Canadian government has recently put through and is planning to put through.

In end, it's quite amazing that I can spend five minutes to draw a picture, or find and download one, and be eligible prison time.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 25, 2011)

martryn said:


> I don't know how to do that shit.  I have no redeemable skills or qualities.  I'm fucking screwed.


You can put a password on folders or hide them:


----------



## Mist Puppet (Jun 25, 2011)

Guess I'm a murderer because I kill some peeps in Mass Effect. I should also be arrested for assault because I punched out a scientist as well as a reporter. 

Come at me, society.


----------



## Kagutsuchi (Jun 25, 2011)

Anon will not be pleased.


----------



## Dionysus (Jun 25, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You can put a password on folders or hide them:




That would just give people a false sense of security. Though, perhaps some police officers are stupid enough to not know what to do and give up.

If you want to secure any data that can be potentially viewed by undesirables, encrypt it with a well-made encryption scheme by a trusted program. TrueCrypt, for instance, can provide high levels of plausible deniability, if you know what you're doing.


----------



## Vegitto-kun (Jun 25, 2011)

lol noob.

truecrypt folder, maximum security + fake truecrypt folder in real truecrypt folder.


if they force you to give a password give them the fake one.


problem solved.


----------



## Jesus (Jun 25, 2011)

When you can get into prison for drawing something, the only term that comes to mind is "absurd".

Thoughtcrime indeed.


----------



## Danchou (Jun 25, 2011)

Why don't they try and catch real crooks?


----------



## hammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Kagutsuchi said:


> Anon will not be pleased.


----------



## Sunrider (Jun 25, 2011)

It was amusing to me that I should come across this thread, as I was just reading an  by Neil Gaiman on the same subject. 

On topic and long story short, I side with the CBLDF and Mr. Gaiman.


----------



## tinhamodic (Jun 25, 2011)

Maybe the inspector was still sore over the Vancouver Canuck loss?


----------



## Grep (Jun 25, 2011)

Vegitto-kun said:


> lol noob.
> 
> truecrypt folder, maximum security + fake truecrypt folder in real truecrypt folder.
> 
> ...



Most people wouldn't think it was even illegal though. Or that anyone would ever look at it. 99% of the time they are just high school girls that LOOK like children. Now obviously you can argue that is just a ploy to get around having CP but still.

There are tons of security measures anyone could take at anytime. I could constantly attempt to remove all physical evidence everywhere I go and remove all traces of my activity anywhere. But what the fuck should I do all that for. I didn't do anything wrong o.o

They didn't even say what the manga was though did they? For all we know it isn't even H manga. The guy just said it was CP.

Not cool Canada, I thought we were bros.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Canda is too strict on Pedos 

Anyway that was illegal contraband in Canada, and he carried it across the border so that makes him a contrabandist. 
Same way if he got  free drugs from Canada to the us


----------



## Nevermind (Jun 25, 2011)

Thought crime.

Makes no sense economically to pay for the cost of keeping this guy in jail for a year for such a trivial matter.

Moralfags should be added to the list of "people that ought to be killed." As George Carlin put it.


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 25, 2011)

Child pornography is heavily controlled in Canada.
*You cannot draw child pornography in Canada* and if I recall writing about it is also walking the tightrope.
If you depict a child in a sexual scene you  better lay low in Canada.
Though what did this manga actually entail just a kid naked? Maybe censored with bubbles around them or some shit? Or was it full on hentai, because yeah they won't take that shit at all.
Loli hentai will send your ass to jail.

While I think it's overboard those are the Canadian laws if you draw a child in a sexual act do not pass Go do not collect 200 dollars.

Shit im trying to remember the case where this precedent was set...but I can't recall it.

Lol K i remember now.
In R V Sharpe they decided that the drawings he was creating were child pornography and allowing them to pass would only encourage child pornography. With the belief that children are being protected, child pornography includes fictional materials to the extent that writing about it can screw you over as well depending on the situation on which you write about it.


----------



## impersonal (Jun 25, 2011)

abcd said:


> The reason why having cp is considered illegal is because it encourages the business for the people who exploit children. There is a massive slippery slope and people are sliding down to the medieval ages



I'm pretty sure the reason why it's illegal is that people consider sex with children disgusting, and want to ban the very idea of it. Whether that's a good reason is something else...

... But if it was just about "encouraging the business", trust me, the penalties wouldn't be half that harsh, at least for those who did not pay to get their CP... And thus are not contributing to the business.


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 25, 2011)

The laws are there because people believe if you allow CP to be on the streets or anywhere and people can look at it they will be more incline to attack children.
If it was just pure disgust at the visual act a lot more shit would be banned in Canada but that's not the case. People fear for their children so the government puts this here.

That's why our laws surrounding prostitution are being challenged in supreme court, some people find prostitution immoral and shit like that but the counter argument is that the laws we have endanger prostitutes. Things being disgusting don't matter nearly as much as the safety implications in Canada. If ones only argument is disgust it'll be considered discrimination and be challenged in a court easily and likely win.

If this guy wanted to challenge it and said that the CP law don't truly protect children and had a good argument for it, he'd win since the disgust wouldn't mean anything.


----------



## abcd (Jun 25, 2011)

^^^ I am sure all first person shooters should be banned in canada too then



impersonal said:


> I'm pretty sure the reason why it's illegal is that people consider sex with children disgusting, and want to ban the very idea of it. Whether that's a good reason is something else...
> 
> ... But if it was just about "encouraging the business", trust me, the penalties wouldn't be half that harsh, at least for those who did not pay to get their CP... And thus are not contributing to the business.



Well many people consider scat disgusting  ...


----------



## navy (Jun 25, 2011)

Why little kids give idiot man pleasure 

At least its not real. But its still fucking sick.


----------



## Raiden (Jun 25, 2011)

Not sure why they were searching his stuff.


----------



## HolyHands (Jun 25, 2011)

Raiden said:


> Not sure why they were searching his stuff.



I'm wondering this too. Is getting your electronics searched just a Canada thing? I've never had my electronics searched all the times I've traveled internationally, so I'm wondering what the reason was for the guy getting his laptop looked through.


----------



## lacey (Jun 25, 2011)

Hahaha, I read about this yesterday elsewhere. 

Glad I have no plans to go to Canada.


----------



## Pilaf (Jun 25, 2011)

So can anyone name or produce a picture of an actual child that was harmed by this man?


----------



## Mintaka (Jun 25, 2011)

I'm sooooooo tempted to post loli all of a sudden.


----------



## thekingisback (Jun 25, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> the guy was a p*d*p**** and Canada has all kinds of laws about hatecrimes in music and the media, I think its funny. And I also love how people are so quick to defend the pedo, if you look at kids having sex, drawn or otherwise, you're by definition a p*d*p****. Have fun.


I have watched every "Saw" movie! Now im a vicious torturer!!!


----------



## Pilaf (Jun 25, 2011)

I have a confession to make. I am a vicious killer. I played an xbox game yesterday in which I shot over 30 imaginary people in the head. It doesn't matter if those people are digital. They're still people and I took their lives.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Jun 25, 2011)

I set of a nuke in a small town just because I wanted some caps 

I'll go hang myself now.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Jun 25, 2011)

I am a repeated genocide offender. In one game I had eradicated multiple civilizations even.  They should ban the Civilization series before it helps create the next Hitler and Nazi Germany.


----------



## Mist Puppet (Jun 25, 2011)

I should be given a Nobel Peace Prize for helping save the galaxy from a crazed alien.


----------



## Pilaf (Jun 25, 2011)

Yeah and one time I was Darth Revan and I saved the galaxy.

Since real life and depicted images are the exact same thing I deserve a prize for that one.


----------



## stream (Jun 25, 2011)

Another slight problem is that technically, any pron of persons under 18 is cp. Now, if that applies to manga, that means that any doujinshi about, say, Naruto can get you one year in jail. Actually, doujinshi about pretty much 90% of manga.

Hell, just owning a manga of Mahou Sensei Negima could get you arrested


----------



## Pilaf (Jun 25, 2011)

stream said:


> Another slight problem is that technically, any pron of persons under 18 is cp. Now, if that applies to manga, that means that any doujinshi about, say, Naruto can get you one year in jail. Actually, doujinshi about pretty much 90% of manga.
> 
> Hell, just owning a manga of Mahou Sensei Negima could get you arrested



But think of the make believe CHILDREN!


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

thekingisback said:


> I have watched every "Saw" movie! Now im a vicious torturer!!!



Does someone need to be explained the difrence between Eros and Thanatos?


----------



## hustler's ambition (Jun 25, 2011)

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!:rofl

It's nice to know if I do travel to Canada with my laptop, I don't have a damn thing to worry about!


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Straight people watch gay porn all the time because the reason to watch porn it's not because it's a representation of the things you want to d, but because it has cultural value, and therefore all that assfucking amuses them to no end.
That's why 99% of all gay porn demographics are heterosexual families having fun together
So clearly people who watch lolicon are nothing but innocent savants oppressed by the philistines and not fucking creeps.


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 25, 2011)

stream said:


> Another slight problem is that technically, any pron of persons under 18 is cp.





Now you've looked at child porn. You perv.


----------



## Leon (Jun 25, 2011)

^ 

That's really pathetic, it's a damn drawing. Not your precious, fragile two year old.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> *I have now shown you child porn iconography, unrequested because I felt like it made a point. I'm a perv*



Subtle differences make the world go round


----------



## hustler's ambition (Jun 25, 2011)

Stereotypical anime fans.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> Straight people watch gay porn all the time because the reason to watch porn it's not because it's a representation of the things you want to d, but because it has cultural value, and therefore all that assfucking amuses them to no end.
> That's why 99% of all gay porn demographics are heterosexual families having fun together
> So clearly people who watch lolicon are nothing but innocent savants oppressed by the philistines and not fucking creeps.



You are comparing lolicon to actual porn with actual human beings. It seems that anyone who wants to argue in favor of Canada's retarded law must subscribe to this retarded fallacy.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Oh I'm sorry, to what should we refer the commerce of sexualization and intercourse that people masturbate to?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> Oh I'm sorry, to what should we refer the commerce of sexualization and intercourse that people masturbate to?



Ummm, what?


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Maybe that's why it's freely sold to people under eighteen. Because of how much unlike porn it is.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Ummm, what?



your telling me depictions of sexualization and downright fucking on print media to which people masturbate to is not porn.
So I'm waiting.
What is it then?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> your telling me depictions of sexualization and downright fucking on print media to which people masturbate to is not porn.
> So I'm waiting.
> What is it then?



Oh, now I know what you meant. That first "actual" shouldn't have been there, my bad.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Alright, compromise. It's animated child porn. Child porn is alright if it's animated because then only animated pedofiles should seek it out and enabling pedos is alright when they're cartoons.
Hurray for animated child porn that isn't child porn because it's animated. Child porn.


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> Alright, compromise. It's animated child porn. Child porn is alright if it's animated because then only animated pedofiles should seek it out and *enabling pedos is alright when they're cartoons*.
> Hurray for animated child porn that isn't child porn because it's animated. Child porn.



The pedophiles are here. Which reality do you prefer:

1) pedophiles stay at home, masturbating to cartoons
2) pedophiles rape real kids


----------



## Leon (Jun 25, 2011)

How does Loli ''enable'' Pedofiles?


----------



## Coteaz (Jun 25, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> The pedophiles are here. Which reality do you prefer:
> 
> 1) pedophiles stay at home, masturbating to cartoons
> 2) pedophiles rape real kids


How about the third option:

3) Pedophiles attack children after being empowered by lolicon

But never mind, there's no way someone could actually want to rape a kid after watching or reading animated child porn. Nope, not possible at all.


----------



## Zaru (Jun 25, 2011)

stream said:


> Another slight problem is that technically, any pron of persons under 18 is cp. Now, if that applies to manga, that means that any doujinshi about, say, Naruto can get you one year in jail. Actually, doujinshi about pretty much 90% of manga.
> 
> Hell, just owning a manga of Mahou Sensei Negima could get you arrested



To be honest it always kinda creeped me out how half of the fanbase openly indulged in fanfiction involving 12 year olds having sex, if not orgies


----------



## Leon (Jun 25, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> How about the third option:
> 
> 3) Pedophiles attack children after being empowered by lolicon
> 
> But never mind, there's no way someone could actually want to rape a kid after watching or reading animated child porn. Nope, not possible at all.



I guess we should ban violence in media too then.


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 25, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> How about the third option:
> 
> 3) Pedophiles attack children after being empowered by lolicon


How will lolicon "empower" someone? How does that process work, exactly?



> But never mind, there's no way someone could actually want to rape a kid after watching or reading animated child porn. Nope, not possible at all.


It's possible that someone could. But it's a fact that increased availability of porn decreases the rate of sex crime. There are countless examples of this.

I think it's a net gain that 1 person starts to perform sex crimes, if 50 people stop. Don't you?


----------



## Coteaz (Jun 25, 2011)

Hersir Van Holland said:


> I guess we should ban violence in media too then.


We're talking about deviant sexual urges here, not violence.



			
				Grrblt said:
			
		

> How will lolicon "empower" someone? How does that process work, exactly?


Child rapists have  that watching child porn, which lolicon most certainly is, fueled their urges and led to real attacks.


----------



## hustler's ambition (Jun 25, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> How about the third option:
> 
> 3) Pedophiles attack children after being empowered by lolicon
> 
> But never mind, there's no way someone could actually want to rape a kid after watching or reading animated child porn. Nope, not possible at all.




But of course!

Because we all know that porn (animated or otherwise) was created to negate those disgusting sexual urges humans have!


> World English Dictionary
> porn  (pɔːn)
> 
> — n
> ...





> World English Dictionary
> pornography  (pɔːˈnɒɡrəfɪ) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
> 
> — n
> ...



Those fuckers at  were wrong!


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> The pedophiles are here. Which reality do you prefer:
> 
> 1) pedophiles stay at home, masturbating to cartoons
> 2) pedophiles rape real kids


Truth abhors simplicity.
I can play this game too
1) pedos with media enforcement go about their lives without raping
2) pedos sexually enticed by cartoons take measures to begin raping



Because you know, people never do stupid shit when they're horny right? Well according to you at least


----------



## eHav (Jun 25, 2011)

"This message has been deleted by Jello Biafra. Reason: Sanitizing thread to Canadian government standards"



so a guy cant have whatever manga he wants in his pc anymore? god damn canada


----------



## Leon (Jun 25, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> We're talking about deviant sexual urges here, not violence.



Murder in film and sex with children in manga in no way compare right? Please.

Yeah there are cases of people being ''empowered'' by media. That includes movies and games. Thats an extremely small portion, not enough to warrant banning it because of a few criminals.


----------



## Coteaz (Jun 25, 2011)

Hersir Van Holland said:


> Yes because my comparison is so terrible right. Murder in film and sex with children in manga in no way compare.


Yep. Glad you're seeing the light.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Hersir Van Holland said:


> I guess we should ban violence in media too then.



If you get a boner when you're watching 300 then maybe you should.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 25, 2011)

Good, lolicon doesn't deserve a place in the world


----------



## firefist (Jun 25, 2011)

so which manga was it?

it depends what it was exactly.


----------



## Leon (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> If you get a boner when you're watching 300 then maybe you should.



Murder isn't a crime these days?


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Hersir Van Holland said:


> Murder isn't a crime these days?



It is. And if you get a boner when watching people getting murdered, then maybe you should stay very still while I get Dexter Morgan on the phone


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 25, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> Child rapists have  that watching child porn, which lolicon most certainly is, fueled their urges and led to real attacks.


Again, I'm not saying that it can't influence individuals. But it will deter many more individuals.



Banhammer said:


> Truth abhors simplicity.
> I can play this game too
> 1) pedos with media enforcement go about their lives without raping
> 2) pedos sexually enticed by cartoons take measures to begin raping


It's not a game. I was listing the two _realities_ possible. A high availability of porn _does_ lower sex crime. 

So you can make up all the fantasy scenarios you want, it doesn't change the facts.



> Because you know, people never do stupid shit when they're horny right? Well according to you at least


Of course they do. So isn't it better that they have non-stupid shit to do when they're horny? Stuff that won't harm anyone?


----------



## Leon (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> It is. And if you get a boner when watching people getting murdered, then maybe you should stay very still while I get Dexter Morgan on the phone



What are you on about?

Depictions of illegal acts don't drive people to commit said acts in masses, far from it.


----------



## IDGabrielHM (Jun 25, 2011)

Jello Biafra said:


> In light of this, I've decided, as unelected tyrant of the Cafe, to begin sanitizing the Cafe to the standards provided by Her Majesty's Canadian Government.



Actually on that note, how old is that pony supposed to be?


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

> Of course they do. So isn't it better that they have non-stupid shit to do when they're horny? Stuff that won't harm anyone?



If you think the only relevant difference between child rapists and child rapists of our own making is the quantity, then sure.


----------



## Coteaz (Jun 25, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> Again, I'm not saying that it can't influence individuals. But it will deter many more individuals.


I'm not advocating to make lolicon illegal. Doing so would lead to a host of problems, namely concerning depictions of any criminal activity in fiction. 

I'm saying that lolicon is animated/drawn child porn and anyone who watches it is a filthy p*d*p**** who should be mocked and scorned.


----------



## Leon (Jun 25, 2011)

There are near infinite amount of things that can inspire crime. You can't control everything. 99% of pedofiles who view loli as there outlet shouldn't have to suffer for the 1% who go and rape children. Just like violent video games who drive people to kill shouldn't make the entire industry illegal.


If you want a world where everything is perfectly safe and sound you have to give up any and all freedom. I doubt people want that.


> I'm saying that lolicon is animated/drawn child porn and anyone who watches it is a filthy p*d*p**** who should be mocked and scorned.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Hersir Van Holland said:


> What are you on about?
> 
> Depictions of illegal acts don't drive people to commit said acts in masses, far from it.



Only if we go through your logic that violence is the same as child rape and invokes the exact same thought patterns.

So again, does violence give you a hard on?
No? 
Does porn?
Yes?

Well then your brain is proving you wrong for ya.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Hersir Van Holland said:


> There are near infinite amount of things that can inspire crime.



Three things inspire crime.
Money
Passion
Disease.

Pedoes aren't pedos for the money, and sick people are put away where they can be treated. That leaves liking to fuck children.
And love/willingness to fuck is fanned by a lot of things. Like letters
Or porn.
Child porn
Animated child porn.
Porn porn porn.


----------



## Leon (Jun 25, 2011)

Crime is what the goverment say it is. If the goverment decides eating is illegal natural urge and instinct would be the reason. That logic is faulty.

Having sex with children is driven mainly by the same thing that drives sex in general. Natural urge.


----------



## hustler's ambition (Jun 25, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> I'm saying that lolicon is animated/drawn child porn and anyone who watches it is a filthy p*d*p**** who should be mocked and scorned.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

You're right. Society is too hard on child rapists


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Violence and Food is the same thing as wanting to rape a child.  
That0s not a blurred lie. That's a blurred fucking football field


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 25, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> Child rapists have  that watching child porn, which lolicon most certainly is, fueled their urges and led to real attacks.



What a load of horseshit. You know as well as everyone else that this article has nothing to do with lolicon.


----------



## Leon (Jun 25, 2011)

Now you're just not making any sense at all. Either you seriously can't understand my comparison or you are just ignoring it. Good day.


----------



## Coteaz (Jun 25, 2011)

Hey Sauf, try reading all of my responses before replying.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

right because lolicon is not child porn. It's animated child porn


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 25, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> Hey Sauf, try reading all of my responses before replying.



I did, you have yet to take back the bare-faced lie that lolicon leads to child rape.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Hersir Van Holland said:


> Now you're just not making any sense at all. Either you seriously can't understand my comparison or you are just ignoring it.



you're comparing the drive to eat with the drive to fuck a child.

So what you're saying is that you get a boner when you go to mcdonalds.

On top of the boner you get with violence.

Because you know, according to your brain, they're the same thing, so your brain gives out the same response


----------



## Coteaz (Jun 25, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> I did, you have yet to take back the bare-faced lie that lolicon leads to child rape.


I've yet to see you refute it.


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> Pedoes aren't pedos for the money, and sick people are put away where they can be treated. That leaves liking to fuck children.
> And love/willingness to fuck is fanned by a lot of things. Like letters
> Or porn.
> Child porn
> ...



Pedophilia is not a disease, it's a sexual orientation. You can't cure it any more than you can cure homosexuality.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

But even if you were right, fucking and eating were the same thing, then boy oh boy, will those people in Advertising be embarrassed when they find out that making ads with food or sexy models has absolutely no impact on their sales products


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 25, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> I've yet to see you refute it.



You made the assertion, so I'm the only one in the position to say:


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> you're comparing the drive to eat with the drive to fuck a child.
> 
> So what you're saying is that you get a boner when you go to mcdonalds.
> 
> ...



I don't understand why you're so insistent to make this distinction of boner or no boner. Is a crime only worth preventing if it is perpetrated when having an erection? Is that what you mean?


----------



## Coteaz (Jun 25, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> You made the assertion, so I'm the only one in the position to say:


Lolicon is animated child porn. Child rapists have admitted that watching child porn led them to attack real children.

See where I'm headed?


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> Pedophilia is not a disease, it's a sexual orientation. You can't cure it any more than you can cure homosexuality.



I was referring to people who commit crimes
Is homosexuality a crime?
Is child rape a crime?
Does pedophilia lead to child rape?
Then thank you and get that comparison the fuck out of here while I'm still being polite. Next time you try to use it we gonna have trouble.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> I don't understand why you're so insistent to make this distinction of boner or no boner. Is a crime only worth preventing if it is perpetrated when having an erection? Is that what you mean?



Is sexual intercourse not sexual if you're not popping a boner?


Don't play dumb on self evidence.


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> I was referring to people who commit crimes
> Is homosexuality a crime?
> Is child rape a crime?
> Does pedophilia lead to child rape?
> Then thank you and get that comparison the fuck out of here while I'm still being polite. Next time you try to use it we gonna have trouble.



Is the sexual attraction to children a crime?
?s gay rape a crime?
Does homosexuality lead to gay rape?

Please make an effort to understand the difference between rape and sexual attraction. Rapists make up a small minority of both homosexuals and pedophiles.



Banhammer said:


> Is sexual intercourse not sexual if you're not popping a boner?
> 
> 
> Don't play dumb on self evidence.


That does not answer my question whatsoever.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> You made the assertion, so I'm the only one in the position to say:



Prove Loli is animated child porn?

Sure. Once you prove what the word "proving" means


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 25, 2011)

> Lolicon is animated child porn. Child rapists have admitted that watching child porn led them to attack real children.



That's idiotic if you buy that. While in regards to CP, those producing it and possession of it should be rightly prosecuted, it is the individual themselves that need to be held responsible for their actions. Not allowing them to shift the blame.

The only true enablers are the pedophiles themeselves, it was ultimately within their capacity to sexually assault children or try to all along. Just as one can watch something like "SAW" and go through their lives not harming a single individual, one that consumes lolicon can have no interest in living children (Although, because of their tastes, I'd still be wary of them to be perfectly honest). 

For those that act on their urges against actual children and participate in the consumption or producing of material that exploit actual children, to allow them to blame anyone but themselves is spitting in the face of personal responsibility.


----------



## Sophie (Jun 25, 2011)

He was an idiot for having anything suggestive whilst being related to lolicon - on a plane.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> Is the sexual attraction to children a crime?
> ?s gay rape a crime?
> Does homosexuality lead to gay rape?
> 
> Please make an effort to understand the difference between rape and sexual attraction. Rapists make up a small minority of both homosexuals and pedophiles.



Oh, I get it, you're one of those that is under the impression that children are perfectly cable and entitled to give older men/women consent.
They're not
It's rape. Only sometimes, it's also mind rape.


----------



## Coteaz (Jun 25, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> That's idiotic if you buy that. While in regards to CP, those producing it and possession of it should be rightly prosecuted, it is the individual themselves that need to be held responsible for their actions. Not allowing them to shift the blame.


It is entirely the individual's fault, but people can be influenced. 

Once again, lolicon shouldn't be illegal but that doesn't make it any less disgusting or telling.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 25, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> Lolicon is animated child porn. Child rapists have admitted that watching child porn led them to attack real children.
> 
> See where I'm headed?





Banhammer said:


> Prove Loli is animated child porn?
> 
> Sure. Once you prove what the word "proving" means



Alright, knuckleheads, stop abusing an ambiguity in language to try and make an argument, it's not pretty. When a normal person says "child porn" or refers to child porn, they do not mean lolicon. Unless you can show that the article refers specifically to lolicon, rather than actual child porn (you know, the kind which actually features children), all you have is a shoddy association between the common definition of a word and something that may technically fall into the definition of the word but is virtually never associated with it.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Just as one can watch something like "SAW" and go through their lives not harming a single individual, one that consumes lolicon can have no interest in living children



Again, unless you get a boner out of watching bodily harm, then by your own admission those two urges are not the same, and their cause unrelated.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Alright, knuckleheads, stop abusing an ambiguity in language



Fine. I'll always say "animated" before "child porn"
It's animated child porn.
Everyone together
ANIMATED CHILD PORN

Because anything can be turned alright as long as you put the right complementary adjective to it.
SPACE CHILD PORN
PIRATE CHILD PORN
HELLO KITTY CHILD PORN


----------



## Summoner (Jun 25, 2011)

this is completely ridiculous.

he shouldn't be prosecuted over something like this.

this is overboard


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

He shouldn't get a sentence as harsh as those reserved for child molesters that is true, but he should get locked away for a time


----------



## Coteaz (Jun 25, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> When a normal person says "child porn" or refers to child porn, they do not mean lolicon. Unless you can show that the article refers specifically to lolicon, rather than actual child porn (you know, the kind which actually features children), all you have is a shoddy association between the common definition of a word and something that may technically fall into the definition of the word but is virtually never associated with it.


So what exactly does lolicon depict if not child sex? Excuse me, _animated_ child sex.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> Again, unless you get a boner out of watching bodily harm, then by your own admission those two urges are not the same, and their cause unrelated.



That point really flew over your head. The point is too simple to miss: Viewing fictional content depicting an act is not going to drive a person to perform such acts. It's the individual themselves that are the enabler. When you're done trying too hard to score some brownie points with whomever, and improve your reading comprehension then I'll bother with you again.


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> Oh, I get it, you're one of those that is under the impression that children are perfectly cable and entitled to give older men/women consent.
> They're not
> It's rape. Only sometimes, it's also mind rape.


They can consent, but that was not at all the point of my post. Not all pedophiles act on their urges. Masturbation can be enough. Animated porn helps.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> That does not answer my question whatsoever.



Because your question was loaded and moronic. It implied I would pardon crime if it was not sexual when the heart of the question was the cause of crime, not the criminality itself.
People are comparing the urge to fuck with the urge to eat and the urge to assault.
To which I ask "do you pop a boner on all of those? If not, then they're not the same thing, and therefore not caused by the same thing, and using a criteria violence and hunger that is the same for sex is wrong"

All self evident things that you try to dissimulate by implying "crime prevention according to (me) is not worth it if there's no boner" 
Try again


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 25, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> So what exactly does lolicon depict if not child sex? Excuse me, _animated_ child sex.





Banhammer said:


> Fine. I'll always say "animated" before "child porn"
> It's animated child porn.
> Everyone together
> ANIMATED CHILD PORN
> ...





What has been proved: According to some pedophiles, watching child porn encouraged them to rape children.

What you tried to take from that: Watching lolicon leads to child rape

If we would not be in the context of lolicon right now, nobody would ever assume that the first statement refers to animated child porn, that would be ludicrous.

It's like a rapist saying that watching rape porn encouraged him. Would anyone think that he's actually referring to animated rape? No, nobody would make that assumption, even though animated rape porn would technically fit the definition of rape porn.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 25, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> It is entirely the individual's fault, but people can be influenced.
> 
> Once again, lolicon shouldn't be illegal but that doesn't make it any less disgusting or telling.



I feel that it only goes so far. When an individual start acting on their urges, whatever the nature, that is entirely and completely on them. They ultimately had the capacity to do so. They influenced and enabled themselves. 

I know your stance, and I agree with that part at least.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I feel that it only goes so far. When an individual start acting on their urges, whatever the nature, that is entirely and completely on them. They ultimately had the capacity to do so. They influenced and enabled themselves.
> 
> I know your stance, and I agree with that part at least.



That is not scientifically true. Body chem changes. Orgasm a lot and your body needs those hormones more and more.
That's the problem with so many addicts and the victims of quiting cold turkey.
Now, sex urges work on a different scale mind you, but with the very same principle. It's almost always geared towards escalation without the person being able to help themselves.

And on another hand, can you deny  the effect that advertising has had on sexual standards in society?


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> They can consent, but that was not at all the point of my post. Not all pedophiles act on their urges. Masturbation can be enough. Animated porn helps.



Except to all those in the link who say that porn has helped along the rape
Which make their crimes the fault of the people who supported porn as much as theirs.




Saufsoldat said:


> What has been proved: According to some pedophiles, watching child porn encouraged them to rape children.
> 
> What you tried to take from that: Watching animated child porn leads to child rape
> 
> ...



All fixed. Wording is very important when calling for social opinion like you are.
End of life decisions become death panels. Represented Officials become Kenyan Muslims. Tax cuts to the rich become trickle down incentives to job creators. Gay bashing becomes Family Values.
So lo and behold, you get millions misinformed and willing to support the unsupportable 
So let's get jiggy with it and call things for their actual name, not fancy foreignisms that have no meaning in our language and make it easier to desensitize people to their impact
Animated Child Porn
Animated Child Porn
*ANIMATED CHILD PORN*


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> All fixed. Wording is very important when calling for social opinion like you are.
> End of life decisions become death panels. Represented Officials become Kenyan Muslims. Tax cuts to the rich become trickle down incentives to job creators. Gay bashing becomes Family Values.
> So lo and behold, you get millions misinformed and willing to support the unsupportable
> So let's get jiggy with it and call things for their actual name, not fancy foreignisms that have no meaning in our language and make it easier to desensitize people to their impact
> ...



Are you even trying? There's nothing absurd about me asking you not to commit association fallacies. You're being deliberately deceptive in an attempt to further your argument. If lolicon actually led to child rape, then you could easily find such correlations. The problem is that they don't exist and the only way for you to claim that it does is by abusing ambiguity in language.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

ambigous language?

Is there no animation in lolicon?
Are there no children in lolicon?
Is there no depiction of gratuitous sex in lolicon?

Then the language is clear
It's animated child porn


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 25, 2011)

There's the word lolicon and everyone knows what it means, why introduce the word "child porn", which is loaded with negative connotations if not to gain some cheap association points?


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

because words have meaning beyond the dictionary. There are emotions in portuguese and german that english doesn't even have a name for while the eskimos have no idea of the concept of "money"
there's a very specific early age in the human brain were words are associated with realities beyond theory and lolicon being a foreing word looses connection with reality allowing people to loose sight to what it is
And what it is is animated child porn


----------



## thekingisback (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> Does someone need to be explained the difrence between Eros and Thanatos?


Fiction is fiction.


----------



## dummy plug (Jun 25, 2011)

lol at loli


----------



## Grep (Jun 25, 2011)

I would like to point out AGAIN that as far as I am aware nobody knows what the manga in question is.

So for people to sit here and even call it loli is wrong. Much less call it CP.

This is just pure silliness anyways. For centuries having sex with a teenager was acceptable behavior. Its interesting to me how now it is maybe the single most taboo thing in our society. Look at us Jews for instance. Obviously nobody takes it to heart anymore. But a Jewish teen who had been mitzvah'd would essentially be like a kid turning 18 by today's standards. In my state the age of consent is sixteen but having nude images if a sixteen or seventeen your old would still be CP. These strict weird age laws have never made sense to me. Twenty-one to drink probably being the stupidest/weirdest. And I don't even drink.

Again though we don't KNOW what the guy had right?


----------



## tsunadefan (Jun 25, 2011)

just adding my opinion on all o this. let me start by saying that everyone can choose to do as they wish. stil though, even when people make their choices there are reactions and consequences that follow an action. now, i am not saying that pedophilia is right, quite the contrary. but locking up people for having animated child porn, as some people have written is, trivial and not as important to the real people doing the action. now makig it illegal is all on the government. but my opinion is that loicon and shotacon dont have to be illegal either. unless they are gonna be fair and also cut out sex in films or t for teen rated and over video games.


----------



## Rabbit and Rose (Jun 25, 2011)

Oh mai gawd



oh wait---canada


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

thekingisback said:


> Fiction is fiction.



child porn is child porn.


Oh excuse me. Animated child porn.


BGtymin said:


> This is just pure silliness anyways. For centuries having sex with a teenager was acceptable behavior.



So was raping in the army selling your sisters to whoredom and slavery and cheating on your spouse.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jun 25, 2011)

For people who are fond of the slippery slope argument of animated porn -> child rape and exploitation, what should we do about works of fiction? 

If a drawn picture can cause a person to think about child rape, surely the written word can as well. A popular work like A Game of Thrones includes countless women married underage, one at the age of 13 to a man over twice her age. 

I cannot see why drawn pictures of underage girls/boys are any more realistic than written words describing the same, nor can I see why the written words are any less provoking (by that argument) than a drawing.


----------



## thekingisback (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> child porn is child porn.
> 
> 
> Oh excuse me. Animated child porn.


CP =/= Fiction

Also a manga =/= animation. 


			
				wiki said:
			
		

> Animation is the rapid display of a sequence of images of 2-D or 3-D artwork or model positions in order to create an illusion of movement. The effect is an optical illusion of motion due to the phenomenon of persistence of vision, and can be created and demonstrated in several ways. The most common method of presenting animation is as a motion picture or video program, although there are other methods.


You are talking about hentai. 

Nice to know you got your definitions mixed up.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

I definitely think Games Of Thrones Child Porn should be banned. Would you care to point the parts of Games Of Thrones where the gratuitous intent to arouse pedophiles is shown?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> because words have meaning beyond the dictionary. There are emotions in portuguese and german that english doesn't even have a name for while the eskimos have no idea of the concept of "money"
> there's a very specific early age in the human brain were words are associated with realities beyond theory and lolicon being a foreing word looses connection with reality allowing people to loose sight to what it is
> And what it is is animated child porn



And what that is, is irrelevant to the discussion. Call it "animated child porn", if you want to. It shows how little substance your argument has when you have to resort to cheap appeals to emotion.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

thekingisback said:


> CP =/= Fiction


 varying degrees of fiction. The only difrence is that in the best case scenario is one less child porn actor, but more mainstream access is quick to remedy that offset.


> Also a manga =/= animation.


Manga - > Drawings
Animation - > Lots of drawings being shown in sequence.

Being Right =/= Arguing semantics.





> And what that is, is irrelevant to the discussion. Call it "animated child porn", if you want to. It shows how little substance your argument has when you have to resort to cheap appeals to emotion.


One would argue that rebranding animated child porn into some sort of "fancy" meaningless word to make it more likely to be okay is the cheap trick here.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> Being Right =/= Arguing semantics.
> One would argue that rebranding animated child porn into some sort of "fancy" meaningless word to make it more likely to be okay is the cheap trick here.



One would be a moron in doing so, because lolicon entails more than just animated child porn, just like anime entails more than just animated motion picture.

You're using a word that is less accurate, less commonly-used and more loaded with irrelevant connotations. There really is no sensible reason for doing so.


----------



## Fayrra (Jun 25, 2011)

Okay Banhammer, there is nothing reasonable with putting someone away when it has not been proven that they harmed anyone.

I'm, of course, refferring to when you stated something along the lines of "they shouldn't be penalized as harsh as child rapists, but definitely should be locked away."

Now, if you're fine with it being an unreasonable position, then cool with me bro. But it should be noted that you can't expect anyone to agree with you objectively. 

It's unreasonable because it's just a preference. You don't condemn other's for having preferences. Not all preference's match up with human's moral preferences on the matter. Some people actually have a preference to have sex with little girls, but would never, ever rape them since it their moal standards say no. Just because rape = the only way to have sex with little girls does not justify it as any more logical to condemn the preference. For example, most heterosexuals who rape grown women do so preceicely _because_ they cannot have sex with the women. The women rejected them. Based on your unreasonable logic, we are to therefore condemn any heterosexual who is subject to being rejected. Doesn't make much sense now, does it? And that's because there are an abundance of hetersexuals. Your preception decieves you.

As for the video game/lolicon analogy. I get what you're saying. But anaolgy's are not perfect. It doesn't have to match up perfectly.

Lolicon;

Not real
No one's Hurt
Not a crime

Video Games

Not real
No one's Hurt
Not a crime

People may be more suseptible to give into their sexual impulses than for letting out their agression via biology, but it does not change the fact that both are not real and both = no one getting hurt. However, only one is considered a crime. To use a double standard like that when no one has commited a wrong is illogical. That's the point of the analogy. Not to say that they both have the same exact sway over people biologically, but that it is hypocritical nonetheless.

Not to mention that trying to force people to repress their biological desires is about as logically valid as trying to make a truck fit into an area space that can only fit a car. Clearly simply making another space is a lot more productive. Making another space equals allowing lolicon to exist, by the way.


----------



## tsunadefan (Jun 25, 2011)

oh wow fayrra, i agree. i should rep u. >


----------



## Razgriez (Jun 25, 2011)

Whats worse? Banging a hooker then running her over and taking back your money over her dead body or looking at a child like bug eyed humanoid getting it on with some dude?


----------



## Xerces (Jun 25, 2011)

They are just _drawings_


----------



## thekingisback (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> varying degrees of fiction. The only difrence is that in the best case scenario is one less child porn actor, but more mainstream access is quick to remedy that offset.


No the difference is :
- Lolicon is a *fictive* setting with fictive underage *characters* performing sexual acts. 
- CP is a *real* setting with real *children* performing sexual acts. 

This difference is pretty huge. 



> Manga - > Drawings
> Animation - > Lots of drawings being shown in sequence.
> 
> Being Right =/= Arguing semantics.


Well you made a wrong comparison, it's only natural i point it out.


----------



## Pilaf (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> It is. And if you get a boner when watching people getting murdered, then maybe you should stay very still while I get Dexter Morgan on the phone



I'm really fucking disappointed in you when it comes to this subject, you know that? I thought you were a rational person but your arguments are just as limp as they can be.



Elim Rawne said:


> Good, lolicon doesn't deserve a place in the world



There was a name for book burners back in the thirties and forties too. Shall I invoke Godwin?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 25, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> There was a name for book burners back in the thirties and forties too. Shall I invoke Godwin?



You mean in the good ole days where they locked up people like you ?

I miss those days


----------



## Lindsay (Jun 25, 2011)

To outlaw private possession of any fictitious material is far worse than any consequence resulting from the private possession of that material, excepting in cases of directly calling for harm on an individual or individuals. Freedom is more important than our offended sensibilities or moral outrage.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Jun 25, 2011)

He deserves it if he was dumb enough to get caught.

The more controversial your fetishes the more paranoid and crafty you need to be.


----------



## Lord Yu (Jun 25, 2011)

It's an awkward thing to consider and pretty grandiose can of warms. But not all loli manga enthusiasts are into real little girls.


----------



## Sunrider (Jun 25, 2011)

Lindsay said:


> To outlaw private possession of any fictitious material is far worse than any consequence resulting from the private possession of that material, excepting in cases of directly calling for harm on an individual or individuals. Freedom is more important than our offended sensibilities or moral outrage.


I can't help but think that some of it has to do with the perception comics get in society, which are viewed with generally less respect than typical books.


----------



## kazuri (Jun 25, 2011)

Considering its entirely fiction, couldnt the authors just say the story is about a very similar earth that just orbits the sun faster..? Or that the humans bodies mature much slower, but their minds develop much faster..? Or they are aliens that look identical, or countless other things that would 'skirt the law'?


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

And here I go arguing against animated child porn with the guy that has a pedo bear for an avatar.
This is gonna go well


Fayrra said:


> Okay Banhammer, there is nothing reasonable with putting someone away when it has not been proven that they harmed anyone.


Aye.


> I'm, of course, referring to when you stated something along the lines of "they shouldn't be penalized as harsh as child rapists, but definitely should be locked away."


When I said that someone that seeks out animated child porn is not as bad as a de facto child rapist but is still a sick or evil person that needs ratification. 
If we were to go on a tangent, to me, prison is supposed to be a correctional center, not an exclusive punishment carnival.



> Now, if you're fine with it being an unreasonable position, then cool with me bro. But it should be noted that you can't expect anyone to agree with you objectively.


Just because it disagrees with you doesn't mean it's not objective. 





> It's unreasonable because it's just a preference.


A preference to fuck children or watch child fucking.
Just keeping it objective here.





> You don't condemn other's for having preferences.


A preference to fuck children or watch child fucking. This one in particular, I judge.





> Not all preference's match up with human's moral preferences on the matter.


That's right. Those are what we know as sick preferences. Or Evil preferences. Or preferences who target that which being a target is evil or sick





> Some people actually have a preference to have sex with little girls, but would never, ever rape them since it their moal standards say no.


A moral Pedo. Halleluja. May Yoda bless him in his struggles. 





> Just because rape = the only way to have sex with girls does not justify it as any more logical to condemn the preference.


not sure I understood this sentence. But let's hit it home one more time.
Preference to fuck children or watch children fucking.
Although because I am objective, I will remind everyone at home that we are talking about someone who has never bough child porn or raped a child.


> For example, most heterosexuals who rape grown women do so precisely _because_ they cannot have sex with the women. The women rejected them.


Woah woah woh, hold it. There's a miriad of reasons that lead to rape other than being a frustrated twerp. People who crave control or can't get it up unless they're struggling and screaming. People who crave dominance over the weak.
Predators.


> Based on your unreasonable logic, we are to therefore condemn an heterosexual who is subject to being rejected.


That has never been my logic and you're trying to associate unsociable things.
We should condemn heterosexuals who have preference to rape women or watch women being raped.
Don't blurr the line. It's not being objective


> Doesn't make much sense now, does it?


It makes perfect sense.
Adults and children is always rape. Adults and adults is not always rape
Rape = Rape


> And that's because there are an abundance of hetersexuals. Your preception decieves you.


My perception is laser focused. You're the one making the false hypothesis that the acceptability of rape is dependent on relative amount.


> As for the video game/lolicon analogy. I get what you're saying. But anaolgy's are not perfect. *It doesn't have to match up perfectly*.


Sure, let's blurr the line.
There can be game/lolicon analogies. Is the game about rape? Then shove him right in.
The pillar fact remains. 
Violence and horniness are not the same urge.



> Lolicon;


Animated child porn


> Not real


The pedophiles it targets and indulges are real. Check it back, you've never seen me accusing animated child porn creators of being child rapists.





> No one's Hurt


It raises sexual incitations which leads to action. If the fact that it is the base of all model based advertising was not enough there is the link that relates child porn to be a contributing factor on child rapists.
To buy them, even when you don't rape children yourself as an individual is to support their market and support the people who lead to child rape thanks to them, and is to share blame in them.


> Not a crime


 And here I thought a man would face minimum year in prison. This thread must not exist 
I see your point here though and I counter it by demanding objectivity.
We are not arguing if this is a crime
We're arguing if it should be. The fact of wether it is or it isn't isn't a valid point for wether or not it should be.

So you only have one point really? One generalist point which is "not real"


> Video Games
> 
> Not real
> No one's Hurt
> Not a crime


Are the videogames about rape or violence? Violence and sex are difrent urges and you cannot associate them together. There are violence videogames that do not incite violence, and there are musical videogames that incite people to create music.
And artistic creativity has actually been far more connected to the sexual part of your brain than violence ever has.
So is the "sports" videogames that encourage movement and exercise. Exercise and sex practice, both things that cause active changes in your libido
So the videogame analogy is actually a point for me.

Videogames that simulate rape are right there with animated child porn.
It's interactive animated child porn, which doesn't sound much better does it?
I can say it again
Interactive Animated Child Porn
For people who prefer to fuck children watch children fucking that respond back


> People may be more suseptible to give into their sexual impulses than for letting out their agression via biology, but it does not change the fact that both are not real


Real and unrelated
Sex is sex
Violence is violence


> and both = no one getting hurt.


No one gets hurt when you repress your violent urges and no one gets hurt when you repress your child rapist urges.
Buying animated child porn and interactive animated child porn is the opposite of repressing them





> However, only one is considered a crime.


Again, be objective
Violence is a crime
Rape is a crime
Violent urges are unrelated to simulated stimulai
Sexual urges are directly related


> To use a double standard like that


You're blurring the line into a double standard. The standard is clear as day


> when no one has commited a wrong is illogical.


Feeding onto child rapist urges is a wrong.


> That's the point of the analogy. Not to say that they both have the same exact sway over people biologically,


if they're not the same thing, then they're not comparable


> but that it is hypocritical nonetheless.


If they're not comparable, then they're not hypocritical
Be Objective


> Not to mention that trying to force people to repress their biological desires is about as logically valid as trying to make a truck fit into an area space that can only fit a car.


If you're a truck and this is a cars only space, then you don't have the right to park. Your truck is put away from the park and in a prison where trucks belong.
Unless your truck can repress itself well enough to fit in the same place as a car.
Unless you wanna bring the Sex/Violence analogy again, then to which I suppose you should replace truck with boat and make your analogy even more unaplicable


> Clearly simply making another space is a lot more productive.


There is. In prison. Until the truck is ratified into a car


> your analogy fails.Making another space equals allowing lolicon to exist, by the way.


No, yours did. Dismantled it pretty good.


----------



## Blue_Panter_Ninja (Jun 25, 2011)

Seems like Canada will become like Sweden,Australia and USA.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> And here I go arguing against animated child porn with the guy that has a pedo bear for an avatar.



The fact that you've got a Baby Mario avatar just adds to it.


----------



## Lord Yu (Jun 25, 2011)

Actually in the states it's still technically legal. They can stack charges with loli but they technically can't bust you just for loli.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

thekingisback said:


> No the difference is :
> - Lolicon is a *fictive* setting with fictive underage *characters* performing sexual acts.
> - CP is a *real* setting with real *children* performing sexual acts.
> 
> This difference is pretty huge.



Oh I wont argue there. There is one less child being hurt in the production of animated child porn than in regular child porn.
You've never seen me calling out the makers of animated child porn because of that reason.
Even though there's an argument to be made there


----------



## tsunadefan (Jun 25, 2011)

Lindsay said:


> To outlaw private possession of any fictitious material is far worse than any consequence resulting from the private possession of that material, excepting in cases of directly calling for harm on an individual or individuals. Freedom is more important than our offended sensibilities or moral outrage.



actually, its the other way around imo. it would be better at times to stop a few people of their freedom than to stop a few morally right things in the world.


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 25, 2011)

Anyways if he challenged this case he would probably get off if his lawyers are good.
The way Canada's courts are working as of late if you go in with a decent argument you'll win and the goverment will take you to supreme court and lose.


----------



## Blue_Panter_Ninja (Jun 25, 2011)

What manga was it anyway?


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

First Tsurugi said:


> The fact that you've got a Baby Mario avatar just adds to it.



I NEED AN ADULT


----------



## kazuri (Jun 25, 2011)

> Oh I wont argue there. There is one less child being hurt in the production of animated child porn than in regular child porn.
> Porn's effects don't stop there though



Not everyone does something for the same reason. Some could want to watch because they actually want to do it. Others could watch because the were molested. Some could want to watch because they wish they were the kid. Some could want to watch simply because of the way the child looks(the reason why its wrong is because they are too immature to make an informed decision, has nothing to do with their physical form, so you cant say its sick to like atoms in that configuration) 



> Porn's effects don't stop there though



Porn doesnt have effects. Humans have predispositions and reactions. Which can be triggered in innumerable ways.


I've said it before and I'll say it again. No matter what the topic, as long as no one/thing is getting hurt that doesn't want to be, there is nothing wrong with it. But as soon as there is proof, lock the fucker away.


----------



## thekingisback (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> Oh I wont argue there. There is one less child being hurt in the production of animated child porn than in regular child porn.


That's why lolicon is much less harmful. And is not CP, you can twist fictional logic (like kazuri's post), you can't twist CP. 


> Porn's effects don't stop there though


That is totally dependable on the person. Just like with any urge, you can fight it. 

If we go back to the video game analogy you are right that different urges are stimulated. That doesn't mean you must obey to those urges in real life. 

Satisfying these urges in an "artificial" environment seems better to me then letting them boil inside you forever.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> I'm really fucking disappointed in you when it comes to this subject, you know that? I thought you were a rational person but your arguments are just as limp as they can be.



Well I'm sorry to hear that. I am still driven by rationality. I have my line and I stand by it.
I have changed that line before in many issues, such as the legalization of marijuana or abortion.

And do know that I inform my opinion in this case on many factors that I will not bring into debate such as my personal experience with this issue.


----------



## kazuri (Jun 25, 2011)

> I am still driven by rationality.



There is no rationality in stopping people from not hurting anyone.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

> Satisfying these urges in an "artificial" environment seems better to me then letting them boil inside you forever.



That is actually not true for violence. Studies have shown that anger inflates greatly when people are instructed to let it out then to take a moment to settle themselves and calm down.

And the relation between porn and your sexual activities is something that is debated in separate which I will reiterate, have different stimulus and one cannot make argument for media stimuli in one type and transfer it to the other


----------



## Lindsay (Jun 25, 2011)

tsunadefan said:


> actually, its the other way around imo. it would be better at times to stop a few people of their freedom than to stop a few morally right things in the world.




The other way around is virtually limitless. Think, if we outlaw criminal things in fictitious works to prevent knowledge of these these things then a whole lot of material will be suppressed. I can make a case of outlawing knowledge of basic chemistry and physics as to prevent crimes.

Would taking away everyone's freedom and making them controlled "zombies" to prevent all moral wrongs be better than humans giving freedom and the potential to make moral "wrongs"? In my view freedom is such a wonderful thing that even if morally wrong acts occur, the price is still worth it.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

kazuri said:


> There is no rationality in stopping people from not hurting anyone.



I would think a prison deters one hundred per cent of all jailed pedophiles.


Now, before I get hate for this, know that I do believe in prevention over punishment.

Point me out to what makes a p*d*p**** and we'll stop it in it's tracks and loose investment in p*d*p**** imprisonment


----------



## kazuri (Jun 25, 2011)

> Studies have shown that anger inflates greatly when people are instructed to let it out then to take a moment to settle themselves and calm down.



And I guess the anecdote 'the camel that broke the straws back' is unknown to you? Remember school shootings? Remember any bullied kid that eventually snapped and went ape shit on the bully? Heres a hint about understanding humans. You can get to the same location from many different roads..



> I would think a prison deters one hundred per cent of all jailed pedophiles.



And you would be wrong. Heard of drawing? Heard of talking? Heard of imagining?(apparently to you all those things are equally bad)

But besides that, like I specifically said, AS LONG AS NOONES GETTING HURT. So clearly, the people in jail WE are talking about, would not be the ones who actually hurt people. Otherwise the context is completely lost on 'its not rational to stop people from not hurting anyone'.

...Duh?


----------



## vegitabo (Jun 25, 2011)

kazuri said:


> And I guess the anecdote 'the camel that broke the straws back' is unknown to you? Remember school shootings? Remember any bullied kid that eventually snapped and went ape shit on the bully? Heres a hint about understanding humans. You can get to the same location from many different roads..
> 
> 
> 
> And you would be wrong. Heard of drawing? Heard of talking? Heard of imagining?



u mean the straw that broke the camel's back


----------



## Nihonjin (Jun 25, 2011)

Child pornography with no children involved? How?


----------



## kazuri (Jun 25, 2011)

> u mean the straw that broke the camel's back



I was just testing you to make sure you were paying attention..


----------



## thekingisback (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> That is actually not true for violence. Studies have shown that anger inflates greatly when people are instructed to let it out then to take a moment to settle themselves and calm down.
> 
> And the relation between porn and your sexual activities is something that is debated in separate which I will reiterate, *have different stimulus and one cannot make argument for media stimuli in one type and transfer it to the other*


Going by the bold, your study should have no relation to lolicon in anyway. 

So my hypothetical still holds ground, "it's better to satisfy the 'sexual' urges in an artifical environment".

Not to say it does for 100% after all its hypothetical. 

Basically lolicon and CP are fundamentally different, and should be treated as such.


----------



## kazuri (Jun 25, 2011)

> have different stimulus and one cannot make argument for media stimuli in one type and transfer it to the other




Do you not understand this exact same logic can be applied in reverse......? That people who only like looking at fake pictures 'cannot make argument for transfering it onto real people'? I mean how fucking oblivious do you have to be to not understand your own logic can be used against you SO obviously...?


----------



## Punpun (Jun 25, 2011)

But I.. I read loli.. I read loli doujin for their artistic value. Is being an aesthete a crime ?


----------



## Lindsay (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> I would think a prison deters one hundred per cent of all jailed pedophiles.
> 
> 
> Now, before I get hate for this, know that I do believe in prevention over punishment.
> ...



Prisoners in isolation is deterred from committing most crimes too. Should we pre-scan everyone for attributes we think makes them a criminal of some sort and lock them away based on things not 100% true?

For example if someone likes a good "hack and slash" books, is white, male, among other characteristics of serial killers; should we prevent him from becoming the serial killer we "think" him to be and lock him up in prison?   This is just an absurdity of a witch hunt.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

> Do you not understand this exact same logic can be applied in reverse......? That people who only like looking at fake pictures 'cannot make argument for transfering it onto real people'? I mean how fucking oblivious do you have to be do just lie to yourself like this...?


Sexual urges are not the same as sexual urges?
Does the boner the pedo pop when watching animated child porn any different from the boner the pedo pops when watching live action child porn?
Don't be dense. The excuse for associating excuses with violence and sex has long been dismantled.



kazuri said:


> And I guess the anecdote 'the camel that broke the straws back' is unknown to you? Remember school shootings? Remember any bullied kid that eventually snapped and went ape shit on the bully? Heres a hint about understanding humans. You can get to the same location from many different roads..


Does this mean we're using association fallacy of violence and sex again?People going on shootings is exactly what happens when they decide to "take it out" instead of "settling down"
It's my argument, not yours.


> And you would be wrong. Heard of drawing? Heard of talking? Heard of imagining?(apparently to you all those things are equally bad)


This relates to jailed Pedos not being involved in child rape how?
Once again, the line is blurred and the objectiveness lost


> But besides that, like I specifically said, AS LONG AS NOONES GETTING HURT.


Child porn's role as emotional empowerment tool of child rapists doesn't hurt anyone?



> So clearly, the people in jail WE are talking about, would not be the ones who actually hurt people.


The support of emotional empowerment tools of child rapists doesn't hurt anyone?


> Otherwise the context is completely lost on 'its not rational to stop people from not hurting anyone'.


Which makes your premises an oxymoron.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Lindsay said:


> For example if someone likes a good "hack and slash" books, is white, male, among other characteristics of serial killers; should we prevent him from becoming the serial killer we "think" him to be and lock him up in prison?   This is just an absurdity of a witch hunt.



How many hundreds of times am I going to have dismiss this ridiculous association fallacy of violence and sex?

Yes, you absolutely should lock away for investigation anyone that masturbates to hack and slash books.
Is he not sexually aroused by hack and slash?
Then you don't have a point as they are different urges.


----------



## Punpun (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> Yes, you absolutely should lock away for investigation anyone that masturbates to hack and slash books.



But what if he is masturbating at the beautiful writing.. Masturbating at ART. And here I thought we weren't in Platon's Greece (artist are dangerous) anymore.


----------



## impersonal (Jun 25, 2011)

abcd said:


> ^^^ I am sure all first person shooters should be banned in canada too then
> 
> 
> 
> Well many people consider scat disgusting  ...


It probably qualifies as sodomy in many places... But I suppose child porn/loli is also perceived as encouraging pedophilia... ie someone who masturbates several times a week looking at depictions of children is likely to feel aroused when he comes into contact with a little girl in another situation. I mean if I had an 8 years old daughter, I wouldn't let some NF members near her. They may be good people overall, but I don't want people obessing sexually over a kid of mine.

I suppose this feeling has an important role regarding how loli porn is treated by society.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Jun 25, 2011)

Punpun said:


> But I.. I read loli.. I read loli doujin for their artistic value. Is being an aesthete a crime ?



Just like how I watch Qwasar for the plot, right?


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

thekingisback said:


> Going by the bold, your study should have no relation to lolicon in anyway.


I did specify it was for violence only.
I'm not the one who insists on the fallacy that violence and sex stimuli are related.
I'm the one who keeps opposing it.
The same things that entice sex are not the same things that entice violence.


> So my hypothetical still holds ground, "it's better to satisfy the 'sexual' urges in an artificial environment".


Not really. Satisfying your sexual urges is how you loose inhibitions with them. Some girls feel utterly panicked to loose their virginity, but after a while they'll be going out to hook up in one night stands in a healthy and safe manner that befits their prerogative.
It's all in the biology. The more you release these sexual urges the more differently and advanced points your body will demand


> Not to say it does for 100% after all its hypothetical.


Well, there is no one hundred percents in anything, but this is the biological and psychological law when it comes to sex.
Sometimes cancers just go away. You should still cut them all out.


> Basically lolicon and CP are fundamentally different, and should be treated as such.


Basically Animated Child Porn and Child Porn are different only in their production method and their consumers should be treated exactly the same.


----------



## Punpun (Jun 25, 2011)

First Tsurugi said:


> Just like how I watch Qwasar for the plot, right?



Oh my, a fellow aesthete in this mass of plebeian.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Punpun said:


> But what if he is masturbating at the beautiful writing.. Masturbating at ART. And here I thought we weren't in Platon's Greece (artist are dangerous) anymore.



If he's masturbating to the crafty use of pronouns and adjectives, which will cause him to get off on being a great author himself on any genre, then he should still see a doctor, but that's okay by book.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> If he's masturbating to the crafty use of pronouns and adjectives, which will cause him to get off on being a great author himself on any genre, then he should still see a doctor, but that's okay by book.


----------



## Skill Hunter (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> If he's masturbating to the crafty use of pronouns and adjectives, which will cause him to get off on being a great author himself on any genre, then he should still see a doctor, but that's okay by book.




According to you everyone should be locked up except yourself and a few closet homo conservatives.


----------



## Punpun (Jun 25, 2011)

The world need more openminded guys like you Banhammer. 

---

On another note, while I'm not persuaded by the interest of sending someone like him to jail... shunning him from society is totally okay. Not like he has a semblance of social life if he is a 25 years lolicon reader computeer progamer anyways.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Skill Hunter said:


> According to you everyone should be locked up except yourself and a few closet homo conservatives.



And here I was trying to accept lexophiliacs.


----------



## Punpun (Jun 25, 2011)

Skill Hunter said:


> According to you everyone should be locked up except yourself and a few closet homo conservatives.



Don't badmouth Ban. He tolerates artists. It's because of guys like you that artists have a bad name.


----------



## Lindsay (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> How many hundreds of times am I going to have dismiss this ridiculous association fallacy of violence and sex?
> 
> Yes, you absolutely should lock away for investigation anyone that masturbates to hack and slash books.
> Is he not sexually aroused by hack and slash?
> Then you don't have a point as they are different urges.





> Sex and violence are intertwined in mice. A tiny patch of cells buried deep within a male's brain determines whether it fights or mates, and there is good reason to believe humans possess a similar circuit. New research on mice shows the brain processes aggressive behavior as it does other rewards. Mice sought violence, in fact, picking fights for no apparent reason other than the rewarding feeling. "We learned from these experiments that an individual will intentionally seek out an aggressive encounter solely because they experience a rewarding sensation from it," Kennedy said.



Sex and violence are linked because of the similar parts of the brain they use and both produce a rewarding effect through hormones. So to say they are completely different is incorrect.


----------



## Fojos (Jun 25, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> the guy was a p*d*p**** and Canada has all kinds of laws about hatecrimes in music and the media, I think its funny. And I also love how people are so quick to defend the pedo, if you look at kids having sex, drawn or otherwise, you're by definition a p*d*p****. Have fun.



 Do you love seeing people die irl because you watch violent movies? Dumb nut.  





Banhammer said:


> The support of emotional empowerment tools of child rapists doesn't hurt


  You clearly know nothing about psychology, so please don't even go there. If anything they're less likely to do anything for real because they already have an outlet. Are you the kind of moron who thinks everyone who is attracted to young people are also violent degenerates? It's an illness, people didn't choose it. Did you know there are many who seek help to get rid of it, but instead they get shunned because of people like you?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> I definitely think Games Of Thrones Child Porn should be banned. Would you care to point the parts of Games Of Thrones where the gratuitous intent to arouse pedophiles is shown?



I suppose it depends on what you mean by gratuitous intent to arouse pedophiles. 

Probably the part where a six and a half foot warlord marries and fucks a 13-year-old girl in many different scenes. Would that arouse a p*d*p****? Probably.

I don't know if Martin was intending to arouse pedophiles, but we're talking about slippery slopes from seeing/reading sexual acts depicted on minors -> sexual abuse of a minor, not intent.


----------



## thekingisback (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> I did specify it was for violence only.
> I'm not the one who insists on the fallacy that violence and sex stimuli are related.
> I'm the one who keeps opposing it.
> The same things that entice sex are not the same things that entice violence.


Well you are probably right on this part. 



> Not really. Satisfying your sexual urges is how you loose inhibitions with them. Some girls feel utterly panicked to loose their virginity, but after a while they'll be going out to hook up in one night stands in a healthy and safe manner that befits their prerogative.


I guess this analogy doesn't hold because the moral implications are so different. 

If you don't want to compare different urges to each other, you shouldn't compare different moral standards to each other in the same way. 


> It's all in the biology. The more you release these sexual urges the more differently and advanced points your body will demand


This much is true. But that doesn't mean every lolicon viewer turns into a child rapist. 

It also doesn't mean that a person who would watch lolicon would watch CP by default. It's highly plausible someone is attractive to the fitcive characters but repulsed by the thought of having sex with "actual" children. 



> Basically Animated Child Porn and Child Porn are different only in their production method and their consumers should be treated exactly the same.


Why? Because they pleasure the same sexual urges? Do we not need to take into account that one person chooses to watch fictional stuff rather than real CP? 

Wouldn't the person watching real CP be more sick minded because he deliberately  chooses to watch a child getting harmed PLUS getting aroused by it? 

The loli wanker however chooses fictional material, ie. knowing it's wrong to watch CP.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Lindsay said:


> Sex and violence are linked because of the similar parts of the brain they use and both produce a rewarding effect through hormones. So to say they are completely different is incorrect.



Recheck your psych. Even Freud and Jung agreed on this.

Or maybe you're right and visual sexual input has absolutely no impact in decision making.
Let's call Victoria Secret and find out.


----------



## 海外ニキ (Jun 25, 2011)

So I was just reading pages ago about media empowerment and shit.

Personally I think anyone who puts his/her full trust into media and disregards any of his/her's actually opinions, already had a weak or misguided intellect to begin with.

If I go and commit a crime, I know that it will be because of my own decision to go and do it. It will not be because of shit I heard or read. 

Seriously, that's the biggest problem I have with the usual counter-arguments I read here. It's as if personal responsibility is just a moronic and inept concept to society.

Well, I just so happen to still have the crazy notion in believing that I am the only one responsible for myself.


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Jun 25, 2011)

Nihonjin said:


> Child pornography with no children involved? How?



I assume drawings and animation of kids having sex or doing sexual things count as CP.


----------



## Punpun (Jun 25, 2011)

~Zaxxon~ said:


> -snip-


You're confonding personal responsability and the way us, as human, evolve through interactions of differents types.


----------



## Talon. (Jun 25, 2011)

> The customs officer discovered manga on the laptop and *considered* it to be child pornography. The client’s name is being withheld on the request of counsel for reasons relating to legal strategy.



key word here being CONSIDERED

So if im reading it right, that means he didnt have loli hentai, and the customs officer is just a dumbass.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

thekingisback said:


> Well you are probably right on this part.


That's my favorite kind of part.



> I guess this analogy doesn't hold because the moral implications are so different.
> 
> If you don't want to compare different urges to each other, you shouldn't compare different moral standards to each other in the same way.


But you can. The only difference between them is the moral standard. If you sex children up is still rape even if it were fine should you be doing it with a woman.
Even the moral standard behind not fucking children is there for a reason and the reason lends itself to the rationality.


> This much is true. But that doesn't mean every lolicon viewer turns into a child rapist.


This is true. And I defended that they should not be treated the same.
But they are different measures of the same water and as such need to be stopped and rehabilitated.
Unless you think I'm wrong and think that a way to destroy the preference to have intercourse with children should be left to stand.


> It also doesn't mean that a person who would watch lolicon would watch CP by default.


they are connected. Fantasy seeks reality.
It's very late here so his name escapes me, but extremely famous writer once said "the difference as to why writing fiction is much harder than chronicling reality, is that when you're writing fiction, you _have to make it sound believable_"
People seek out this fantasy porn because they're seeking out the reality.


> It's highly plausible someone is attractive to the fitcive characters but repulsed by the thought of having sex with "actual" children.


Well I suppose. Just as plausible as it is to have heterosexual men buying gay hentai for their attraction they feel to it even though they are not gay at all.


> Why? Because they pleasure the same sexual urges? Do we not need to take into account that one person chooses to watch fictional stuff rather than real CP?
> 
> Wouldn't the person watching real CP be more sick minded because he deliberately  chooses to watch a child getting harmed PLUS getting aroused by it?


You know what, I concede on that one.
A watcher of animated child porn should not be treated by the system as severely as a live action child porn watcher.


> The loli wanker however chooses fictional material, ie. knowing it's wrong to watch CP.



Aye. What you are saying is rational.


----------



## Lindsay (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> Recheck your psych. Even Freud and Jung agreed on this.
> 
> Or maybe you're right and visual sexual input has absolutely no impact in decision making.
> Let's call Victoria Secret and find out.



You've never seen movies sell out because they contain violence then? Or boxing/fighting matches? Violence can sell and influence just like sex images or acts. Your proposition that both contain no similarities or not enough is an empty one. While they are not the same, they share many similarities.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jun 25, 2011)

In this whole debate, I cannot find a good reason to ban drawn images. That crosses too close to artwork. It's easy to point out when an actual child is being exploited for sexual reasons because a real, living child is involved. A drawing? 

If one opens the door to drawings being illegal due to what they may incite, then any number of problems occur. _The Catcher in the Rye_ is cited in two murders and the shooting of a president; should it be banned because of what it did inspire? No one is suggesting that hentai is intended as a work of art, but anyone who would intend to draw something similar as art would be prohibited from expressing it. I don't see how a truly free society could place such a restriction on expression.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Lindsay said:


> You've never seen movies sell out because they contain violence then? Or boxing/fighting matches? Violence can sell and influence just like sex images or acts. Your proposition that both contain no similarities or not enough is an empty one. While they are not the same, they share many similarities.



To which I bring back the simplest of God's test


Does violence give you a boner?


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> In this whole debate, I cannot find a good reason to ban drawn images. That crosses too close to artwork. It's easy to point out when an actual child is being exploited for sexual reasons because a real, living child is involved. A drawing?


I conceded on this. They are different measures of the same evil and such require different measures of the same response.


> If one opens the door to drawings being illegal due to what they may incite, then any number of problems occur. _The Catcher in the Rye_ is cited in two murders and the shooting of a president; should it be banned because of what it did inspire? No one is suggesting that hentai is intended as a work of art, but anyone who would intend to draw something similar as art would be prohibited from expressing it. I don't see how a truly free society could place such a restriction on expression.



putting the cultural merit of these works compared with animated child porn, I refer you back that I reject the association of violence and sex with the same stimulus.

To the point of Drogo and Danny.
Find me someone who aroused by her rape and I'll defend their apprehension. Find me someone that walks around with books of written porn and fan fiction between drogo and danny and yes, I will defend their investigation

As it stands Games of Thrones is not a work of porn so I won't associate the two of them together


----------



## Lindsay (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> To which I bring back the simplest of God's test
> 
> 
> Does violence give you a boner?



Women do not get boners even when sexually excited.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

Lindsay said:


> Women do not get boners even when sexually excited.



So what? Do you want me to say "lady boner" or "moist"?
I would rather not invest too far into those options


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> putting the cultural merit of these works compared with animated child porn, I refer you back that I reject the association of violence and sex with the same stimulus.



The only way for me to distinguish artwork from porn is to get into the head of the artist and see what he/she intends. 

99% of hentai looks pornographic to me. I can't, however, know that one of these hentai artists doesn't consider himself the second coming of Van Gogh leading an artwork revolution. And I can't prove that his image directly resulted in the abuse of a child. What are we to do then?


----------



## Fojos (Jun 25, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> The only way for me to distinguish artwork from porn is to get into the head of the artist and see what he/she intends.
> 
> 99% of hentai looks pornographic to me. I can't, however, know that one of these hentai artists doesn't consider himself the second coming of Van Gogh leading an artwork revolution. And I can't prove that his image directly resulted in the abuse of a child. What are we to do then?



 And who's going to decide which art has "cultural merit"? Many "culturally important" artists from long ago have made paintings of naked children, should you be jailed if you own one of those as well?


----------



## thekingisback (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> That's my favorite kind of part.


I hate those parts. 



> But you can. The only difference between them is the moral standard. If you sex children up is still rape even if it were fine should you be doing it with a woman.
> Even the moral standard behind not fucking children is there for a reason and the reason lends itself to the rationality.


Still, because of the moral implications it makes it much a greater decision to go from lolicon to child-rape, as it is to go from virginity to casual sex. 

Because people are rational they can decide that lolicon can be okay (even though really perverted), because they only pleasure themselves. 

This can lead to child abuse sure, but so can pretty much thousands of things in the world.  



> This is true. And I defended that they should not be treated the same.
> But they are different measures of the same water and as such need to be stopped and rehabilitated.
> Unless you think I'm wrong and think that a way to destroy the preference to have intercourse with children should be left to stand.


I think that if a person watches lolicon in private they can do so by all means. If they cross the boundary of fiction to reality ie. watching CP, they should definitely get some treatment. 



> they are connected. Fantasy seeks reality.
> It's very late here so his name escapes me, but extremely famous writer once said "the difference as to why writing fiction is much harder than chronicling reality, is that when you're writing fiction, you _have to make it sound believable_"
> People seek out this fantasy porn because they're seeking out the reality.


As far as porn goes, i think people just seek the arousement from whatever porn they crave. 

The writer you quoted was talking from a non-porn perspective. As in books only relate to people if it's believable. 

However with porn it doesn't have to be believable at all, why else would we have tentacle hentai and stuff like that?



> Well I suppose. Just as plausible as it is to have heterosexual men buying gay hentai for their attraction they feel to it even though they are not gay at all.


It's still plausible. And i guess quite some men have done so.  



> You know what, I concede on that one.
> A watcher of animated child porn should not be treated by the system as severely as a live action child porn watcher.
> 
> 
> Aye. What you are saying is rational.


Glad to agree on something. 

Edit: In the end lolicon comes down to free speech. You can draw anything you want.


----------



## Nihonjin (Jun 25, 2011)

Disciple Bellic said:


> I assume drawings and animation of kids having sex or doing sexual things count as CP.



I understand that, I'm saying it's stupid.

If they found violent Manga with decapitations and people being split in half, the guy wouldn't suddenly become a murder suspect would he? No of course not, because there are no actual people involved, which means there are no victims, so there is no case. Why should loli be any different?

Do I think it's weird, sure. It's not my cup of tea at all, but why should anyone care, let send someone to prison over this?


----------



## Random Nobody (Jun 25, 2011)

Guess this means I'd better be ready to stand trial for attempted genocide because of all my years of gaming.


----------



## Skill Hunter (Jun 25, 2011)

Random Nobody said:


> Guess this means I'd better be ready to stand trial for attempted genocide because of all my years of gaming.



You didn't know? COD makes me want to murder random middle eastern men i see on the street.


----------



## hammer (Jun 25, 2011)

what is really fucked up half the time the 14 year olds in manga are 5 ft 3 with big tits and the 20 year olds look liek fucking lolis and im not even talking about hentai im talking about shit like bleach and lucky star.

hell it probobly wasnt hentai just some random manga


----------



## HandSpeed1993 (Jun 25, 2011)

now dats just crazy


----------



## Grep (Jun 25, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> That is actually not true for violence. Studies have shown that anger inflates greatly when people are instructed to let it out then to take a moment to settle themselves and calm down.
> 
> And the relation between porn and your sexual activities is something that is debated in separate which I will reiterate, have different stimulus and one cannot make argument for media stimuli in one type and transfer it to the other



If you are going to talk about studies post them or don't mention them.



Banhammer said:


> Yes, you absolutely should lock away for investigation anyone that masturbates to hack and slash books.



This makes no sense at all. Hack and Slash movies aren't a crime. Even WANTING to kill or rape is not a crime. Intent to do so is.

I am not really sure why you keep bringing up boners. I don't think having a boner is a crime but you seem to think it is. The thrill that a rapist experiences and the thrill that a serial killer experiences are similar but of course different. But rape isn't about sex. Sex is a vehicle to exert control for a rapist. There is a level of arousal from serial killers though but its not sexual. 

The differences between real CP and loli mangas are obviously the fact that they aren't real girls. But also the fact that they are fantasy. I've already made this point but 9/10 the girls just LOOK loli. Guys that want to fuck girls want to fuck little girls regardless of looks.

And ONCE AGAIN I point out that we do not even know this was H manga much less loli manga. Dude might have looked at any random manga and decided it was CP.

Either way loli manga NEVER steps out of the area of fantasy at all. The girls are obviously not real and don't even look real they look like anime characters. People have dark fantasies. If you started arresting people for having those types of fantasies you would arrest a huge chuck of the worlds population.


----------



## tsunadefan (Jun 25, 2011)

Lindsay said:


> The other way around is virtually limitless. Think, if we outlaw criminal things in fictitious works to prevent knowledge of these these things then a whole lot of material will be suppressed. I can make a case of outlawing knowledge of basic chemistry and physics as to prevent crimes.
> 
> Would taking away everyone's freedom and making them controlled "zombies" to prevent all moral wrongs be better than humans giving freedom and the potential to make moral "wrongs"? In my view freedom is such a wonderful thing that even if morally wrong acts occur, the price is still worth it.




i agree with that. but my major problem is what you said about freedom and morality. 

well, it actually depends on a persons preference of which is better. i also like freedo, but if morally wrong acts occur as a result, its not so worth it. i overall just believe that everyone as the freedom to do what they want and consequences come as a result of those choices whether good or bad.


----------



## hammer (Jun 25, 2011)

morality is differnt for each person you cant make laws based on morals


----------



## Fayrra (Jun 26, 2011)

Triple post argument coming up.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 1 of the argument; It being unreasonable.




Banhammer said:


> And here I go arguing against animated child porn with the guy that has a pedo bear for an avatar.
> This is gonna go well


You're right, it won't. But it certainly won't be because I'm baised toward little girls/pedophiles. XD




Banhammer said:


> When I said that someone that seeks out animated child porn is not as bad as a de facto child rapist but is still a sick or evil person that needs ratification.
> If we were to go on a tangent, to me, prison is supposed to be a correctional center, not an exclusive punishment carnival.



It's a place for people who actually hurt someone. Why? Because it's only then that we can take justice on them for their preferences. Not a single person who has ever been to prision has been there under the premise of "doing something we don't like" unless someone else (or himself) was hurt in the process. You know why? Because that's _reasonable and fair._ It's not reasonable and not fair to make it a place that people are sent to when they have preferences that we don't like. Because justice is about some form of equivalence based on our widely shared preference of peace/living on. Not just about our preferences alone.





Banhammer said:


> A preference to fuck children or watch child fucking.
> Just keeping it objective here.
> A preference to fuck children or watch child fucking. This one in particular, I judge.


Ah, but in order for you to judge it fairly and reasonably, you'd have to match it. Literally. A reasonable judgement of lolicon based on your own preferences would be "that's digusting; yuck; you're evil!" Not, "you go to jail until you are 'fixed.'" The reason being is because all this person did was express their preferences, you know, without actually harming anyone. FAIRLY/REASONABLY, you'd have to judge him the same way, without harming anyone. Putting him into jail, lol. That's harming him. It's taking away his freedom as if he took someone elses. But guess what? He didn't. Therefore, the cause and effect are not equally matched. It's not reasonable, and therefore not fair. I really, really hope you can see past your bias on this one. Because holy shit it's blinding you like a motherfucking sun.







Banhammer said:


> not sure I understood this sentence.


Basically your grip is that rape is the only way to have sex with children. Therefore, having a sexual preference for children = really really bad. This is not true. It doesn't make it any more worse than any other preference. Logically. All preferences are treated the exact fucking same; logically. You record someone's preference down in your databook called "my mind", and then say, "yuck, I hate that," or "mmm, that's good." But that's as far as it goes; logically. You don't take it one step further and say, "because I don't like it, you get hurt."; logically. You don't say, "I'm going to take away your freedom, despite the fact that you did not take away anyone elses"; logically. You don't try to reshape someone else by enforcing your preferences on them, unless, they forced them on you or someone else; once a-fucking-gain; logically, reasonably, fairly, and objectively. It's objective because it's universal, this kind of logic doesn't change. Otherwise, you know, it's just a subjective preference. "They deserve this for doing this." "This is sick, this is wrong." Well, unless that subjective preference is equally consistent with the way the other person you are condemening is professing them, it's not logical, and it's not fair.

And of course you CAN do all that. I wouldn't even blame you for going by your preferences alone, but it doesn't make it logical nor fair. Nor should you act like it does.




Banhammer said:


> That has never been my logic and you're trying to associate unsociable things.
> We should condemn heterosexuals who have preference to rape women or watch women being raped.
> Don't blurr the line. It's not being objective


No, no, no. You're being inconsistent, people who specifically enjoy women being raped are not automatically the same thing as pedophiles who like little girls. The reason being that the p*d*p**** might not enjoy raping them. It's just that in real life raping them is the only option, since the girls are like retarded little fuckers or whatever. That's the huge difference between it. And that's where I associated the unassociable.



You're opinion is that the reason condemning pedophila is justified is that there is no other way than to rape children. There's no consent. That's why it's sick, and wrong. Well, heterosexuals who are denied also have no other way than to indulge their preferences for that woman than to rape that woman. I'm not blurring the line. I'm using your own logic and applying it accordingly. It matters not that heterosexuals who are denied are not masturbating to women getting raped, however, they may in fact be masturbating to the women that denied them. And guess what, that's the same exact kind of logic there is to masturbating to loli. "Well, I can't exactly have sex with little girls without raping them, so I'll masturbate to drawings who don't need to consent because they aren't fucking real, to get off." 

The dude who gets denied says: "Huh, I can't exactly have sex with this girl without raping her/imposing on her will, so I'll masturbate to her to get off."

Both of them are trapped in a situation where they cannot follow their sexual desires without raping. That does not mean that they are by default getting turned on by raping people.

That being said, even if they do get turned on by raping people, until they actually do so, logically, you can only condemn them via saying they are disgusting, until, you know, they actually do something for you to fairly and logically take your preferences further than that.

I will indeed admit, I didn't post any of that before, but you're so biased that clearly I have to go to such an indepth framework about how it works.






Banhammer said:


> Adults and children is always rape. Adults and adults is not always rape
> Rape = Rape


Adults who get rejected by adults cannot indulge their preferences for that adult without rape. Therefore adult and adults in that context always equals rape. Same situation with the pedo. The only exception would be like if you payed the girl to do it. But with Pedo's there are also exceptions, such as the girl being a genius and being able to consent logically. And since we are putting them away with out them actually raping, then that means that are both indeed in the same situation. Using your logic we must put both adults in that context (aka adults who deny other adults) and pedophiles, since they both have no choice but to rape if they are to indulge in real life. There wouldn't be anything wrong if the adult who got denied masturbated to the deny-er, would there? Despite the fact that if he were to actually have sex with her, it would equal rape? That's definitely unreasonable. 

And the only reason why it appears that way is because of how many heterosexual people there are who get denied. You'd say to yourself, "ah, there's so many of them, clearly they don't want to rape em, they just want to have sex with them....mutual beautiful sex.... they just got the shit end of the straw and it's just too bad they got denied. Oh, well!" But then when it comes to pedo's you say "lol, they make up such a small amount of the population, clearly they all want to rape little girls, it couldn't possibly be that they just want mutual sex with them. It couldn't possibly be that they they just got the shit end of the straw and it's not JUST too bad they would get denied by the object of their affection (in a logical default sense-as I'm sure we can all agree that being retarded = not consenting), no, no, no 'oh, well!' for these sick fucks. They should all go to jail!"

Yeah, that's a super fucking double standard.  And I can't stress this point enough since I completely didn't say anything about it before, but even if the p*d*p**** wants to rape the little girl beyond their will, just like any rapist would want, logically, it's still not fair to put em away for that until they do it. Since you are taking away their freedom when they have done nothing of the sort. And really all you have of justifying such an action is 'well, I REALLY don't like it, whatever I REALLY don't like, other's get hurt for liking it.'


----------



## Fayrra (Jun 26, 2011)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 2 of the argument; now onto the analogy.




Banhammer said:


> Sure, let's blurr the line.
> There can be game/lolicon analogies. Is the game about rape? Then shove him right in.
> The pillar fact remains.
> Violence and horniness are not the same urge.


Doesn't matter. You're missing the point of the anaolgy. It's not to describe them as the same exact urge. It's to point out the hypocricy in saying two acts are illegal, and then saying, "oh, only one can get you in trouble if you do it in a non-real way." That's not logically consistent.

It'd be like me saying:

"Oh, okay, punching this kid is wrong. Also, jumping is wrong. I promise you will get in trouble if you do either of these things. The penalty may not be the exact same though."

 And I turn around and say, 

"Also, if you think about punching this kid, it's wrong-though you won't get the same exact penalty as actually punching this kid, you will recieve a penalty nontheless. But it's perfectly okay to think about jumping, you shall recieve no fucking penalty for that, yo!"

That's completely logically insconsistent. Both are crimes, but then only one becomes a thoughtcrime. If you started to make a thoughtcrime a crime from an original crime, then ALL other original crimes must also become thoughtcrime-crimes for it to not be hypocritcial on your part. Or is this not the fucking justice system where things are equal and fair?

Now, your point against this is that they are not the same exact thing, and therefore should not be judged the exact same. The reason for that is that sexual desire holds way more sway than agression, etc. But that only means that the agession thoughtcrime should have a lesser penalty, not no penalty at all. That is, of course, if you want to be LOGICALLY consistent. If you want to present a fair framework. If you want to be consistent to your emotions then go ahead. But being reasonable DOES NOT consist of just a single human beings' emotions on the matter. Being reasonable is objective, not subjective. It doesn't change with the person, like one's emotions do. It's the same regardless of preference. Being reasonable is a framework, a way of going about something.

Of course, this is all barring the obvious paradox of "thoughtcrime-crimes are not fair." Since they are not reasonable/fair at all to begin with. But since you already assumed they are reasonable, then that's when the analogy comes up to show the flaw in your logic. A flaw of "well, if you accept thoughcrimes as a crime, accept all thoughtcrimes as a crime. Just with varying penalties."




Banhammer said:


> I see your point here though and I counter it by demanding objectivity.
> We are not arguing if this is a crime
> We're arguing if it should be. The fact of wether it is or it isn't isn't a valid point for wether or not it should be.


No, in this part of the argument I'm arguing the fact that the anaolgy holds true to saying that making only one thoughtcrime a crime despite the fact that there are other crimes of which the thoughtcrime is not actually considered a crime is inconsistent because, well seriously, do I really have to explain why it's inconsistent at this point, or what? It's like saying you're writing a story, and then branching out different plotlines, and then only continuing to branch out one of those plotlines, never branching out the other one's nor finishing them. Inconsistent and hypoctritical considering you're using words like the justice system and fairness and logic and shit.




Banhammer said:


> if they're not the same thing, then they're not comparable


Oh, okay. So I guess a human is not comparable to a fucking monkey then. Considering, you know, that they are not the exact same thing. XD No, way would I be right in saying that we are both animals or anything. Just like I'm not right in saying they are both crimes. That's not a comparison or anything.



Banhammer said:


> If they're not comparable, then they're not hypocritical
> Be Objective


Of course they are comparable. They are both crimes. A thoughtcrime version of one of the crimes is now considered a crime. Huh, but the other one isn't. That's not comparable nor hypocritical-logically- in the slightest. 




Banhammer said:


> This is true. And I defended that they should not be treated the same.
> But they are different measures of the same water and as such need to be stopped and rehabilitated.


Oh? Just like playing violent video games is a different measure of the same water that is doing those things in violent video games in real life? Yeah, exactly. Clearly the two shouldn't be treated the same, but both need to be stopped and rehabilitated. 

That would only be fair logic. _Consistent_ logic. However, you're all just basing this on your preference alone, without any logic/reasonable reasoning behind it. So of course you would disagree. Clearly murder isn't as bad to you. But that doesn't change the fact that if it is considered a crime, so must the thought-version of it. Since, you know, the thought-version is simply a different measure of the same water that is the original version. Only logical, that's all. Maybe the measures between the different versions of the different waters are not proportional, but they are measures still the same.

So, we got one kind of water. Sex with little girls. The different smaller measure of that water is Lolicon.

Then we have another, different kind of water. Murder. Then we have a smaller version of that water. That is......violent video games where you murder. 

Now, are the 2 small versions of the water equally proportional to you? No, clearly the first smaller measure is worse. That doesn't stop the second one from being a smaller measure for it's own respective water, does it? It should still be considered a measure and still considered to be stopped, just less harshly, according to your own preference and logic. Unless, of course, you don't consider murder a crime period. Then there's no water to measure.


----------



## Fayrra (Jun 26, 2011)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Part 3; some other ontopic but kind of extra stuff




Banhammer said:


> It raises sexual incitations which leads to action. If the fact that it is the base of all model based advertising was not enough there is the link that relates child porn to be a contributing factor on child rapists.


Not neccesarily. It is not reasonable nor fair to pretend that this is a 100% fact.



Banhammer said:


> To buy them, even when you don't rape children yourself as an individual is to support their market and support the people who lead to child rape thanks to them, and is to share blame in them.



Holy fuck. XDDDD Lmao. What the fuck.

Okay, okay. So I guess since I buy porn, and since porn leads other people to thinking "oh, hey, I want to have sex" that means I'm fucking directly responsible enough for that person having sex to the point that I should be put to jail if sex were considered a crime? You do know that's like a double indirect responsibility, right? Fuck, going by that logic, the people buying video games are helping to support the market that provides the violent shit that kids play and then leads them to snap and go out and kill people. So I guess they share some of that blame, too. Shit, going by that logic again, because I continue to be a contributing member of society, I'm responsible for other people whom of which society keeps hidden enough for them to commit their crimes, and I need mental help, bro.   
Yeah, they share the blame all right, maybe like two seconds worth of jail time or something.




Banhammer said:


> If you're a truck and this is a cars only space, then you don't have the right to park. Your truck is put away from the park and in a prison where trucks belong.
> Unless your truck can repress itself well enough to fit in the same place as a car.
> Unless you wanna bring the Sex/Violence analogy again, then to which I suppose you should replace truck with boat and make your analogy even more unaplicable



Yeap. That's simply you being unreasonable. And if that's how you want to be that's completely fine with me. It's your own preference on this subject. Just don't try to debate with someone on the topic of it being worthy of being brought to _JUSTICE_ any more seriously than you would try to debate with someone about how that one person who likes a different food than you do should be brought to _JUSTICE._ Since that's all it is. A preference without anyone getting hurt.



Banhammer said:


> There is. In prison. Until the truck is ratified into a car


Except for the fact that prison is not for trucks that can't fit into car spaces. It's for trucks that can't fit into a car space and then runs another truck or car over because of it. And, might I add, it would kind of be partly the prison's fault for not making a fucking truck space just in case. Since that would only be the fair thing to do and it could've prevented the truck from going crazy. That being said, the truck could just as easily, even with its own space, run crazy. But that doesn't make it fair to try to change it into a car by simply being a truck in the first place. It really, really doesn't





Banhammer said:


> Feeding onto child rapist urges is a wrong.


There's nothing objective between right or wrong unless logic is involved. AKA, you're doing it _wrong._ This isn't you being reasonable. This is you being childish and demanding that everyone in the world simply share your preference, and if not, they are wrong. You can have whatever preference you want, unless you respond to other's with the logical equivalant, you are not being reasonable in the slightest. This is what the concept of justice is based upon. Fucking fairness.



Banhammer said:


> Unless you think I'm wrong and think that a way to destroy the preference to have intercourse with children should be left to stand.


Why destroy the preference? Why not destroy your own preference? Send you to jail for not liking child porn, or for liking whatever it is you like? According to your logic, that's all it requires, subjective morality based on preference to do such a thing. To destroy one's preference. Honesly? That's not hypocritical or unfair or anything, right there? The "live, but don't let live" scenario? The only time destroying one's preference is justified logically is when someone else whose preference you are trying to destroy forced their preference upon someone else who was innocent in that context. Equal.

If I were to try to physically force you to like something I like, or do something that I would like, I would be put in jail because they would simply be responding equally by saying "that's not cool, therefore we're going to stop that." Now, if I were to just say if I just told you that I like something/said you should like the same thing as me without forcing you to do anything, then they wouldn't put me in jail, they could reasonably say "that's not cool, you shouldn't that." But no physical action would be taken. Equal. Fair. Logic.



Banhammer said:


> they are connected. Fantasy seeks reality.
> It's very late here so his name escapes me, but extremely famous writer once said "the difference as to why writing fiction is much harder than chronicling reality, is that when you're writing fiction, you _have to make it sound believable_"
> People seek out this fantasy porn because they're seeking out the reality.


They are seeking out a substitue for reality. Fantasy seeks to replace reality. Not to lead to it. It doesn't go "hurr durr, I'm going to indulge in fantasy, oh wow, this is leading me to reality, durr, hurrrrrrr." It goes, "oh, this is reality, huh, what's this in my realityz? Fantasy? Something based on reality? Awww, yeahhhh, that's hawt."




hammer said:


> morality is differnt for each person you cant make laws based on morals



Yeah, you can. Our justice system is certainly based on our basic, generally agreed morals. What's considered right and wrong. However, they are logical in that JUSTICE responds with a fair equivilant of morals when someone does something disagreed upon. Why? Because that's objective. What's logical and reasonable and fair is objective. It meets a criteria of equivalance. Just like Maths and whatnot. What gets taken away on one side of the equation gets taken away on the other, so to speak. Maybe in different forms, but the logic of it at least stays the same. That's called being reasonable. Being logical. Being fair. Being awesome. Oh, but I degress, clearly I'm biased toward the truth. It makes it no less the truth, of course. <3

As for how we generally agree on morality? I said it before, but it's really simple. Survival, peace. A LOT of people want it. Fairness as well. A lot of people want that, it seems. People are pretty logical unconsiously without even realizing it. Just my opinion on it, though. No real proof.



~Zaxxon~ said:


> So I was just reading pages ago about media empowerment and shit.
> 
> Personally I think anyone who puts his/her full trust into media and disregards any of his/her's actually opinions, already had a weak or misguided intellect to begin with.
> 
> ...


Good for you bro. That's how many should act. That being said, that kind of logic goes for anything considered a crime. Meaning if walking is ever considered a crime, you did it. Meaning you are responsible. And while that is true (and completely off topic from your main point), it doesn't change the fact that it's unfair. And so, while you should always take responsibility for your actions, don't think that you have to, as a man, accept the repercusions unless they are fair. And even then, if they are fair you don't have to accept the repercusions, you just can't expect other's to not accept them/not be mad at you, since you are being unreasonable toward them via preferences. And you can't cry, either. Since that's unmanly. Just a little off-topic rambling. Nothing really against your point.


----------



## reaperunique (Jun 26, 2011)

And thus this has turned into yet another "loli hentai =/= or == CP" discussion.

But truth of the matter is, anything that might be concidered illegal or questionable, even though not really illegal should be either kept at home, or make your laptop only accesable trough a password, then make it only readable for the owner, then hide it, secure it with Serpent-Twofish-AES.


----------



## Shima Tetsuo (Jun 26, 2011)

He should receive mandatory treatment to attempt to cure him of this illness, but imprisonment is a little over the top.


----------



## stream (Jun 26, 2011)

reaperunique said:


> But truth of the matter is, anything that might be considered illegal or questionable, even though not really illegal should be either kept at home, or make your laptop only accessible trough a password, then make it only readable for the owner, then hide it, secure it with Serpent-Twofish-AES.



Er... No. Does not work. If the police suspects you of having cp on your hard drive, they can ask you for the password, and you are required by law to give it to them:


Lest anybody thinks this only applies to the US, the UK have already jailed people for refusing to decrypt their files:


----------



## Goom (Jun 26, 2011)

This is funny because this could happen to 50% of the NF population


----------



## Mikaveli (Jun 26, 2011)

hammer said:


> morality is differnt for each person you cant make laws based on morals



Yes you can. Most laws are based on morals.

As for the main topic cp is disgusting whether it's a drawing or the real thing. Obviously the latter is a lot more serious.


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 26, 2011)

Derp what kind of CP are we talking about?
A 17 year old hentai girl?
Sexting can be considered CP too.


----------



## zuul (Jun 26, 2011)

I absolutelly detest lolicon, but jailing someone who has caused no wrong to anybody is very very bad.


----------



## DarkSpring (Jun 26, 2011)

Soon you will be arrested for the mere thought of any petite woman that looks younger than 18 LOL.


----------



## Evil Ghost Ninja (Jun 26, 2011)

ensoriki said:


> Derp what kind of CP are we talking about?
> A 17 year old hentai girl?



I think they be talking about /cake/.


----------



## zuul (Jun 26, 2011)

DarkSpring said:


> Soon you will be arrested for the mere thought of any petite woman that looks younger than 18 LOL.



I think they already ban petite flatchested women from doing porn in Australia under the pretense it's like child porn. 

I personnally don't really mind since I prefer big tits, but it's discriminatory toward the small cup sizes.


----------



## peachandbetty (Jun 26, 2011)

I can't see how it ca be illegal tbh. I mean, I can see why actual CP is illegal but no children were harmed in the making of a stupid bad-taste manga. It's wierd that we're allowed all forms of violence in comics and manga, not to metion the furries but as soon as imaginary DRAWN children enter the fray, shit hits fan.


----------



## Superstars (Jun 26, 2011)

hammer said:


> morality is differnt for each person you cant make laws based on morals



You are Naive..Get off the computer and go live life.


----------



## Sunrider (Jun 26, 2011)

Super Mike said:


> Yes you can. Most laws are based on morals.


And if you notice, laws tend to vary across state and national boundaries, just like (surprise!) morals do.


----------



## tsunadefan (Jun 26, 2011)

hammer said:


> morality is differnt for each person you cant make laws based on morals



as u can see, others have commented on why this is incorrect. morality is different for each person yes, but there has to be rules and they have to be based on what is morally correct by the general populus. why? because morals are the best way to make rules by. eg, fairness in the law. fairness is considered morally right. and we see why fairness has to be a part of the law, hence we see the reason why morals have to be a part of it.


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 26, 2011)

tsunadefan said:


> as u can see, others have commented on why this is incorrect. morality is different for each person yes, but there has to be rules and they have to be based on what is morally correct by the general populus. why? because morals are the best way to make rules by. eg, fairness in the law. fairness is considered morally right. and we see why fairness has to be a part of the law, hence we see the reason why morals have to be a part of it.



The rules can be based off anything.
Unitarianism isn't the only way societies can function.
Morals also are not the only way to base a Unitarian society.


----------



## tari101190 (Jun 26, 2011)

Possession of a _sexualized image of a child_ is what was illegal.

Meaning whether or not the child is identifiable or not should not be considered at all.

As in it doesn't matter if the child is drawn, literalized, painted, filmed, photographed, fictitious, real, living or dead etc.

If it is an image depicting the sexualization of a child, then it is an illegal image, and possessing it is also illegal.

Using a _sexualized image of a child for sexual gratification_ is also illegal and makes you a p*d*p****.

I'm not exactly sure what and why people are defending or arguing. I also am surprised and disgusted that some people are trying to argue through loopholes that it is in some way all right to be in possession or to look at child porn.

I also really don't see how playing, possessing or watching something violent can be likened to this situation AT ALL. Violent images are not illegal. At least not to the extent of the video games, anime, manga or movies used in examples here. In fact there are illegal violent works, but they are not illegal to possess. They are simply illegal to exhibit publicly.

Also, this case is about sexual gratification from the images, which is linked to pedophilia. The violent works mentioned are not illegal and are also not illegal to use for sexual gratification either so there is NOTHING to compare at all.

The laws in some places may differ, but if this man was charged then it is atleast illegal where he was caught.

I personally would not like to trust a child with someone who possesses drawn or even literalized child porn, whether the laws of whichever place I'm in allowed it or not.

There is no evidence to prove that a person in possession of drawn child porn is not sexually attracted to real children, however possessing the child porn clearly atleast implies he is attracted to children so he could possibly also be a p*d*p****. 

Trying to create a distinction between a person imagining a child in a sexual situation and a person putting a child in a sexual situation is not possible because in each case, the person would need to have the mentality of a p*d*p**** in each situation.

This is a fairly straightforward case in my opinion so I do not understand what people are defending or arguing. 

My opinion simplified: If someone likes to look at a child in a sexual situation, it is not good and that someone needs to stop.

A "Child" can be classed as under 18 or prepubescent.


----------



## JellyButter (Jun 26, 2011)

Lol, whaaaa ?


----------



## Sunrider (Jun 26, 2011)

tsunadefan said:


> as u can see, others have commented on why this is incorrect. morality is different for each person yes, but there has to be rules and they have to be based on what is morally correct by the general populus. why? because morals are the best way to make rules by. eg, fairness in the law. fairness is considered morally right. and we see why fairness has to be a part of the law, hence we see the reason why morals have to be a part of it.


Morality has it's place, true--it's the motivator behind most principles and policies. 

However, what's wrong here is morality applied as some kind of absolute--an assumption that there are rules everyone is supposed to agree on, when in truth they don't, when the moral absolute being cited starts to question other rules based off it, when morality shows itself less to be rooted in reason and more in blind emotion. Not a single person here saying saying loli should be illegal had presented a defense as to why illustrated violence should not be held to the same standard, an example of moral ambiguity giving way to illogical double-standards, an example of morality being revealed as nothing more than blind disgust (emotion) for one manner of content over another. 

It's utterly immoral in the U.S. to wed or bed with a girl of twelve years, but in the Middle East, it's perfectly moral to do so. Where's the absolute then? Where's the reason? 


While it's inevitable that people's morals will influence their policy, don't assume there's any rightness in that inevitability.


tari101190 said:


> Possession of a _sexualized image of a child_ is what was illegal.
> 
> Meaning whether or not the child is identifiable or not should not be considered at all.
> 
> ...


The point has flown so far over your head that it may as well be in orbit. 

All you're doing it stating the law. Stating the _obvious_. Everyone here is fully aware of the illegality of the sexualization of children in media. That's not in question. 

The debate (and thus the entire thread), arises from the contention with the obvious. There are those of us here that fully believe a distinction should be made between live and illustrated/animated content. The example of violence in the discussed media is a comparison, showing the flaws in current laws regarding sexual content and peoples' assumptions about it's consumption.


----------



## Horu (Jun 26, 2011)

tari101190 said:


> I'm not exactly sure what and why people are defending or arguing.


To clarify: all you did was point out existing laws. What people are arguing and defending is the irrationality and erroneous reasoning behind those laws, and by proxy, behind everything you just pointed out.


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 26, 2011)

By your logic then Tari if a 17 year old girl texts her 17 year old boyfriend an image of her naked, he should go to prison for possessing this image of his girlfriend.
As they are both...children.

Yeah fucking right.
Just because something is illegal doesn't mean shit. The law will have allow two minors of 16 to bed with each other but if they have pictures. fucking pictures of each other they are now doing an illegal act when the actual physical act is not a problem. What the fuck?  Hell let's move even further, on canadian law a minor can bed with one who is within 2 ages of themselves. If they are 17 they can bed with someone who is 19. So this person who is 19 is an established adult and can legally sleep with this 17 year old minor , yet cannot have these pictures, because these pictures would encourage sleeping with....the 17 year old. Now as soon as this 17 year old turns 18 that new found 18 year old can now sleep with a 60 year old to no problem, as turning 18 suddenly caused some fucking radical shift.

Why don't we tell nature to stop causing adolescence at ages that conflict with our laws to begin with. Nature will tell a young man or woman they are ready, the law will tell them they aren't. Let them turn 14/16 then say they are ready to fuck each other , let them turn 18 and tell them they can fuck the whole world.
Yet other places in the world will say they are good from even younger, or even older.

Oh what do I care though, I can sleep with one 16 or I can sleep with one who's 107. What I say has minimal effect on me. Just saying the difference is pretty clear. Someone two years younger than me can only sleep with someone two years older then them but when it comes to me the law is fine if I sleep with someone older than my mother. So let me get this straight If you are 28 and like someone 12 years younger than you 16, you are a disgusting p*d*p**** but if you are 44 and like someone 26 years younger than you, you are 100% normal.
How, in either case you are infatuated with someone who clearly is not in your demographic. If the idea is to protect youth from the big old experienced men and women who will take advantage of them a 50 year old still has more experience than a 19 year old.

Moving past the oddities with consent laws and possession of imagery.
It is a drawing.

In Canada our government does believe that children require greater protection then adults and because of that people seeing child pornography is more problematic then them seeing a man shoot a hooker.
The oddity here is that images that depict violence to children are not banned.
If you saw a little child killed in a movie, it would not be sick, but if you saw that child having sex instead it would be sick.
So imagery of killing children does nothing to ones psyche but suddenly if you see that child having sex your psyche will be distorted and you will go to buttfuck that kid?

More yet so in the cases of fictional works it is not a real child in either situation so the argument that a child is being exploited for the work to happen doesn't hold. A child may be raped for child porn, but no child is raped for fictional work.
A real child is not killed in a movie, thank you hollywood magic and neither is one killed in fiction.

If fictional movies/images where children are killed are allowed but fictional movies/images where children have sex aren't allowed under the pretext that these things will cause negative influence to children.

Are we saying that the influence of killing a child is better than the influence of sex with a child?

Say what you will about actual child porn, but fictional work? No different from the fictional killing of a child and that is allowed.


----------



## Frostman (Jun 27, 2011)

I fear for the day where you will end up in jail for your thoughts. Cause that is where this is leading. First fictional characters on drawings, next will be imaginary characters in your brain.


----------



## ShiggyDiggyDoo (Jun 27, 2011)

Read that article closely. It was *deemed* child pornography. The silly canadians probably actually have no clue what the actual age the character in the hentai manga is because in hentai, a lot of the women drawn in there look like teenagers. And even if they did, it makes no sense to sentence a man into jail just because of them possessing work which a*fictional* child engaging in sexual acts. I just think it's a waste of time and money on this petty shit when there are REAL criminals out there that are ACTUALLY hurting people. I could gurandamntee you that this wouldn't have even had a 1% chance of reaching the courts if there was instead just a manga of some minor being brutally massacred instead.


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 27, 2011)

Your confused.



> I just think it's a waste of time and money on this petty shit when there are REAL criminals out there that are ACTUALLY hurting people



If we stopped trying people for petty shit we wouldn't have enough stuff to put on our news.
Oh wait we would but it would be that kind of tame news that people aren't interested in. Shit like we're getting new TTC trains and the mayor of some alberta city is happy for the mayor of Toronto.
Or that they found weed in an apartment, that kind of news thats all we've gone. With a report of "fatal shooting downtown" ever 4 months.


----------



## hammer (Jun 27, 2011)

Super Mike said:


> Yes you can. Most laws are based on morals.
> 
> As for the main topic cp is disgusting whether it's a drawing or the real thing. Obviously the latter is a lot more serious.





Superstars said:


> You are Naive..Get off the computer and go live life.





tsunadefan said:


> as u can see, others have commented on why this is incorrect. morality is different for each person yes, but there has to be rules and they have to be based on what is morally correct by the general populus. why? because morals are the best way to make rules by. eg, fairness in the law. fairness is considered morally right. and we see why fairness has to be a part of the law, hence we see the reason why morals have to be a part of it.



Morals=/= ethics.

morals are diffrent from each country for example as it was said it is morally ok to sleep with a 12 year old in the middle east it is not illegal but here it is illegal just because we can make laws based on morals dose not mean we should morality goes into subjectivity and not objectivity.  it was morally ok for the muslims to attack the US onm 9/11 because of the treatment they faced but yet we find it wrong because of our morals which is not the same as theirs, I repeat just because we can dose not mean we should.


----------



## thekingisback (Jun 27, 2011)

In the end lolicon comes down to free speech, you can draw anything you like. 

/debate.


----------



## The World (Jun 27, 2011)

While I don't think you should be locked up over having shitty pictures on your computer, this guy needs a psychiatrist because he probably is a perverted degenerate.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 27, 2011)

The World said:


> While I don't think you should be locked up over having shitty pictures on your computer, this guy needs a psychiatrist because he probably is a perverted degenerate.



Because there's one loli mange on his laptop? There's probably dozens or even hundreds of other manga or porn vids, but one loli manga makes him a pervert? Get real.


----------



## The World (Jun 27, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Because there's one loli mange on his laptop? There's probably dozens or even hundreds of other manga or porn vids, but one loli manga makes him a pervert? Get real.



Want to confess your sins?


----------



## Fi (Jun 27, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> The pedophiles are here. Which reality do you prefer:
> 
> 1) pedophiles stay at home, masturbating to cartoons
> 2) pedophiles rape real kids



That's like saying if people don't play their Call of Duty they're going to go kill someone.


----------



## hammer (Jun 27, 2011)

if they are pshycopaths maybe they will

also association fallcy


----------



## Muk (Jun 27, 2011)

so when are we to hear a verdict on this?


----------



## -Dargor- (Jun 27, 2011)

people kidding themselves about pedophilia in this thread

If you watch lolis, cartoon or hentai versions of kids having sex and still believe you're not a pedo, you're a joke.

Also lol@ tards bringing up free speech to justify jerking off to pictures of *children* :rofl


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 27, 2011)

-Dargor- said:


> people kidding themselves about pedophilia in this thread
> 
> If you watch lolis, cartoon or hentai versions of kids having sex and still believe you're not a pedo, you're a joke.
> 
> Also lol@ tards bringing up free speech to justify jerking off to pictures of *children* :rofl



Are you going to make an argument or do you believe "lol@ X" makes X less valid?


----------



## hammer (Jun 27, 2011)

you do realize pedophiles and pshycopaths have a diffrent chemistry makeup then you and I?


----------



## The World (Jun 27, 2011)

Hammer is obviously a p*d*p****.


----------



## hammer (Jun 27, 2011)

how do youknow that? these two things are actually the type of thing to satisfy urges short of actually doing it themselfs and if they wil ldo it themselfs anywyas wtf is wrong with the fact lolicon exisist sicne tis not real what makes one ok and not the other.

we dont know if it actually is lolicon it can be negimia for al lwe know



The World said:


> Hammer is obviously a p*d*p****.



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkG3_FNZcwc&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## abcd (Jun 27, 2011)

Juri Licious said:


> Than, that's exactly what i'm talking about. What i'm saying is, if a person is a p*d*p**** or a psychopath they WILL do something regardless of what entertainment is out there.
> 
> They aren't going to change their mind because someone drew a loli having intercourse.



As I said before... Even the lawmakers knew this, watching CP is generally banned because the children can be abused as a source of money. Somehow the other guys seem to have forgotten the reason behind the ban of CP and assume that cartoons fall in the same category.


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 27, 2011)

Juri Licious said:


> That's like saying if people don't play their Call of Duty they're going to go kill someone.



No it isn't. But it is like saying that if you have a guy with violent urges, it's better that he can buy a copy Call of Duty and play it, rather than him having to go outside and punching someone or worse.

Yes, availability of violent media decreases the rate of violent crime as well.


----------



## Agmaster (Jun 27, 2011)

2 days...300 replies. NF you show your colours.


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 27, 2011)

abcd said:


> As I said before... Even the lawmakers knew this, watching CP is generally banned because the children can be abused as a source of money. Somehow the other guys seem to have forgotten the reason behind the ban of CP and assume that cartoons fall in the same category.



The ban on fiction in Canada is not just based on abuse of children but discouraging potential abuse of children.

Not that I agree with it.


----------



## Grep (Jun 27, 2011)

Pornstars have the same level of education as children yet they are allowed to be naked on camera.

Unfair imo.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Jun 27, 2011)

If I drew a little girl stick figure getting raped by a 38-year-old man stick figure and got caught would I get arrested?


----------



## hammer (Jun 27, 2011)

CrazyMoronX said:


> If I drew a little girl stick figure getting raped by a 38-year-old man stick figure and got caught would I get arrested?



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V86RXFNXVjo[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## iGoku (Jun 27, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> the guy was a p*d*p**** and Canada has all kinds of laws about hatecrimes in music and the media, I think its funny. And I also love how people are so quick to defend the pedo, if you look at kids having sex, drawn or otherwise, you're by definition a p*d*p****. Have fun.



You really must learn to think a little more critically on this matter. It's the acting on that desire against actual children or consuming material that involves exploitation of living, breathing, children that requires action to be taken against it and the individuals involved in exploiting the children. You do this so many times...no one is defending his tastes, but they are acknowledging that the material he had ultimately is fictional. It's a waste of time and resources to attempt to prosecute him based on that alone.


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 27, 2011)

Stick figures are too vague.

But if you had some text describing it....


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Jun 27, 2011)

ensoriki said:


> Stick figures are too vague.
> 
> But if you had some text describing it....



What if I had an arrow pointing to them.

Like ---> 7yr old lol
And ---> 38yr old pedo


Then maybe some red crayon streams pouring from the < legs of the loli.


----------



## abcd (Jun 27, 2011)

CrazyMoronX said:


> What if I had an arrow pointing to them.
> 
> Like ---> 7yr old lol
> And ---> 38yr old pedo
> ...



Reported for posting CP and abusing children .

A penis in a 7yr old .. disgusting , U shud be chained and pelted with stones for such thoughts   /s


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Jun 27, 2011)

NOOO I'm too hot for prison. I'll get passed around like a bong a frat party.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 27, 2011)

CrazyMoronX said:


> NOOO I'm too hot for prison. I'll get passed around like a bong a frat party.



See you in hell. bitch.


----------



## Grep (Jun 27, 2011)

CrazyMoronX said:


> NOOO I'm too hot for prison. I'll get passed around like a bong a frat party.



Frat parties are homoerotic enough as it is. You didn't need to add the bong.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 27, 2011)

CrazyMoronX said:


> NOOO I'm too hot for prison. I'll get passed around like a bong a frat party.



No, you'll get passed around like boy at the Vatican.


----------



## Fojos (Jun 27, 2011)

Juri Licious said:


> That's like saying if people don't play their Call of Duty they're going to go kill someone.



Think about it. Poor countries without entertainment is where people kill eachother all the time.


----------



## αce (Jun 27, 2011)

BGtymin said:


> Pornstars have the same level of education as children yet they are allowed to be naked on camera.
> 
> Unfair imo.



Not sure... if.... serious....


----------



## impersonal (Jun 28, 2011)

CrazyMoronX said:


> What if I had an arrow pointing to them.
> 
> Like ---> 7yr old lol
> And ---> 38yr old pedo
> ...


What counts is the erotic value of the image I suppose. So, a descriptive image that can hardly be used for masturbation (such as the one you propose) would I suppose lead to the court dismissing any charges against you.


----------



## Sans (Jun 28, 2011)

CrazyMoronX said:


> NOOO I'm too hot for prison. I'll get passed around like a bong a frat party.



You just keep telling yourself that. 

Anyway, this seems like a huge overreaction. I've slaughtered thousands in video-games; doesn't mean I'm going to go commit murder.

Similarly this man's "crimes" are fictional. Just because he looks at drawings, doesn't mean he supports the exploitation of young girls, or would even be attracted to it.

I feel uneasy looking at real life atrocities presented in the media. When I disembowel someone in God of War 3, I think it's fucking awesome.

There needs to be a distinction made between actions taken in reality, and those taken in fictional settings.

This makes me leery of taking my computer overseas as well. There's probably a crapload of dodgy stuff, hanging around now, accumulated over the years that I'm not even aware of. According to this, I could be charged for them. Ridiculous.


----------



## The World (Jun 28, 2011)

BGtymin said:


> Pornstars have the same level of education as children yet they are allowed to be naked on camera.
> 
> Unfair imo.



Not......sure..........if...........serious.


----------



## tsunadefan (Jun 28, 2011)

arent morals and ethics kinda the same? (mostly to hammer) and what does unitarianism have to do with this?(mostly to guy who confronted me and talked about unitarianism, lulz. although others can answer too) even if other countries have different rules, it is still what they believe as morally right and ok that they use to make the laws. i dont know which other way would be better than using morals (or ethics) as a way to make the laws. maybe its just the best way. if there are other ways that are better then please submit them to the discussion.


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 28, 2011)

I meant utilitarianism but the spell check fucked up and put it as unitarianism.
Utilitarianism would be doing what the majority want.
You can also create laws off of a goal you believe is important in contrast to the majorities views.

You can create laws that conflict with your morals for instance when you pass a prostitution law because you think prostitution is immoral, however the majority does not want a prostitution law.

Your personal values of what is right about prostitution can be put aside for what the majority wants.

As well, lets say you pass a law and realize that law will say result in say 6000 people going to jail.
You believe this is the morally correct thing to do however if your population is only 6003, your morals conflict with what is logically sound if your goal is to run a functioning country.

Morals are a personal belief of what is right or wrong. You can believe something is wrong but still feel that it is necessary.

Laws can be based off what you believe is right or wrong, but they can also be based off what you believe is necessary for an intended goal.
Hell a person could hate black people and think their evil but not pass a law because they feel they need us for their economy.


You can't base everything off some value of good & evil and we'd all probably be fucked if that was the sole reasoning behind the law.


----------



## hammer (Jun 28, 2011)

tsunadefan said:


> arent morals and ethics kinda the same? (mostly to hammer) and what does unitarianism have to do with this?(mostly to guy who confronted me and talked about unitarianism, lulz. although others can answer too) even if other countries have different rules, it is still what they believe as morally right and ok that they use to make the laws. i dont know which other way would be better than using morals (or ethics) as a way to make the laws. maybe its just the best way. if there are other ways that are better then please submit them to the discussion.



they are btu they are not they are both values, but morals say its ok to do 9/11 ethics say its wrong to put it simply, The reason im not found of morals is because the ycan make laws so drastically diffrent in with the west being  big mixture of ethnic groups laws absed on morals will really mess things up.

a betetr example would be morally in the middle east its ok to sleep with children morally we think its wrong because the simple fact they are children.



ethically we realize a childs brain dose not develp till they finish puberty at around 16-17 and they dont truly understand the choices they make till they are around due to brai ndevelpment so it is wrong to sleep with them.

morally this is wrong because its a child  pixle child but a child none the less

ethically nobody was hurt and never will be.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Jun 28, 2011)

If they're going to prosecute underage images in manga- and I'm assuming this person was found with loli stuff, which I don't think should necessarily be legal in the first place. But it needs to be qualified differently. The punishments have to vary and the actual legal label has to change from child pornography. Even if I don't like the idea of loli hentai, someone found in possession of it should not be openly charged under the category of child pornography- no more than an artist drawing a scene of death should be charged with human murder. It's absurd and it's obscene.

If they are going to include artwork into these legal issues- and I'm not saying they shouldn't, but if they do they need to update their terminology and punishment. Going to prison for owning artwork of any sort shouldn't be happening. To anyone. For anything.


----------



## hammer (Jun 28, 2011)

^the officer deemed it to be loli it chould be k-on for all you know


----------



## |)/-\\/\/|\| (Jun 28, 2011)

Would you be held in prison if you draw your own child porn manga? In anyways searching through his laptop is invasion of privacy and should only be allowed on court order imo.


----------



## tsunadefan (Jun 28, 2011)

i see ur point ensorici. i was just thinking in the western part mostly. and i was also kinda taking in ruling under Gods law into consideration. hammer i still wanna know the definitions and differences between morals and ethics. i was also wondering if its possible to like drawn loli and shota and not like the actual thing?


----------



## hammer (Jun 29, 2011)

while I did not define the differnce I thought I explained it in a somewhat ok manner ethnics have to do with logic for example the reason why child porn is wrong where as morals say its wrong all around, and I do think its posible some people just like petite women for example many chiense women dont have a cub size bigger then B alot have A and they can range from being 4 ft 9 to 5 ft 10 is it wrong to eb attracted to them even if they are 18?


also who is older betwen these two pictures before you answer yes its a trick question.





when the anime where the first girl is from she started at the age of 14 but tits as big as your head while lucky star is about senior high school students yet they look 12.

assuming these people are real(go with me on this) would it be ok to lust for the formor or the ladder? jsut looking at them not knowing there ages you would say neither because one is 14 and the others look 14 even though if they exsisted they would be able to give consent but the fact of the matter is even though she looks 14 doe not make her 14.

however this is irelevent ebcause again for all we know it chould have just been negimia or anything with highschool girls upskirt which is 99% of high school manga. with peopel who only LOOK 14 the fact of the matter is in my old school I knew about 6 girls who where the size of the lucky star cast in high school now they were not mytype so I diddnt crush on them but if I did whould I be a p*d*p**** even though they would only be 2 years diffrent then I?


----------



## stream (Jun 29, 2011)

Easy. Lusting for any of them makes you a p*d*p****, unless you can prove that they are not over 18.

[insert Chris Hansen pic yourself, I'm too lazy]
Crucify! Crucify!


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 29, 2011)

Age of consent in Canada is 16.
With a close in age rule where the other person has to be less then 5 years older.
Canada's still fucked up though in this department since fictional work does not exploit children.


----------



## tsunadefan (Jun 29, 2011)

hammer said:


> while I did not define the differnce I thought I explained it in a somewhat ok manner ethnics have to do with logic for example the reason why child porn is wrong where as morals say its wrong all around, and I do think its posible some people just like petite women for example many chiense women dont have a cub size bigger then B alot have A and they can range from being 4 ft 9 to 5 ft 10 is it wrong to eb attracted to them even if they are 18?
> 
> 
> also who is older betwen these two pictures before you answer yes its a trick question.
> ...


i am still not 100 percent getting it. i will try though. so the difference is that one has logical reasons to back its claim while the other doesnt? and i wanted to know if its possible to be attracted to loli and not CP.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 29, 2011)

I dream of the day when all loli fans are jailed


----------



## tsunadefan (Jun 29, 2011)

but alas, its only a dream. oh well!


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 29, 2011)

Not when countries are following Canada's example.


----------



## Panos (Jun 29, 2011)

What if the "girls" were 18 and just appeared young? Why don't they go ask them? 

/kidding


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 29, 2011)

*counts new pages*

Yeah, I'm not touching this thread again


----------



## tsunadefan (Jun 29, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> Not when countries are following Canada's example.



oh no! >:/ 



Banhammer said:


> *counts new pages*
> 
> Yeah, I'm not touching this thread again



and yet here you are.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 29, 2011)

tsunadefan said:


> oh no! >:/



Oh yes, those sick freaks are gonna get what they deserve


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jun 29, 2011)

We had a similar case in Sweden which is currently being appealed to the highest court. Basically as soon as the case was made most media complained against it. Most newspapers have covered it (all of them where critical of the law)

The situation in Sweden is made worse by the fact that the victim of this law is official swedish translator of One Piece, and as such he was fired from his job (which incidentally got the publisher some criticism).

We need more laws based on common sense and less laws based on arbitrary values.

Cardboard made some point about hate crime laws, but those are vastly different. It is not commonly illegal to possess "hate" material. What is criminal is to spread it. Secondly the purpose of hate material is to spread hatred while the purpose of porn is not generally to spread hatred (except possibly some bizarre violent porn which likely IS NOT ILLEGAL except in the UK lol)



Elim Rawne said:


> Oh yes, those sick freaks are gonna get what they deserve



Like the homosexuals am i rite?


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 29, 2011)

Elim is just playing around.


not.


----------



## Damaris (Jun 29, 2011)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> Like the homosexuals am i rite?



homosexuality is a consenting relationship between two adults.
pedophilia is the act of bringing a child who cannot consent into a sexual relationship.

comparing the two is stupid as fuck and makes you look like the inane one.


----------



## DeathkillerD (Jun 29, 2011)

Damaris said:


> homosexuality is a consenting relationship between two adults.
> pedophilia is the act of bringing a child who cannot consent into a sexual relationship.
> 
> comparing the two is stupid as fuck and makes you look like the inane one.



the comparison is accurate in referring to being born with an attraction that is/was deemed morally reprehensible. Obviously pedophilia is unacceptable because the child can not consent and therefore would always end up being the victim. However, we can not simply lock people up because they were born with the different desires than us. I would like us to start serious research into trying to adjust sexual preference if only for this reason, instead of painting all pedophiles with a broad brush (even the ones who have done nothing and will do nothing to harm a child because they realize how terrible it is)
 Like a poster before said, we need to set a firm stance on fiction and reality.  Instead of being jailed for a cartoon he should instead be forced to take mandatory therapy.  Unfortunately, the attitude in the world (as evidenced in many areas in this thread) prevents people from getting the help they need.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 29, 2011)

Damaris said:


> homosexuality is a consenting relationship between two adults.
> pedophilia is the act of bringing a child who cannot consent into a sexual relationship.
> 
> comparing the two is stupid as fuck and makes you look like the inane one.


The user you're replying too has a history of defending pedophilia like it should be something thats okay or that its just a perfectly natural behavior that should be embraced.


----------



## Damaris (Jun 29, 2011)

DeathkillerD said:


> the comparison is accurate in referring to being born with an attraction that is/was deemed morally reprehensible. Obviously pedophilia is unacceptable because the child can not consent and therefore would always end up being the victim. However, we can not simply lock people up because they were born with the different desires than us. I would like us to start serious research into trying to adjust sexual preference if only for this reason, instead of painting all pedophiles with a broad brush (even the ones who have done nothing and will do nothing to harm a child because they realize how terrible it is)
> Like a poster before said, we need to set a firm stance on fiction and reality.  Instead of being jailed for a cartoon he should instead be forced to take mandatory therapy.  Unfortunately, the attitude in the world (as evidenced in many areas in this thread) prevents people from getting the help they need.



i'm not denying that pedophiles are humans. i've worked with pedophiles who never touched a child in trying to restrain and battle their urges. but to compare homosexuality to pedophilia and put them on the same level is unfair to both, and accomplishes nothing. while they are both sexual in nature, one hurts by its very nature and one doesn't. to place them side by side is ludicrous.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 30, 2011)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> Like the homosexuals am i rite?



If you wanna think that pedophilia is just like homosexuality, be my guest.


----------



## Jena (Jun 30, 2011)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> Like the homosexuals am i rite?


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 30, 2011)

Damaris said:


> homosexuality is a consenting relationship between two adults.
> pedophilia is the act of bringing a child who cannot consent into a sexual relationship.
> 
> comparing the two is stupid as fuck and makes you look like the inane one.



Wrong on both counts. Homosexuality is the sexual attraction to sexually mature people of one's own sex. Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to sexually immature people. Consent or not has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Narcissus (Jun 30, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> Wrong on both counts. Homosexuality is the sexual attraction to sexually mature people of one's own sex. Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to sexually immature people. Consent or not has nothing to do with it.



You're missing his point, which is that the two are not comparable with each other.


----------



## Damaris (Jun 30, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> Wrong on both counts. Homosexuality is the sexual attraction to sexually mature people of one's own sex. Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to sexually immature people. Consent or not has nothing to do with it.



are we really going to debate nuances of a sentence? obviously the textbook definition of homosexuality is not "a consenting relationship between two adults". but what makes homosexuality acceptable and pedophilia unacceptable is that one can consent to the former and not to the latter, which is why the person i responded to was wrong in saying that one who argues against pedophiles would then naturally lump homosexuals under the same category as "sick freaks". you're missing the point on purpose.


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 30, 2011)

Narcissus said:


> You're missing his point, which is that the two are not comparable with each other.



You're missing my point, which is that they are.



Damaris said:


> are we really going to debate nuances of a sentence? obviously the textbook definition of homosexuality is not "a consenting relationship between two adults". but what makes homosexuality acceptable and pedophilia unacceptable is that one can consent to the former and not to the latter, which is why the person i responded to was wrong in saying that one who argues against pedophiles would then naturally lump homosexuals under the same category as "sick freaks". you're missing the point on purpose.


Your point is wrong. One can consent to both. The consent just isn't legally valid for one of them (in some countries), but laws can be changed.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 30, 2011)

Damaris said:


> are we really going to debate nuances of a sentence? obviously the textbook definition of homosexuality is not "a consenting relationship between two adults". but what makes homosexuality acceptable and pedophilia unacceptable is that one can consent to the former and not to the latter, which is why the person i responded to was wrong in saying that one who argues against pedophiles would then naturally lump homosexuals under the same category as "sick freaks". you're missing the point on purpose.



You have to forgive him, pedophiles are quite anal about their sickness


----------



## Damaris (Jun 30, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> Your point is wrong. One can consent to both. The consent just isn't legally valid for one of them (in some countries), but laws can be changed.



a child cannot consent to a sexual relationship. a child can be coerced, forced, or blackmailed into sexual acts, they can have their ignorance used against them, but they cannot consent to a sexual relationship in the way an adult can. legal validity does not change this fact, it only changes society's view of it.


----------



## Jena (Jun 30, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> Your point is wrong. One can consent to both. The consent just isn't legally valid for one of them (in some countries), but laws can be changed.



Oh. 
My.
God.

Just...wow. Nope. I can't even. What. But. How? Psychology-gah....

And why is your avatar from He-Man? This makes it so much worse.


----------



## santanico (Jun 30, 2011)

eh, well I've never had an opinion about loli or those who like it. Not real children, and no one is getting hurt. It's actual child pornography with _REAL_ children that I am totally against.


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Jun 30, 2011)

If he really had lolicon on his laptop, then he had it coming.

Some people here argued, that lolicon isn't childporn. How so? It's a subcategory.
Child porn is the generic term and lolicon and "real life" child porn are both particular cases of it. Lolicon pictures children having sex, therefore it's child porn.
Or would you say, that hentai isn't porn?


Also it's scary and disgusting to see, that some people really seem to think, that a child could consent to something like that. One reason more, to go against pedophiles.


----------



## abcd (Jun 30, 2011)

Eru Lawliet said:


> If he really had lolicon on his laptop, then he had it coming.
> 
> Some people here argued, that lolicon isn't childporn. How so? It's a subcategory.
> Child porn is the generic term and lolicon and "real life" child porn are both particular cases of it. Lolicon pictures children having sex, therefore it's child porn.
> Or would you say, that hentai isn't porn?



As mentioned many times in the thread before...

Watching CP is illegal because it provides a business for the people making CP where children are harmed., In a cartoon that is not the case.

It is similar to Guro in cartoon and reality , one is widespread while the other would have serious repercussions to both the people watching and the ones who are making them.


----------



## Narcissus (Jun 30, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> You're missing my point, which is that they are.



No they aren't.

 Consenting adults have matured minds with which to make decisions. They are aware of the possible consequencess of their actions. The majority of children are ignorant and can suffer long-term effects from a sexual experience before they are mature.


----------



## abcd (Jun 30, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> You're missing my point, which is that they are.
> 
> 
> Your point is wrong. One can consent to both. The consent just isn't legally valid for one of them (in some countries), but laws can be changed.



If she is not old enough to bleed she is not old enough to breed


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Jun 30, 2011)

abcd said:


> As mentioned many times in the thread before...
> 
> Watching CP is illegal because it provides a business for the people making CP where children are harmed., In a cartoon that is not the case.



That doesn't change the fact, that lolicon is still child porn.



> It is similar to Guro in cartoon and reality , one is widespread while the other would have serious repercussions to both the people watching and the ones who are making them.



With guro in reality, do you mean snuff movies (which picture real murders), or do you mean horror movies?

The former of course is illegal, but I don't see much of a difference between the latter and cartoons.

Edit: wait, I confused guro with gore.


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 30, 2011)

Damaris said:


> a child cannot consent to a sexual relationship.


Of course they can. You can explain the process of sex to a child, and then ask if he or she wants to try it out. The child can say yes to this question. This signifies consent.

The issue here is that you don't _want_ a child to be able to consent. But reality does not conform to your opinion.



Elim Rawne said:


> You have to forgive him, pedophiles are quite anal about their sickness


Pedophilia is not a sickness and I am not a p*d*p****.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 30, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> Pedophilia is not a sickness and I am not a p*d*p****.



Yes it is, and yes, you are. Stop denying it


----------



## Damaris (Jun 30, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> Of course they can. You can explain the process of sex to a child, and then ask if he or she wants to try it out. The child can say yes to this question. This signifies consent.
> 
> The issue here is that you don't _want_ a child to be able to consent. But reality does not conform to your opinion.



i'm going to take a wild guess here and say that i know more of this "reality" than you ever will, and i'll just hope that's the reason you insist on continuing in this delusional indulgence. children are not equal to adults in their reasoning and understanding of the world. if they were, they wouldn't be children and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

but they are, and no matter how you try to excuse away things, that fact remains.


----------



## abcd (Jun 30, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> Of course they can. You can explain the process of sex to a child, and then ask if he or she wants to try it out. The child can say yes to this question. This signifies consent.
> 
> The issue here is that you don't _want_ a child to be able to consent. But reality does not conform to your opinion.



There is a reason why parents take care of children... Its because the children cannot take care of themselves.


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Jun 30, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> Of course they can. You can explain the process of sex to a child, and then ask if he or she wants to try it out. The child can say yes to this question. This signifies consent.
> 
> The issue here is that you don't _want_ a child to be able to consent. But reality does not conform to your opinion.
> 
> ...




Even if you explain to a child what sex is, it can't fully grasp what it means like an adult can.
And it's not just sex, where that difference between child and adult is made. For instance, children aren't able to conclude contracts, they aren't hold accountable for crimes (or at least to a lesser degree, depending on the actual age).
Children are inexperienced in everything, they're easily influenced. They can't agree to something like this. What do you think would an adult feel, if he/she was coaxed into having sex as a child, once he's able to grasp, what actually happened to him?
It's an unequal "relationship". "Active" pedophiles are criminals of the worst kind. Being attracted to children is dangerous and sick.


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 30, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> Yes it is, and yes, you are. Stop denying it



Wrong on both.



Damaris said:


> i'm going to take a wild guess here and say that i know more of this "reality" than you ever will, and i'll just hope that's the reason you insist on continuing in this delusional indulgence. children are not equal to adults in their reasoning and understanding of the world. if they were, they wouldn't be children and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
> 
> but they are, and no matter how you try to excuse away things, that fact remains.



I'm going to not take a guess and all, and just conclude that you don't know at all what you are talking about. Kids do sexual things with each other all the time. If you put up a secret spy cam at a kindergarten, let it run for a few days, you'd be very surprised at how much sexual stuff there was going on.

I haven't said children understand the world in the same way adults do. But understanding the world as adults do is not a prerequisite for consenting to sex.


----------



## Damaris (Jun 30, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> I'm going to not take a guess and all, and just conclude that you don't know at all what you are talking about. Kids do sexual things with each other all the time. If you put up a secret spy cam at a kindergarten, let it run for a few days, you'd be very surprised at how much sexual stuff there was going on.
> 
> I haven't said children understand the world in the same way adults do. But understanding the world as adults do is not a prerequisite for consenting to sex.



so now we've gone from "homosexuality = pedophilia" to "children can consent to sex with an adult" to "kids have sex with each other, so it's okay". i'm glad that you can backtrack so successfully without a trace of shame.


and you would be surprised, i think, by how much of kids engaging in sexual activity with each other is the _result_ of trauma from an adult molesting them, not the natural outgrowth you're painting it as. and kids having sex with each other is still, surprise surprise, not necessarily right, and can be something a person deals with all of their life. because they were a kid. this isn't revolutionary stuff i'm spouting off here, it's basic fact anyone can dig up with some half-assed googling. are you honestly too thick to get this?


----------



## Fayrra (Jun 30, 2011)

Eru Lawliet said:


> Also it's scary and disgusting to see, that some people really seem to think, that a child could consent to something like that. One reason more, to go against pedophiles.


Actually they can, they just have to be very, very, very smart and sexually/emotionally semi-mature for their age. Really all they need is about the emotional, sexual matureness/ intelligence of a 16-18 year old. Preferably the emotional part should fall under 18, while the intelligence/sexual matureness can definitely be the average 16 year-old, from what I know of how humans age. Such a progidy can certainly exist, just not as like a 5 year-old or something. Probably. I wouldn't really know what the possible age limit for prodigies are.



Narcissus said:


> No they aren't.
> 
> Consenting adults have matured minds with which to make decisions. They are aware of the possible consequencess of their actions. The majority of children are ignorant and can suffer long-term effects from a sexual experience before they are mature.


The comparison between homosexuality is a perfect one. It was _never_ about the _differences_, if you compare them and they don't match it's probably because you are _looking at it wrong._  An analogy is not _literal._ I know you're logical, so you should get this.

Homosexuality. A preference. A sexual one. By having that preference, no one is getting hurt.

Pedophilia. A preference. A sexual one. By having that preference alone, no one is getting hurt.

People have once condemned homosexuality just for being a preference.

People now condemn pedophilia just for being a preference. Sexual preference does not = raping little girls. It equals having sex with them. Just like homosexuality equals just having sex with them (them equals the same sex). There's a difference between wanting to rape someone and wanting to have sex with them. Just because having sex = raping them does not mean the intent is rape. That's like saying jumping = the intent is to fall down. Just because it has to happen doesn't mean they want it to. It's still just a sexual preference like homosexuality by defualt. How do you know that they don't just want mutual sex with the kid? They want the kid to want it to? Because it's not possible?  Just because that can't really happen when they have sex with said kid does not mean they actually want to rape them, and that is because raping requires intent to actually deny their will, while getting turned on is an automatic, involentary biological response. 

It's like saying that because I like chicken, and I eat things that taste like chicken to simulate eating the real thing, I, by defualt, want to help kill chicken. I can't just involuntarily like chicken and then voluntarily realize that if I eat chicken, I'm helping to support their deaths and then say no, and simulate eating it instead? Theoretical intent is a big thing here. I repeat, just because I like the taste of chicken does not mean that I want them to be killed. Despite the fact that if I act on my tastes, they WILL BE. Only until I actually decide to keep eating chicken does it mean I want them to be killed. I'm sure you can see the _awesome as hell_ connection there. And therefore, since by default a sexual preference, as well as a taste bud one, is involuntary, we cannot assume that the also involuntary side-affect is involuntarily wanted as well (the biological, in-built preferences of someone fucked up in the head). A prefence is just a prefence, and should be treated as such, regardless of what side-effects may come out of it. The only difference is that with pedophilia it's a lot more harder to find a soul mate. Side-effects do not change the preference unless side-effects actually happen. And that's a case by case thing. You don't generalize it to all people who have that preference.

That's be like my generalizing all sex as leading to STD'S. Does that mean having sex without a condom equals intent to get STD'S? Nope. But it certainly is MOST LIKELY a side-effect of it. 

Come on, Narcissus. I know you can see the flaw to this logic and why they can be compared. Don't let perception nor bias fool you. I think it has something to do with the fact that it is almost a confirmed side-effect that's fucking you up. 

But most likely side-effect or not, it does not equal the preference by defualt, nor can we logically assume so. Or are we not using logic to assume here? Whether something is likey or not does not change the logic of the thing that can cause it. If a tornado is likely to form and destroy our city, it does not change the fact that warm and cool air must have sex. If a flood is unlikely to happen, it does not change the fact that there must be an abundance of water build up via the water cycle and a leak in the intended awesome structure of our system.

Am I therefore logical in saying that the two cannot be compared as theoretical disasters because one has a more likely side-effect of happening? No. No. No. In this case, they are still both disasters (sexual preference) and they both still form via nature acting on our structures (inbuilt, automatic impulses we cannot control), and they both can destroy a city or flood a house (rape), but only one is more likely to happen (pedophilia). Once again, more likey does not change the logic of their beginnings nor the intent for that more likey to happen, it only means that this tornado is going to get on our badside despite the fact that all it did was _naturally form._

XD. If none of this gets through to you I swear I'll WTF-lol so hard. I guess it would be a good way to troll me, though.




Edit:Grrblt; explaining something to a child and then them saying yes does not mean they truly understand. Also, there's an emotional aspect to it as well. They may not be able to deal with it as emotionally well as other people can being older. And that is no fault of the child's.


----------



## abcd (Jun 30, 2011)

wall of text


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 30, 2011)

Damaris said:


> a child cannot consent to a sexual relationship. a child can be coerced, forced, or blackmailed into sexual acts, they can have their ignorance used against them, but they cannot consent to a sexual relationship in the way an adult can. legal validity does not change this fact, it only changes society's view of it.



That depends what you are talking about by a child.
Even then a child can consent to a sexual relationship thats not the real issue, it's whether or not they understand what they are really consenting to.
Understanding what you are consenting to depends on the person it can occur earlier or later than the government's legal age.
And who is an adult anyways? Your 18 and now suddenly you are able to form consent? A light bulb just switched on?
No.




Eru Lawliet said:


> Even if you explain to a child what sex is, it can't fully grasp what it means like an adult can.
> And it's not just sex, where that difference between child and adult is made. For instance, children aren't able to conclude contracts, they aren't hold accountable for crimes (or at least to a lesser degree, depending on the actual age).
> Children are inexperienced in everything, they're easily influenced. They can't agree to something like this. What do you think would an adult feel, if he/she was coaxed into having sex as a child, once he's able to grasp, what actually happened to him?
> It's an unequal "relationship". "Active" pedophiles are criminals of the worst kind. Being attracted to children is dangerous and sick.



What kind of child are you describing?
Under 18, under 16, under 14, 12, 11 and under?
It should be blatantly obvious no two people think exactly alike and individuals in a demographic can mature mentally ahead of the average person in that demographic.
Anyways there is no inherit danger of being attracted to children.
Sexually exploiting or assaulting anyone is not determined by pedophilia.


----------



## abcd (Jun 30, 2011)

ensoriki said:


> That depends what you are talking about by a child.
> Even then a child can consent to a sexual relationship thats not the real issue, it's whether or not they understand what they are really consenting to.
> Understanding what you are consenting to depends on the person it can occur earlier or later than the government's legal age.
> And who is an adult anyways? Your 18 and now suddenly you are able to form consent? A light bulb just switched on?
> No.



Age of consent is different from Adult age... In germany for eg:


> The age of consent in Germany is 14, as long as a person over the age of 21 does not exploit a 14–15 year-old person's lack of capacity for sexual self-determination. In this rare and special case, a conviction on an individual over the age of 21 requires a complaint from the younger individual; being over 21 and engaging in sexual relations with a minor of that age does not constitute an offense in and of itself. Otherwise the age of consent is 14, although provisions protecting minors against coercion apply until the age of 18.







> It should not be confused with the age of majority, age of criminal responsibility, the marriageable age, the age at which one can purchase and consume alcoholic beverages, or drive a car, or other purposes.


----------



## Nihonjin (Jun 30, 2011)

Damaris said:


> a child cannot consent to a sexual relationship. a child can be coerced, forced, or blackmailed into sexual acts, they can have their ignorance used against them, but they cannot consent to a sexual relationship in the way an adult can. legal validity does not change this fact, it only changes society's view of it.



So when _are_ people able to consent?


----------



## Soziopath (Jun 30, 2011)

If you want to send someone to jail, he should've committed a crime. It may be not a very popular point of view, but to restrict someones freedom (as jail surely does) you need a crime. You know with a victim and stuff.

Pedophilia, Hebephilia and Ephebophilia (yeah, there are slight differences, and they are there for a reason) are preferences - nothing that should get you your freedom restricted, because no ones hurt. Likely people with those preferences enjoy lolicon or, in interconnection with homosexual preferences, shotacon. Still no victim, still not a crime, still no reason to do something to this guy, neither jail nor therapy. Because preferences are nothing to cure.

I understand that pedophilia is bad, because children can not consent to sex in a way adults can.
But once they hit puberty, it becomes difficult to define what a child is, and the law may be not the most qualified instance to do so.
Some teens may be able to fully consent to sex with 14 other with 16 or 17, and there may be adults with 21 you can talk into sex without them being full aware what they'd be doing.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Jun 30, 2011)

We must first Define Pornography
Is it simply in the nude?Rape?or Sex? There are also objects like toothbrushes that can be place holders.
 Next we must define underaged for something in fiction.
Is it simply a drawing?What if the character has a stated age and still looks young?
What if the character isn't a person and is an object that looks very human and/or doesn't have feelings or emotions? What about young or old humanoids that can change form?
I need these questions answered clearly to know.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Jun 30, 2011)

> Kids do sexual things with each other all the time. If you put up a secret spy cam at a kindergarten, let it run for a few days, you'd be very surprised at how much sexual stuff there was going on.




As someone who grew up in a family not only teaching young kids, but counseling, what you're talking about isn't sexual. Kids don't do sexual things. A little boy playing with his penis isn't sexual in nature. A little girl exploring herself isn't sexual. My mother taught kids for some years, and apparently some time back there were two very young brothers who scared their parent because she saw one of them put his mouth on the others penis during bathtime. That sounds fucked up, doesn't it? But it turned out to be nothing depraved or sexual or even experimental. The boys were around four, I think. Maybe three. And there was nothing sexual to the act. It was a curiosity. If I'm remembering right the boys had apparently spent the day tasting everything they could, and in the bath were tasting the faucet and their bath toys and so on.

I have never seen a child act sexually. The psychology isn't there, and there are no recognizably sexual stimulations going on inside their bodies until puberty. I think you're off base on this one.


----------



## HighLevelPlayer (Jun 30, 2011)

Ennoea said:


> Why the fuck were they searching through his manga folders to begin with?


 
He might've had an image as his wallpaper, then they decided to keep searching his computer for more.

Either way, I find this story lulzy.


----------



## hammer (Jun 30, 2011)

tsunadefan said:


> i am still not 100 percent getting it. i will try though. so the difference is that one has logical reasons to back its claim while the other doesnt? and i wanted to know if its possible to be attracted to loli and not CP.



pretty much one is more subjective the other is objective

and I guess that can happen I mean I dont find small children attractive nore sdo I care for hentai in general but I can not read peoples minds but with all the people in the world to say its not plausable is silly just based on how many people are on earth.


----------



## tsunadefan (Jul 1, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> Oh yes, those sick freaks are gonna get what they deserve



nnnnnooooooo!! >:/



hammer said:


> pretty much one is more subjective the other is objective
> 
> and I guess that can happen I mean I dont find small children attractive nore sdo I care for hentai in general but I can not read peoples minds but with all the people in the world to say its not plausable is silly just based on how many people are on earth.



ok, i get the moral and ethics thing now. and on the thing about not liking the real thing i think thats possible. because, i know someone who kinda likes tentacle hentai, but when he saw it depected, in like, a reality where there were tentacles going in this japanese girl, he was hardly attracted. in fact, it kinda grossed him out.


----------



## hammer (Jul 1, 2011)

tsunadefan said:


> ok, i get the moral and ethics thing now. and on the thing about not liking the real thing i think thats possible. because, i know someone who kinda likes tentacle hentai, but when he saw it depected, in like, a reality where there were tentacles going in this japanese girl, he was hardly attracted. in fact, it kinda grossed him out.



which is whjy we shouldnt compare the two and like I said we dont even know if it was hentai I doubt a secrety guard knwos what hentai is.


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Jul 1, 2011)

Fayrra said:


> Actually they can, they just have to be very, very, very smart and sexually/emotionally semi-mature for their age. Really all they need is about the emotional, sexual matureness/ intelligence of a 16-18 year old. Preferably the emotional part should fall under 18, while the intelligence/sexual matureness can definitely be the average 16 year-old, from what I know of how humans age. Such a progidy can certainly exist, just not as like a 5 year-old or something. Probably. I wouldn't really know what the possible age limit for prodigies are.



Being very intelligent doesn't mean one is mature and emotionally ready enough for sex. And of course the time, when people are mature enough varies from person to person. But who decides, when one is ready? Who has enough psychological insight? Also I guess "prodigies" are extremely rare.
And of course prepubescent children, which are the targets of pedophiles, and as the name already says, are obviously not ready, they can never be.

As for teenagers or young adults, to protect them, the law has to draw the line somewhere (refering to the age limit). It can't consider the maturity of individuals. As I said before, who's able to decide, whether one is mature enough or not? I think most of the time the person in question can't tell that (despite maybe thinking otherwise).




ensoriki said:


> What kind of child are you describing?
> Under 18, under 16, under 14, 12, 11 and under?
> It should be blatantly obvious no two people think exactly alike and individuals in a demographic can mature mentally ahead of the average person in that demographic.
> Anyways there is no inherit danger of being attracted to children.
> Sexually exploiting or assaulting anyone is not determined by pedophilia.



I'm mainly talking about prepubescent children, since they're the targets of pedophiles. I think pedophilia is (potentially) dangerous, since if it wouldn't exist, no one would touch a child.
As for maturity, I refer to the aforementioned.
Every adult who has even an ounce of decency, stays away from kids, teenagers and adolescents.


----------



## Fayrra (Jul 1, 2011)

Eru Lawliet said:


> Being very intelligent doesn't mean one is mature and emotionally ready enough for sex.


Doesn't matter. Even some adults are not emotionally ready enough for sex/relationship. Being intelligent means they can fully understand what they are getting into, like any adult, and whether or not they are prepared is on them, since they can cognitivly understand shit. Not to mention I didn't just say intelligent, but I also coupled it with emotional/sexual matureness. So that's a strawman argument anyway.



Eru Lawliet said:


> And of course the time, when people are mature enough varies from person to person. But who decides, when one is ready? Who has enough psychological insight?


lol. Science does. It may vary from person to person but the usual time is the same. I'm not talking about being able to withstand any kind of tradegy, but rather emotional maturity to the point where they can at least not become screwed up when they become older. That would be the maturity of any average teen.



Eru Lawliet said:


> And of course prepubescent children, which are the targets of pedophiles, and as the name already says, are obviously not ready, they can never be.


 Except for the fact that prodigies do exist. 



Eru Lawliet said:


> As for teenagers or young adults, to protect them, the law has to draw the line somewhere (refering to the age limit). It can't consider the maturity of individuals.


Oh? Well in that case they might as well as put the age limit up there in the 20's, since a lot of adults are still pretty immature. It better consider the emotional maturity of individuals, or else it's not being reasonable. 



Eru Lawliet said:


> As I said before, who's able to decide, whether one is mature enough or not? I think most of the time the person in question can't tell that (despite maybe thinking otherwise).



It's based off biological science. It's not like you have to be the king of controlling your emotions, but better than someone who's a child.


Eru Lawliet said:


> I think pedophilia is (potentially) dangerous, since if it wouldn't exist, no one would touch a child.


Oh, okay, so I guess having a sexual drive is also potentially dangerous, since if it wouldn't exist, no one would touch _anyone._ 

That's not amazing logic. At all.

Anything sexual is potentially dangerous.


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Jul 1, 2011)

Fayrra said:


> Doesn't matter. Even some adults are not emotionally ready enough for sex/relationship. Being intelligent means they can fully understand what they are getting into, like any adult, and whether or not they are prepared is on them, since they can cognitivly understand shit. Not to mention I didn't just say intelligent, but I also coupled it with emotional/sexual matureness. So that's a strawman argument anyway.



No, being intelligent doesn't mean to fully understand that. Maybe an intelligent kid can understand it on a "technical" (for lack of a better word) level, but not on an emotional level.
Intelligence (as in IQ), emotional intelligence (as in EQ) and matureness are different things. 
And I also refered to matureness in my reply. 




> lol. Science does. It may vary from person to person but the usual time is the same. I'm not talking about being able to withstand any kind of tradegy, but rather emotional maturity to the point where they can at least not become screwed up when they become older. That would be the maturity of any average teen.



Which would rule out prepubescent children.
So science can do that. Is that so? So what would you suggest should be done? Should a p*d*p****/pederast send the kid he wants to screw to a psychologist/scientist to check if it's ok? I don't think so.



> Except for the fact that prodigies do exist.


 
Prodigies exist, when it comes to intelligence (though they're rare). lol at refering to someone, who's sexually mature at an early age as a prodigy.

That being said, a prepubescent, as in the meaning of the word, can't be sexually mature ever. Being prepubescent means, the sexual organs aren't developed enough yet, for the person to be able to reproduce/to be fertile. The person isn't pubescent/sexually mature yet. Nature itself says so.
That also means, there's no sexual desire yet. Everything, that an inane adult could interpret as that, is just curiosity.




> Oh? Well in that case they might as well as put the age limit up there in the 20's, since a lot of adults are still pretty immature. It better consider the emotional maturity of individuals, or else it's not being reasonable.
> 
> It's based off biological science. It's not like you have to be the king of controlling your emotions, but better than someone who's a child.



That's why I said the law has to draw the line at some point. No matter how emotionally mature a teenager is, the law forbids a relationship with an adult.
But the law can't protect people forever, otherwise you'd really need some kind of licence to have sex, which would be pretty ridiculous.




> Oh, okay, so I guess having a sexual drive is also potentially dangerous, since if it wouldn't exist, no one would touch _anyone._
> 
> That's not amazing logic. At all.
> 
> Anything sexual is potentially dangerous.



The differnce is, with "normal" hetero- and homosexuality, it's possible to find an equal partner with whom you can live your sexuality. With pedophilia, it isn't. It's always wrong, a p*d*p**** can never fulfill his desires, without hurting anyone. That makes it more dangerous.



Though I must say, that people exist, who think a child could possibly be mature enough for sex, reinforces my opinion, that pedophiles should be seperated from society. What holds them back, if they think it's actually ok, what they do?


----------



## PikaCheeka (Jul 1, 2011)

All of you people who are saying that pedophilia in it of itself is harmless might reconsider that if you ever have children of your own and find out your next door neighbor jerks off to the thought of having sex with 12-year-olds.

You sound so open-minded now but when it comes down to it, you'd think twice. Then again, I hope some of you do never have kids after reading some of this, as I can say right now that a lot of the 'arguments' I'm seeing in here are almost identical to the ones I heard from sick fucks in prison when I had to interview them.


And as a note, pedophilia is not simply a sexual preference. It is an obsessive fascination with _youth _in general. Once a child grows too old, they are no longer "worthy" in the p*d*p****'s eyes and they will then move onto the next kid in line. A true p*d*p**** is not someone who intends to have a civilized, _ongoing_ relationship with someone who just _happens_ to be underage, as the children are objects to them. They are objects of youth, to be thrown out when they no longer fit the mold. 

Pedophiles are sexually drawn to a _transitory state_. You can NOT compare that to anything like homosexuality, which I have seen some people try to do.



Eru Lawliet said:


> The differnce is, with "normal" hetero- and homosexuality, it's possible to find an equal partner with whom you can live your sexuality. With pedophilia, it isn't. It's always wrong, a p*d*p**** can never fulfill his desires, without hurting anyone. That makes it more dangerous.



This.


----------



## josh101 (Jul 1, 2011)

Banhammer said:


> To which I bring back the simplest of God's test
> 
> 
> Does violence give you a boner?


Yes, I am a sadist and the only way I can get off is too watch violence and murder. So if I were to commit these crimes, I would "pop a boner" as you so eloquently put it in previous posts. Does that mean violent games, videos and manga should be illegal because I get off to them and it *could* persuade me to do these acts in real life? Hell fucking no. ( I'm not a sadist, for the record )



Banhammer said:


> Recheck your psych. Even Freud and Jung agreed on this.


Actually, you re-check your psych. Freud says that sadomasochism is ?the most common and important of all perversions."

Your arguments are fucking stupid and invalid. Fuck, they annoyed me. 


On the point of the topic, lolicon doesn't hurt anyone ( even though, it is a bit fucked up ), why the fuck is he getting jailed for it then?

From what I've seen the biggest argument here is that watching and fantasizing of these lolicon characters is eventually going to lead to these people abusing kids?   Yeah escalation of crimes is an extremely common thing, but lolicon isn't a crime. I guess you could say it's them acting out their fantasy's. But again, where does that stop? Jailing furries because beastality is illegal?( in some states ) banning violence because of sadists? Fuck off, it's not the fantasy and the perversion that makes people rape, it's the *person and his morals.*

 If anything, making lolicon illegal could in-fact make the readers of it more dangerous, if they're not going to stop reading it, they're braking the law by doing it, what's going to stop them escalating that to real CP, or abusing kids? Hell, if lolicon is illegal, what is really the point of it? If these pedophiles are going to be jailed for viewing lolicon, why not just fuck it and go to watching real CP? 

The more people watching CP = The more demand for it.
The more demand for it = The more of it there is.
The more of it there is = The more kids hurt. 

Gah. Lolicon is gross but seriously, not harming anyone, and if you look at it like that, it could be preventing child abuse not encouraging it.


----------



## Ser Cokie the Fool (Jul 1, 2011)

he only got minimum charges cause kid porn isn't the worst thing to come from manga


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jul 1, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> I'm going to not take a guess and all, and just conclude that you don't know at all what you are talking about. *Kids do sexual things with each other all the time. If you put up a secret spy cam at a kindergarten, let it run for a few days, you'd be very surprised at how much sexual stuff there was going on.*I haven't said children understand the world in the same way adults do. But understanding the world as adults do is not a prerequisite for consenting to sex.



Where are you pulling this from? Kindergarden children interested in sex .


----------



## josh101 (Jul 1, 2011)

Tranquil Fury said:


> Where are you pulling this from? Kindergarden children interested in sex .


Read up on Freud's theory of sexual development. Kid's get sexual urges from extremely young ages.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jul 1, 2011)

No they don't since I was a kid once. Children do not care for sex, that's the furtherest thing on their mind. If you had said young teens and onwards I'd understand but kindergarden is just hilarious.

You will offcourse back this up with an actual study as evidence.


----------



## josh101 (Jul 1, 2011)

You know, a little while ago I had to try explain the Oedipus theory to some young ignorant children, I got the same response. "Eww, no, I would know if I fancied my own mother... " and shit like that. Your response mirrors that. 

They don't care for sex, I'll admit that. It's not like they are going out to try these things knowing what they are doing, it's urges they have but don't exactly understand, his theory just states that these "things" don't just happen to some kids and are simply an "act of curiosity." They are hard-wired into our development and actually necessary for us to grow, and can cause trouble in later life if not done properly. 

Anyway, this has nothing to do with this original post. Children can't properly give consent for sex, fully understanding it, until at least 12-15 I feel, depending on their development. ( It's still wrong ) You may say this is too young, but some of the young girls I've been around through siblings and such and when I was younger, they know exactly what they're doing.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 1, 2011)

I love watching Grrblt and the others flail around trying to justify this bullshit.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Jul 1, 2011)

Others? I only count one person trying to justify p*d*p**** relationships.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 1, 2011)

Rob said:


> Others? I only count one person trying to justify p*d*p**** relationships.


There were some earlier.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 1, 2011)

Rob said:


> Others? I only count one person trying to justify p*d*p**** relationships.



He's lumping together people's argument that one should not be persecuted for possession of fictional material, lolicon in this case, with defense of pedophilia itself. He did it when he first posted here too.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 1, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> He's lumping together people's argument that one should not be persecuted for possession of fictional material, lolicon in this case, with defense of pedophilia itself. He did it when he first posted here too.


Bullshit. Next time I need someone to designate what I'm thinking, I'll ask you. I'm talking about the same people who always defend pedophilia itself as being moral. Which no matter how you slice it is what all these threads turn into.


----------



## Whimsy (Jul 1, 2011)

josh101 said:


> Read up on Freud's theory of sexual development. Kid's get sexual urges from extremely young ages.



Yeah Freud was debunked fucking ages ago you muppet

And why were you explaining the oedipus complex to young children? Are you deranged?


----------



## Whimsy (Jul 1, 2011)

But on the original topic of the thread, I suppose I'd have to take the Gaiman approach:


----------



## josh101 (Jul 1, 2011)

Whimsy said:


> Yeah Freud was debunked fucking ages ago you muppet
> 
> And why were you explaining the oedipus complex to young children? Are you deranged?


Freud has been debunked by close minded ignorant people who think the world was created in 7 days and homosexuality is a sin. 

In that case, Darwin has also been debunked. You're a good example of that being true actually. 

It was a presentation on psychology for students who were thinking of taking it. By young I mean 14.


----------



## MdB (Jul 1, 2011)

Never knew Grrblt was a closet pedo.


----------



## Raidou Kuzunoha (Jul 1, 2011)

Pedos, pedos fucking everywhere. "Child friendly site" indeed.


----------



## tsunadefan (Jul 1, 2011)

josh101 said:


> Freud has been debunked by close minded ignorant people who think the world was created in 7 days and homosexuality is a sin.
> 
> In that case, Darwin has also been debunked. You're a good example of that being true actually.
> 
> It was a presentation on psychology for students who were thinking of taking it. By young I mean 14.



alright, lets not bash christian people now please and thanks. and to the others who keep saying people are supporting pedophilia should get their facts straight and read some of these posts properly. it originally started as it being illogical for the authorities to jail someone who has supposed lolicon/shotacon on his laptop. then there were arguements about the maturity of children and whether same feelings are there for lolicon and shotacon compared to actual CP. there is no time at all did i see anyone say, "i believe in child porn. i like seeing real children get screwed." or anything else related to that. you all are just missing the initial point and that is because you all are truly being subjective. let me say now that i in no way am not interested in CP. i also think people can like the anime version of certain sexual acts and not the real thing.


----------



## Artful Lurker (Jul 1, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> Wrong on both counts. Homosexuality is the sexual attraction to sexually mature people of one's own sex. Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to sexually immature people. Consent or not has nothing to do with it.



I don't agree with it but I get what he's saying.

Consenting male and female =  legal
Consenting male and male = legal
Consenting female and female =legal
Consenting Adult and Minor = Illegal


----------



## DeathkillerD (Jul 1, 2011)

PikaCheeka said:


> All of you people who are saying that pedophilia in it of itself is harmless might reconsider that if you ever have children of your own and find out your next door neighbor jerks off to the thought of having sex with 12-year-olds.
> 
> You sound so open-minded now but when it comes down to it, you'd think twice. Then again, I hope some of you do never have kids after reading some of this, as I can say right now that a lot of the 'arguments' I'm seeing in here are almost identical to the ones I heard from sick fucks in prison when I had to interview them.



     I don't think they are harmless, i think that throwing them in jail for a crime they did not commit, for the reason that they COULD commit a crime is idiotic. I would like anyone to point to the victim in the scenario. I'll give you a hint, there isn't one. People seem in favor of just throwing him in jail for his sexual preference, while i favor that people give the sexual preference disorder more attention and thorough research is done to determine if we can cure this. It is also silly that i keep having to say "sexual preference" since society makes no distinction between p*d*p**** and child molester and i must use the homosexual baggage that comes with "sexual preference" to ensure a somewhat fair debate. 

     In the case of lolicon like this, i believe a psych evaluation would be fine to determine if they were in fact a p*d*p****. (I don't think there is much research checking correlations between lolicon and pedophilia anyway right now) and if yes: Mandatory therapy with a classification of Teir 3 Sex offender. (Hey, its better than jail and lumped in with rapists and child molesters the way it is now.) 

     In the case of Child Pornography: mandatory therapy, house arrest, monitoring of internet activity and Labeled a T2 Sex Offender. (This seems light I am sure there is more stuff that can be thrown in there) In the case of production or distribution: Jail and mandatory therapy, Labeled T1 Offender

     In the case of Child Molestation: Jail, possible chemical castration, Mandatory Therapy, T1 offender

      It is my belief that a heavy focus on this issue, as would be needed for these changes to be enacted, would be an incentive for doctors to research sexual preference correction without being called Anti-gay and being shut down from lack of funding( I understand that this most likely has never been the case, but if there has/had been such an attempt it could be lent to the current issue). These possible options just being a small sample of alternatives rather than just throwing someone in jail when there is no victim and giving these people a chance for something they have no control over (being the preference that is not any actions taken by their part) to be remedied.

well, lets see how this goes


----------



## Stalin (Jul 1, 2011)

Freud's theories are no longer taken seriously in the field of psychiatry.


----------



## josh101 (Jul 1, 2011)

Yes a lot of his work may be out of *psychiatry* nowadays with all the modernization of it, but his work is still extremely relevant in *psychology*, which is what I was talking about.


----------



## Stalin (Jul 1, 2011)

His theories make no goddamn sense.


----------



## Fayrra (Jul 1, 2011)

Eru Lawliet said:


> No, being intelligent doesn't mean to fully understand that. Maybe an intelligent kid can understand it on a "technical" (for lack of a better word) level, but not on an emotional level.


What the fuck does that even mean? Understand it on an "emotional level."

Kids can become emotionally scarred because their emotions aren't developed enough. Not because they don't understand it emotionally. XD

Understanding something emotionally is the same thing as empathy. That has nothing to do with this.




Eru Lawliet said:


> Intelligence (as in IQ), emotional intelligence (as in EQ) and matureness are different things.
> And I also refered to matureness in my reply.


It doesn't matter what you refered to in your reply. All of them were together when I stated them. So as such they should be treated as if I said them together.

You outright said "them being intelligent does not mean they can deal with it emotionally/sexually."

 I said that they had to be BOTH intelligent and able to deal with it emotionally/sexually. That first statement of yours acts as if I DID NOT SAY THAT. Strawman.






Eru Lawliet said:


> So science can do that. Is that so? So what would you suggest should be done? Should a p*d*p****/pederast send the kid he wants to screw to a psychologist/scientist to check if it's ok? I don't think so.


No, not the kid the pedo wants to screw. But the kid the pedo wants to screw who also happens to say that he/she wants to screw/have a relationship back. If a kid actually says that, they should be sent to a psychologist to check if it's ok. Since the kid could either actually be very smart and mature for their age, or rather just doesn't understand and is pretending they do. This really isn't that difficult to understand.




Eru Lawliet said:


> Prodigies exist, when it comes to intelligence (though they're rare). lol at refering to someone, who's sexually mature at an early age as a prodigy.


prodigy; A talented child or youth

Being sexually/emotionally mature for that age when they are not supposed to be is pretty fucking talented. Just like being able to think like an adult at that age when they are not supposed to is talented. Same concept. So no loling should be had.





Eru Lawliet said:


> That being said, a prepubescent, as in the meaning of the word, can't be sexually mature ever. Being prepubescent means, the sexual organs aren't developed enough yet, for the person to be able to reproduce/to be fertile. The person isn't pubescent/sexually mature yet. Nature itself says so.
> That also means, there's no sexual desire yet. Everything, that an inane adult could interpret as that, is just curiosity.


This is just semantics.

If the kid is at an age where they would normally be prepubescent, but they aren't, then they would be a prodigy. And that's my point. _Remember, you responded to MY point._ So don't try this semantic shit with me. I'm not talking about prepubescent. I'm talking about kids who would normally be prepubescent at that age but are not.

So yes, a kid can be that age and be sexually mature. And also, I did mention earlier that there was probably an age limit, as well? Prodigies can only develop so early. But definitely under the age of 12-13, since they would be considered normal, and not a prodigy if they started developing at that age. Since, you know, that's when they are supposed to.





Eru Lawliet said:


> That's why I said the law has to draw the line at some point. No matter how emotionally mature a teenager is, the law forbids a relationship with an adult.
> But the law can't protect people forever, otherwise you'd really need some kind of licence to have sex, which would be pretty ridiculous.


And that's why I said you'd have to draw the line pretty high in order to be fair. Since a lot of people aren't really ready for sex emotionally. But that isn't what should matter. You shouldn't need to be a master of your own emotions to be able to have sex. You just need a better amount of control than what children have, and the cognitive intelligence of, you guessed it, more than a child. In fact, I said you'd have to have the intelligence of a 18 year-old, and the emotional control of a 16 year old. But that was pretty much just me averaging things out. The real point is that they have to be more than a child. Since that's when you REALLY get fucked up.





Eru Lawliet said:


> The differnce is, with "normal" hetero- and homosexuality, it's possible to find an equal partner with whom you can live your sexuality. With pedophilia, it isn't. It's always wrong, a p*d*p**** can never fulfill his desires, without hurting anyone. That makes it more dangerous.


lololol. Despite A; people existing that have the bodies of youths and the minds/emotional maturty of an adult and B; pedo's being able to masturbate.

Oh, yeah, I can definitely see how a pedo can never fulfill his desires without hurting someone. Sure thing, bro.



Eru Lawliet said:


> Though I must say, that people exist, who think a child could possibly be mature enough for sex, reinforces my opinion, that pedophiles should be seperated from society. What holds them back, if they think it's actually ok, what they do?



Except for the fact that not all pedo's think that children are mature enough for sex.

White people exist that think killing innocent people is fair. Does that mean we should seperate all white people from society?

Unreasonable people exist, I get that (in fact, you're being one of the unreasonable people right now-lol), but that's no excuse to generalize. Ever. No matter how likely, it still doesn't become fair.


----------



## Fayrra (Jul 1, 2011)

PikaCheeka said:


> All of you people who are saying that pedophilia in it of itself is harmless might reconsider that if you ever have children of your own and find out your next door neighbor jerks off to the thought of having sex with 12-year-olds.


Nope. I would never reconsider fairness and logic for fear. Fear can honestly go fuck itself. 


PikaCheeka said:


> You sound so open-minded now but when it comes down to it, you'd think twice.


Appeal to fear is not a logical argument. If that logic holds true then I guess pascal's wager is logically valid.


PikaCheeka said:


> And as a note, pedophilia is not simply a sexual preference. It is an obsessive fascination with _youth _in general.


Right. Just like homosexuality is not simply a sexual preference. But rather an obessive facination with males/the the male body in general. 

Whatever bullshit you need to tell yourself.




PikaCheeka said:


> Once a child grows too old, they are no longer "worthy" in the p*d*p****'s eyes and they will then move onto the next kid in line.


lol. No fucking duh. Just like a homosexual would probably deem a man who turns into a woman "unworthy." This doesn't prove anything other than that Pedo's have it rough when finding a soul mate. Once again, no fucking duh.



PikaCheeka said:


> A true p*d*p**** is not someone who intends to have a civilized, _ongoing_ relationship with someone who just _happens_ to be underage, as the children are objects to them. They are objects of youth, to be thrown out when they no longer fit the mold.


You do know that this is generalizing, right? I could say that a lot of heterosexuals think of woman as just objects to be used and to be thrown out when they are no longer "fit to mold." Does this mean all people who are heterosexual are like that? Generalizing is not logical.



PikaCheeka said:


> Pedophiles are sexually drawn to a _transitory state_. You can NOT compare that to anything like homosexuality, which I have seen some people try to do.



They are drawn to the bodies of youth. You know, just like how I'm drawn to the bodies of grown women.

I could easily use your logic and say that homosexuals are drawn to the transitory state of adult males. Do you know why it's a transitory state? Because soon they will not be adult males, they will be dead skeleton bones. Hurp durp. 

The comparison is the same. Both are sexual desires. Just because one sticks the person with the desire in a situation where he's pretty much fucked if he acts on said desire does not change that. Just because they are more likely to rape children does not mean they actually want to by default. It's an involuntary attraction. Not a moral belief. One's involuntary sexual desires does not have to match with one's morality. I want to have sex with women. But I would never rape them. Despite the fact that my sexual desire is telling me to have sex with them. If your theory about sexual desire matching up with one's morality is correct, I wouldn't give a shit whether they were being raped or not. As long as I'm conforming to my desires it's ok. Now, place me with the same exact morality but with a different sexual desire. That of kids. Just because my sexual preference dictates me to have sex with them does not mean my morality will allow it, or that my morality is the same. It's entirely possible that I want to have sex with girls but would not want to rape them. Hence where the fucking loli/masturbation comes in.


----------



## Mintaka (Jul 1, 2011)

I don't think lolicon should be a crime.

It does however make you a p*d*p****.  A non acting p*d*p**** but a p*d*p**** nonetheless.  So long as you are merley someone who likes to look at loli and not at upon your urges with actual kids then I'm fine with it.


----------



## Narcissus (Jul 2, 2011)

Yes, I am cutting out the majority of useless text to hit the key points in your post, as the useless portion outweighed anything a value.


Fayrra said:


> The comparison between homosexuality is a perfect one. It was _never_ about the _differences_, if you compare them and they don't match it's probably because you are _looking at it wrong._  An analogy is not _literal._



If you're going to try and compare them that way, then pedophilia is also comparable to heterosexuality as well. Funny how you never see anyone use this particular comparison.


> I know you're logical, so you should get this



_Appeal to Flatter fallacy - a fallacy in which a person uses flattery, excessive compliments, in an attempt to win support for their side._


> Homosexuality. A preference. A sexual one. By having that preference, no one is getting hurt.
> 
> Pedophilia. A preference. A sexual one. By having that preference alone, no one is getting hurt.
> 
> People have once condemned homosexuality just for being a preference.



No, people also condemned the action as well, not just the preference. And stop playing ignorant. Obviously we are talking about acting upon the feelings of pedophilia, not just the preference. While acting upon homosexual preferences does not harm anyone else, acting on pedophilic preference does result in harm.


> People now condemn pedophilia just for being a preference.



Because acting on that preference often results in hurting others.


> Come on, Narcissus. I know you can see the flaw to this logic and why they can be compared.



This is interesting, when your own argument is full of more fallacies than I'd care to point out. The only way in which the two are comparable is in that they are both sexual preferences and that both are condemned to a degree in society. However, acting upon the two is what makes them poor comparisons. One causes harm to others, and the other does not.


abcd said:


> wall of text



Yeah, and it's one of the other fallacies he happened to use in that post: Argument from verbosity (argumentum ad verbosium).


----------



## edelweiss (Jul 2, 2011)

This is ridiculous.
Why were the Canadian Customs agents on his computer to begin with? That's just a wee bit overkill, eh?


----------



## Fayrra (Jul 2, 2011)

I loled.




Narcissus said:


> If you're going to try and compare them that way, then pedophilia is also comparable to heterosexuality as well. Funny how you never see anyone use this particular comparison.


Pedophilia is comparable to any sexual attraction. The point of the anaolgy is to use that comparasion to show the flaw in acting as if having a sexual atraction to girls alone, is in itself any different. It's not. It's only different when you actually have sex with a little girl. No one said anyone actually had sex with a little girl, since that's not with this topic is about. It's about masturbation to loli. Being attracted to little girls does not equal wanting to rape them by default. Just like being attracted to men does not equal wanting to rape them by default. The analogy was always about theoretical intent, since it was only supposed to defend masturbating to loli. Since you know, _that's the fucking topic._ _That's why it's being compared that way._


Narcissus said:


> _Appeal to Flatter fallacy - a fallacy in which a person uses flattery, excessive compliments, in an attempt to win support for their side._


I was stating an opinion, letting you know that I didn't think you were stupid nor unreasonable. Since that can affect how you interpret some of my statments. If you go into it thinking that I think you're stupid then you may not be able to get rid our your bias. So I was reassuring you that I definitely thought you can understand the comparison.




Narcissus said:


> And stop playing ignorant. Obviously we are talking about acting upon the feelings of pedophilia, not just the preference.


We are talking about loli. And how someone getting in trouble for masturbating to it-basically for having a preference alone, is comparable to getting in trouble for being homosexual. Not actually acting on the preference of having sex with live girls. That was the whole reason the analogy was brought up. Like I said, you are looking at it wrong. They are both preferences that were condemned despite the fact that having a sexual preference alone does not hurt anyone.



Narcissus said:


> While acting upon homosexual preferences does not harm anyone else, acting on pedophilic preference does result in harm.


Oh? Ok. So I guess masturbating to loli hurts someone now. Since that's the only acting that I am justifying. And that's the only acting that I'm comparing to homosexuality.





Narcissus said:


> Because acting on that preference often results in hurting others.


No. They are condemning the preference because they think that it is more likey that someone who has such a preference will go out and rape someone. That is no excuse. Since having the preference alone does not equal wanting to rape little girls any more than being gay or straight equals wanting to rape human adults by defualt; it's a person by person thing.



Narcissus said:


> This is interesting, when your own argument is full of more fallacies than I'd care to point out. The only way in which the two are comparable is in that they are both sexual preferences and that both are condemned to a degree in society. However, acting upon the two is what makes them poor comparisons. One causes harm to others, and the other does not.


Except we are not comparing them based on acting on them. We're comparing them as being a preference alone. For being condemened as being a preference alone. Since that's pretty much all that's going on. That's what the thread is about.



Narcissus said:


> Yeah, and it's one of the other fallacies he happened to use in that post: Argument from verbosity (argumentum ad verbosium).


Trying to explain my argument thoroughly with awesome analogies is not a fallacy.


----------



## Bellville (Jul 2, 2011)

manga fiction =/= defiling real people.

liking lolicon/shotacon =/= wanting real kids to be violated and raped.



looking at rape hentai doesn't make you a rapist, or even a potential rapist. so this is so different....how? or is rape of adults not that big a deal?


----------

