because calling the cops on your husband because you found cartoon porn on this computer sounds like a complete overreactionCrono1973 said:
Missouri Man Pleads Guilty To Possession of "Cartoon" Child Porn
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Yep, 'buggery with a minor' to be exact, obviously implies anal sex. It's basically a holdover from sodomy laws we got from the British, legally the federal age of consent for 'regular' sex is sixteen, but it's eighteen for anal. Most of the buggery act is now defunct fortunately but the anal age of consent has been a major sticking point, a couple of the provinces have already refused to enforce it. Unfortunately, any accusations of buggery and bestiality from before 1988 (when it was mostly overturned) can result in a conviction under the former statue. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects homosexuals from being charged as a result, but obviously there's no protection for pedophiles/people accused of being pedophiles. This is mostly just a weird product of the VERY slow nature of the Canadian federal courts system (hell, the courts and legislation STILL haven't established any kind of solid law on abortion so the fundies keep bring it up in Parliament) and the fact that they often just end up grafting a bunch of preexisting legal statues together (creating some weird legal loopholes).cotss2012 said:
Another great example of the Canadian legal system was the recent realization that foreign gay couples who come to Canada to get married technically can't get divorced because the Divorce Act states they have to live in the country for at least two years.
No, that would not be victimless - a girl was hurt and killed to create this hypothetical porn in the first place. What we're talking about is drawings, where presumably, no one was hurt while making it, and no one is hurt by its being viewed.Entitled said:
Actually, it does. No real children were involved and we're lacking context. As multiple people have tried to get through with you, not every loli fan is a pedophile.6th And Silver said:
That's good; has ANYONE claimed otherwise?
Assuming he has any.
Poorly, as you leave out important factors like "primary or exclusive interest in prepubescent children." I mean, that actually changes Wikipedia's definition a lot from what you are saying. In short, you really didn't paraphrase so much as edit the meaning to suit you.
If only you understood the proper definition of pedophilia, you would not have to guess (and poorly).
In fact, if you had read my last post (instead of evidently skimming), you would see I addressed harm and non-harm, and therefore my definition COULD NOT only could people who harm kids.
It's not semantics. It's the difference between knowing what you're talking about and not. I would think that since you are so quick to talk about the subject, you might want to actually know a thing or two.
I addressed that, too, which you are clumsily ignoring.
Edited to add:
You were saying they should treat him, so I should freaking well hope the definition was relevant. You did conveniently ignore the part of my post which dealt with pedophilia as a potential inborn sexuality (which also would have demonstrated I don't believe you have to actually harm a child to be one), but the concept of treatment wouldn't work anyway, so I guess it's moot. Still, the point remains that you were making a point of fixing him without any heed to the fact that treatment would certainly fall on the medical and "clinical" side. You can ignore that, I suppose, but demands for treatment are just as empty as insisting he wants to fiddle with kids because he had cartoons on his computer. And really, though it's been said before, insisting you want to fuck kids because of cartoons on your computer is like insisting you want to kill people because you have GTA on your computer.
I doubt you'd let that one stand.
you know, while that is not precisely what I'm saying, I'm baffled as to how multiple people being explicit on the subject is so ambiguous to you. And how the failure of apparently one single person to get it counts as a failure to argue something.Mygaffer said:
This is silly, pornography doesn't create violence. The whole "porn is the theory, sexual assault is the action" doesn't and will never hold water. The U.S. has something like 244 million porn sites, so hilariously there is more than one porn site per couple in the United States. Yet during the time the nation was being more exposed to the internet between 1990-2000, there has been virtually no change in the amount of sexual assaults.
All of this means that the ideology portrayed in pornography has no bearing on people actions.
All of this means that the ideology portrayed in pornography has no bearing on people actions.
Umm a pretty young thing such as yourself wouldn't want to waste her time telling mods such silly things right? <3Dire Sloth said:
If you read manga or watch hentai/yuri/yaoi, you WILL encounter loli, shota, & bro-bro/bro-sis/sis-sis/son-mom incest at some point, again & again.
It's not only a victimless crime, but a non-crime.
So next week, they're going to charge a fury artist with bestiality, right?
It's not only a victimless crime, but a non-crime.
So next week, they're going to charge a fury artist with bestiality, right?
Nobody is being punished for child abuse.Loop Stricken said:
You can believe that all you want but thankfully the law in many countries disagrees.Zachary Amaranth said:
It's the latter.Nazulu said:
In fact, people who look at these kinds of things are generally about as dangerous as a toothless bunny rabbit, for several reasons. For one, a lot of bizarre sexual fantasies look a lot better in manga form than when performed on video or in real life. For example, the idea of having a sexual relationship with an attractive sister is a bit of a turn on for me, when I imagine having an anime babe for a sister. But I'm sure if I had a real sister, even if she was a perfect 10, it's highly unlikely I'd be into her like that.
For another, people who find cartoon minors attractive almost never also find real ones attractive. (Although sometimes people who find real ones attractive also find the cartoons attractive. But it's not a two-way street.) You'll generally find if you ask people who are into this stuff, that they usually have no sexual interests towards real-life minors. In other words, people who look at this stuff are absolutely no threat to children.
Also, this "obscenity" law is based on the objectively unconstitutional Miller Test [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Test]. The First Amendment does not say that something has to be "art" to be considered Free Speech, nor does it grant the government any authority to decide what speech should or shouldn't be "protected". It simply says that the government cannot make any laws prohibiting free speech or abridging it. Which means that the only kinds of speech the government can justify outlawing are the kinds of speech that directly violate the rights of others. (Such as death threats, or slander.)
But then, lawmakers never really cared about the constitution. They just interpret it however they want to suit their own purposes. Hell, I'm more qualified to interpret the constitution than many supreme court justices are. Yeah, I just said that. Sometimes age does mean a person has more experience, but often all it amounts to is that the person has had lots of time to become increasingly ingrained in his or her outdated traditionalist values that have no place in a changing, modern, and tolerant society. Which is why it's a terrible idea to only appoint older people to the supreme court, and why it's an even worse idea to have them serve life terms.
Also, the idea of determining what speech is and isn't "art" is flawed because everything is art, and nothing is art. Art is in the eye of the beholder. A pile of feces may be a pile of feces to you, but to me it's a depiction of death and rebirth. Food that took a long time to grow and assemble is reduced to a smelly ejection, only to rejoin the earth and contribute to the growth of more food. It's a testament to the circle of life. See how I just made a dump sound like art? I can do that with literally anything, and MEAN it.
Hmmm, obscenity....
Didn't we learn this kinda lesson before?
Also, did the US ever learn about the definition of pornography?
*sigh* Whatever, man...it's a beautifully fucked up world and I hope there's more fun in store for us all.
I don't know about you people...but I've learned something from being observational: nature is cruel; humans are cruel and perverse. Take from that what you will.
Didn't we learn this kinda lesson before?
Also, did the US ever learn about the definition of pornography?
*sigh* Whatever, man...it's a beautifully fucked up world and I hope there's more fun in store for us all.
I don't know about you people...but I've learned something from being observational: nature is cruel; humans are cruel and perverse. Take from that what you will.