Chinese company has copyrighted.... ahegao.
- Thread starter Specter Von Baren
- Start date
- Status
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,496
- 3,445
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
There is kind of a huge difference, in one you actually had to damage someone to create it, in the other its lines on a piece of paper.
I've heard that using either existing cp can help prevent sex offenders from offending and be used in treatment for pedophilia. Logically it would follow that loli/shota porn could also be used to reduce actual child molestation and since you don't need to harm anyone in the creation of it, then it would be preferable. Ultimately, reduction in child molestation is a good thing, if someone who is attracted to children uses drawings to help prevent them from actually offending, then good for them.
I mean I could have said:
Why the fuck do you even ask someone to explain to you why murder is bad? First, it's obvious, and second, it's such a troll question why do you even bother posting anything in this thread.
I'll pretend this thread is a serious one about the issue just for a moment.
The simple answer to your question is nobody knows, there isn't much data. What we do know is the best way to treat pedophilia right now is to lower the bar of seeking treatment, and there is no information on the matter when it comes to availability of lolicon and such stuff. Now since harm is brought up we must take into account that most child molesters aren't actually pedophiles (only 16% met the criteria in this study). Thus if lolicon etc. caters to pedos and maybe possibly has some foggy link with child abuse but is also almost impossible to fully regulate (ban and remove from existence), then the will to ban it is more of an ideological one. We would rather nobody wanted to seek or consume that shit in the first place.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,496
- 3,445
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Because I want to see how people think and how they setup their own moral codes. Like the golden rule that you stated before is a really strong start. You shouldn't murder someone else because then someone else could just murder you. Its why we don't want society setup like that, where we would have to always worry about someone just coming up behind us and killing us, not good for anything. But after that you seemed to mainly go with an argument out of tradition. Ugh, I had another point but the words aren't coming to me, I'll add it if I can think of it again.
Yeah, generally my train of thought is that any reduction in actual molestation is good. I also should have clarified that by 'pedophile' I am just referring to anything under the age of majority, say 18 years of age. Even though I would say we should probably extend protections for relationships between vastly different ages to at least 25 years, that isn't really feasible.
Yes.
If you think that morality is inherently known to all human beings, you've never met a child.
Yeah, seeing people advocate for the medicinal use of child porn is pretty weird. Mainly in seeing how willing they are to implicitly out themselves as having a stash. It's kind of like marijuana arguments, only it's about getting off on drawings of children being raped. Weird is certainly a word for it.
You're right, I see a lot of children setting up public forums in my neighborhood to academically debate the morality of such cases on the fringe of society as "Are these drawings of a 12 year old being violated a breach of ethics, or a societal good? Please make sure your citations are in line." I remember participating in such things when I was young, to learn right from wrong. Thank God for that, if I hadn't I might have grown up thinking all sorts of things.
Since you let this out I must ask what good do you think that sort of extended protections would do? When it comes to abuse (domestic, sexual abuse and the like), authorities go them through on a case-by-case basis. There isn't any inherent malice that comes from being older than your partner (both being adults, of course). If it's supposed to make any sense I want to hear it.
This is brain-melting stuff, my fuzzy toy-creature.
it took nearly seven pages for you guys to figure out that this thread has gone way off topic? I wish y'all could realize that sooner with most of the threads posted in the current events or other forums. Like I said before, that's why I always have my own set of rules whenever I make a topic.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,496
- 3,445
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
I think it would help with people being able to form more stable relationships with fewer divorces and have fewer abortions since people wouldn't jump into having kids quite so quick, and I think it would reduce domestic violence since there would be less difference in power dynamic by that point. I don't really have any facts to back this up, its more of just an impression of things and why I don't really advocate for it. Its not so much that I think someone older is necessarily taking advantage of someone younger as someone younger might be agreeing to things they normally wouldn't because they are still more impulsive then thinking.
Distraction factor aside, a child doesn't know how to answer that question. Moral understanding takes consideration and effort. Thinking otherwise is very much like the child who picks up a game and believes they're inherently the best at it. Why should they have to learn or practice?
- Status