Where is the justice?

[Chibz]

Hence why I tell one of my Swedish friends that I can never go to Sweden.

It is my RIGHT to have several thousand Gigabytes of Loli. It harms no one.

[sub]No matter what the church people that tried to burn down my house say...[/sub]

They literally attempted to commit arson? Have you no legal recourse?

Anyways.

On a slightly related topic, we should ban Wolfenstein 3D. You ficta-kill so many ficta-nazis! HOW MANY CHILDREN HAVE ATTEMPTED TO TIMETRAVEL BACK IN TIME WITH A MINI-GUN TO KILL THE THIRD REICH SINGLE HANDEDLY?!

 

[Thaluikhain]

Again, as said, I am neither defending nor attacking lolicon/related, merely attempting to provide a logical argument.

I might also want to add that violence in videogames is not for sexual gratification.

 

[Danny Ocean]

The problem is, no one has yet to provide a LOGICAL reason for why killing someone in a videogame is perfectly fine, while loli is bad.
And to answer your question, yes. If you're hurting nobody, then you should be able to do whatever you want.

See this is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't even pause to really question it or yourself, instead you get all defensive and accuse the other side of being illogical when you don't really know what logic is, do you?

Their reasons are perfectly LOGICAL, you just don't agree with the axioms on which they are based. The structure of their arguments is fine. It's a simple case of:

Being sexually attracted to children is wrong.
:.
Being sexually attracted to images of children is wrong.

Loli is one way of sexually depicting children.
:.
Loli is wrong

The structure is fine. You just don't agree with the premise. They believe that the intent matters as much as the results. You evidently do not. For you it's more like this:

Committing sexual acts with children is wrong.

Loli isn't committing sexual acts with children.
:.
Loli is right.

You, despite what you might think, are making just as big a moral leap as they are.

The real debate here is far more far-reaching and interesting. Tell me: Does intent matter when it comes to legal and moral judgements? Murder can have you executed but Manslaughter can't. I think that's a pretty big indicator that it does. Attempted arson can get the same sentence as actual arson, but then again often doesn't. What do you think?

 

[Trolldor]

As much as I loathe closet-pedophiles who gawk at underage cartoons, no children were exploited. Nobody has suffered. There is nothing to be answered for unless someone cares to draw a clear, concise link with supporting evidence that says sick fucks and their loli will become child abusers.

While that was a fairly ignorant way of putting it, I agree with you. I don't think looking at a drawn image and touching myself makes me a pedo, nor do I think killing the population of megaton with a fat-man makes me a murderer.

Actual pedos = castration

Lolicon = normal sexual preference.

Shotacon and Lolicon a normal sexual preference?
It's an abnormal sexual preference for cartoon depictions of underage children. It's far from normal. It's so far from normal that it can only be contacted by messages collected by Dwarves who carve the message in to a stone tablet which is transported on the back of a familiar for Charon to ferry it to the mouth of the River Styx where it is plunged in to the infinite depths where the unspeakable live, where even Cthulhu fears to tread. And there, there the lolicons and shotacons get their message.

But being 'wrong' isn't enough to make it illegal.

 

[Danik93]

Yes, I agree but as I have stated in a earlier post Sweden's CP law cover everything containing nude children may it be painted or not. For a law to change it must go through loads of paperwork and that kind of stuff because we live in a democracy.
The law is the law and that is what we must follow. we can't begin to bend and change the law on this low level. He got proved guilty because of principal!

I can't really understand what you are saying. We are merely arguing that the law is wrong, we're not planning to topple the Swedish government.

I understand that, and what I meant was there is a fine line between CP and loli. So the law might be in need of little freshing up. The thing is, if we changed the law more loli friendly would make Sweden look bad. There is a reason why the anti loli bill in Japan is even happening. it would be nice to do it but it would not work properly. It would look like our bestiality law, Which is a total mess and is being abused like hell.

 

[Togs]

paedophile gets caught and your on his side? messed OP, really messed up

 

[Bobic]

So a drawing ... made by adults ... if it's a video it's voiced by adults ... made for adults only, and that's kiddie porn? Cause from what I can tell NO CHILDREN WHERE INVOLVED! It's as close to child porn as a picture of an adult woman in a school girl outfit.

The amazing thing about art is you can draw anything, cause it's not real and it doesn't/shouldn't effect reality.

If I draw a picture of hot naked sex, it's porn. If that picture involves two men, it's gay porn. If that picture involves children it is child porn. It doesn't matter who went into its creation.

Whether or not the law needs redefining on the matter is up for debate. Whether or not its child porn isn't.

Also, don't post images that are specifically designed to insult entire religions. I know most muslims probably don't care but it's still pretty intolerant.

 

[Togs]

Yes, I agree but as I have stated in a earlier post Sweden's CP law cover everything containing nude children may it be painted or not. For a law to change it must go through loads of paperwork and that kind of stuff because we live in a democracy.
The law is the law and that is what we must follow. we can't begin to bend and change the law on this low level. He got proved guilty because of principal!

I can't really understand what you are saying. We are merely arguing that the law is wrong, we're not planning to topple the Swedish government.

I understand that, and what I meant was there is a fine line between CP and loli. So the law might be in need of little freshing up. The thing is, if we changed the law more loli friendly would make Sweden look bad. There is a reason why the anti loli bill in Japan is even happening. it would be nice to do it but it would not work properly. It would look like our bestiality law, Which is a total mess and is being abused like hell.

No there is no line between paedophilia and lolicon, they are same thing.

 

[Chibz]

I might also want to add that violence in videogames is not for sexual gratification.

Maybe for you it's not. Who knows, maybe I'm just one sick, twisted, little monkey?[footnote]Not that I condone such things[/footnote]

In the majority of video games in which you kill someone, you're not killing innocents.

I seem to recall a modern warfare 2 level where you kill many, many russian innocents.[footnote]there is no such thing as innocence only varying degrees of guilt[/footnote]

Children, however, are innocent - this is why sex with a minor is illegal, they are not legally able to provide consent, as they do not know what they are consenting to/have not the capacity to make an informed decision etc. Therefore, children depicted in sexual situations, even as drawn images, are depictions of innocents. As a book can't reach out and slap you if you're getting off on these images, there's nothing to reinforce the message that you cannot take this into the real world, because it's wrong.

Again, just putting it out there but I don't see where the whole "children are innocent" line of logic came from. I was pretty awful as a kid and in more ways than one.[footnote]Not that I condone such things[/footnote]

what does it matter? Is the world really worse off because it's missing these images (art or not?)?

Sure the principle of the matter might seem somewhat messed up (although I don't think it is at all), but it's not like they're banning picasso or De Vinci or something. It's just a cartoon.

Actually, this same law would make the painting "Admiration" by William-Adolphe Bouguereau illegal. It's fantastic art, and it would be a shame to not have it seen by people.[footnote]Not that I condone such things.[/footnote]

TIME TRAVEL RESPONSE!

I should think something being 'wrong' is enough to make it illegal.

In fact it seems to me that every law in existence is based on or derives from some naturally arbitrary judgement of virtue. Not that that's a good or bad thing. Just how the world works.

Actually, most laws exist for common interest or because they have a clearly defined victim. It benefits society to not allow murder, rape or theft.[footnote]Plus there's a victim[/footnote] Society benefits from having road laws. How is lolicon harmful to society? Who is the victim? The ficta-child?

 

[Danny Ocean]

But being 'wrong' isn't enough to make it illegal.

I should think something being 'wrong' is enough to make it illegal.

In fact it seems to me that every law in existence is based on or derives from some naturally arbitrary judgement of virtue. Not that that's a good or bad thing. Just how the world works.

 

[Danik93]

Yes, I agree but as I have stated in a earlier post Sweden's CP law cover everything containing nude children may it be painted or not. For a law to change it must go through loads of paperwork and that kind of stuff because we live in a democracy.
The law is the law and that is what we must follow. we can't begin to bend and change the law on this low level. He got proved guilty because of principal!

I can't really understand what you are saying. We are merely arguing that the law is wrong, we're not planning to topple the Swedish government.

I understand that, and what I meant was there is a fine line between CP and loli. So the law might be in need of little freshing up. The thing is, if we changed the law more loli friendly would make Sweden look bad. There is a reason why the anti loli bill in Japan is even happening. it would be nice to do it but it would not work properly. It would look like our bestiality law, Which is a total mess and is being abused like hell.

No there is no line between paedophilia and lolicon, they are same thing.

Basically what I meant with a fine line is that one is real and the other is drawn.

 

[Trolldor]

But being 'wrong' isn't enough to make it illegal.

I should think something being 'wrong' is enough to make it illegal.

In fact it seems to me that every law in existence is based on or derives from some naturally arbitrary judgement of virtue. Not that that's a good or bad thing. Just how the world works.

No. A lot of laws have a pratical value. Laws are there for prevention of acts that would otherwise cause greater harm on society. They are far from arbitrary.

 

[Danny Ocean]

But being 'wrong' isn't enough to make it illegal.

I should think something being 'wrong' is enough to make it illegal.

In fact it seems to me that every law in existence is based on or derives from some naturally arbitrary judgement of virtue. Not that that's a good or bad thing. Just how the world works.

No. A lot of laws have a pratical value. Laws are there for prevention of acts that would otherwise cause greater harm on society. They are far from arbitrary.

Such as?

 

[Trolldor]

So a drawing ... made by adults ... if it's a video it's voiced by adults ... made for adults only, and that's kiddie porn? Cause from what I can tell NO CHILDREN WHERE INVOLVED! It's as close to child porn as a picture of an adult woman in a school girl outfit.

The amazing thing about art is you can draw anything, cause it's not real and it doesn't/shouldn't effect reality.

If I draw a picture of hot naked sex, it's porn. If that picture involves two men, it's gay porn. If that picture involves children it is child porn. It doesn't matter who went into its creation.

Whether or not the law needs redefining on the matter is up for debate. Whether or not its child porn isn't.

Also, don't post images that are specifically designed to insult entire religions. I know most muslims probably don't care but it's still pretty intolerant.

Bullshit it is. Intolerance is telling someone they can't do something because somebody else might get offended. Intolerance is telling somebody else that they don't have the right to express themselves because somebody might get offended. Intolerance is saying that because you don't want to hear something you get to silence, and my choice as to whether I want to hear it or not overruled and irrelevant because someone might get offended.

 

[Trolldor]

But being 'wrong' isn't enough to make it illegal.

I should think something being 'wrong' is enough to make it illegal.

In fact it seems to me that every law in existence is based on or derives from some naturally arbitrary judgement of virtue. Not that that's a good or bad thing. Just how the world works.

No. A lot of laws have a pratical value. Laws are there for prevention of acts that would otherwise cause greater harm on society. They are far from arbitrary.

Such as?

Murder. Stops me from being killed. Stops me from killing other people. Very practical.

Theft. Protects not just luxiries but necessities like food.

Property law. Ensures people can't strong arm you in to the street because they like your drapes.

Need I go on?

 

[Denamic]

Because Lolicon is depiction of that. Is it not?

So let's say you own a comic, book, movie, or whatever, in which someone is raped, you should be fined as if you owned material depicting actual rape?

 

[Stasisesque]

Because Lolicon is depiction of that. Is it not?

So let's say you own a comic, book, movie, or whatever, in which someone is raped, you should be fined as if you owned material depicting actual rape?

In some parts of the world, you are.

 

[Trolldor]

Because Lolicon is depiction of that. Is it not?

So let's say you own a comic, book, movie, or whatever, in which someone is raped, you should be fined as if you owned material depicting actual rape?

What about words?

The Quran explains that Mohammed diddled his nine year old wife Aisha, though to be fair he did wait three years after marrying her at six. Every copy of the Quran has child porn. Every Muslim with a copy needs to be jailed for Child pornography.

 

[zidine100]

With drawn images, you simply can't prove your subject is not a child.

I am not defending nor attacking lolicon.

forgive me if im wrong (i know practically nothing about law apart from what ive seen on tv and read about) here but with law in this country you have to prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that they have commited a crime. Ergo if it says there over age in cannon, that should count as REASONABLE DOUBT in most cases.

you cannot reasonably prove that the subject in itself is infact a child the same way you cant, it could just be a flat chested adult especially if it says that there overage in cannon, hence the point im trying to make with doubt here.

But im getting somewhat of topic with my arguments now aren't i?

but i do see your point you cant have legal identification papers or a birth certificate for fictional characters so its all just subjected to the whims of the court if your guilty or not.

*insert disclaimer about not owning a piece of lolicon material or liking lolicon here*