Cingal said:
As for my views?
Well, they're based mostly on furries, as I said, and furries, for the most part, tend to be the type who are too engrossed in their fetishes to really tell the difference, and, that's where my issues comes from, when you have people roleplaying as such things and what-not, it is rather telling of the person's mindset. It's a scale to me, and it's based mostly on what I find repulsive and to what degree.
It's selfish, but, they're my views, I'm allowed to be. =o
Yes, you're allowed to have your views and im not trying to take them away from you. After all, I think most of the so called "lolicon hentai" that I've come into contact with to be rather disgusting and I can't really relate to people who actually get turned on by seeing a cartooned character which looks uncannily like a prepubescent girl in a sexual context.
However, in the interest of keeping my views on law and morals as intellectual and consequential as possible, I make a distinction between actual crime and "virtual" crime.
And thus, my views bottle down to that even if I find some things to be disgusting, I can't just support making everything that's disgusting illegal. And if you really think about it, you can't really do that either. Because after all, if we are to abolish exactly everything that we find to be disgusting/perverted/abnormal, then where does it stop?
Remember laws don't make room for grey areas, the law should be blind and black or white. Clear cut if you will. But it also has to be fair and epitomize justice. So where is the justice in criminalizing one "virtual crime" but not the other? It's impossible to argue any kind of justice in such a course of action. If one "virtual crime" should be punished, then the law should equally punish ALL virtual crime.
Letting one pass, while the other is pursued just shows that the relevant legislation is arbitrary and unjust. It's kind of the same thing if one with power to change laws were to make the wearing of green shirts illegal, simply because that law-changer doesn't like the colour green.
We live in a society after all, so we can't just invent laws that only suit our own interests while steam-rolling across everyone elses interests. If we do that, then our so called "society" is a sham. Having a society is supposed to be about finding ways to co-existing with other people, despite differences. If you just invent or support laws that infringe on the freedom of other people simply because you think that their usage of certain freedom is "disgusting", then all you're left with is a veiled anarchy, where might makes right and law is just an illusion which the "strong" are allowed to twist, bend, change and break according to their own subjective views without the least respect towards anyone else.
So, if you're the least concerned about coming across as a thinking individual, then if you are going to support a legal course of action you have better make sure that you can perfectly illustrate exactly why a person has committed a crime, and how the victims are affected negatively to warrant the punishment and imprisonment of the "criminal" in question. And also come to terms with the fact that being "disgusting" isn't a crime. If it was, then it would be illegal to pick your nose, being gay, giving blow-jobs or whatever.
You have to prove tangible damage caused by the "criminal" action in question in a way that is completely seperate from your personal views on the matter. Otherwise, your argument isn't very solid...
