Where is the justice?

[mrdude2010]

(snip)


But yes; Thinking of sex with children is sick; thinking of outlawing harmless depictions for no other reason than offence over such thoughts equally so.

but see the depictions aren't harmless, as they highlight thoughts of sex with children. if you draw/enjoy images of children naked, you probably think they're arousing in some way or another, making them not harmless

 

[evilartist]

Fortunately, whether or not you believe is irrelevant. All that matters is that I have never harmed a child, will never harm a child, and believe anyone who would should be castrated. But a drawing is not nearly the same thing.

This doesn't make it any less illegal, as you'll see by what I posted.

Oh, please. I bet you wouldn't be spouting this "it's wrong because it's the law" bullshit if the law said the opposite. Making laws that only reflect the popular opinion with little regard for objectivity is absurd. Like violent video games or marijuana, it's a victimless crime that shouldn't be regulated because of peoples' fear-based opinions.

And if anyone claims that loli influences the actions of real-life pedophilia, it's only fair they should provide adequate (and unbiased) psychological studies and statistics. Look at drunk driving: it isn't illegal because people assumed it was harmful, or because it's taboo, or because of only a few casualties. Research was required: traffic statistics, studying the effects of alcohol on people, how high is the mortality rate...they all pointed to unacceptable and dangerous results; that law is justified. What do the judgmental naysayers of loli have to back up their stance? "Because it's disgusting"? "Because we think it will cause harm"? That's not enough!

 

[Gigano]

...
but see the depictions aren't harmless, as they highlight thoughts of sex with children. if you draw/enjoy images of children naked, you probably think they're arousing in some way or another, making them not harmless

Just how do they in and of themselves cause discernible harm to actual humans?

On the contrary, one could just as well speculate that jerking off to these cartoons offered the paedophiles a harmless outlet for their dark wants. Reports on the correlation between the release of ordinary pornography and a general decline in sex crimes could potentially support such conclusion. With no knowledge on whether it increases, decreases, or have no effect at all on sexual abuse, I'm hesitant to condemn it.

Thoughts are toll free. These cartoons may indeed be signs that some sick shit is going on in their heads, but as long as goes on there, and not in the real world with actual children, I see no reason to care.

Everyone is innocent until proven otherwise, so unless an individual evaluation of a specific paedophile proves that he/she is a clear and present danger to real children, or an actual child have been accosted by this individual paedophile, they are innocent.

When did all of this imginary kiddyrape get legal?

1969.

 

[_Cake_]

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.

<img src=http://mindnumbedrobot.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/EDMD1.jpg>

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.

You can see them as porn, or art. Real child porn and lolicon/shota are as different as a snuff film and John Carpenter's Halloween. No one is really being hurt.

This image is not to insult people, it's an example of insanely crazy art censorship. Human beings died because they drew a man... that's it. The part that bothered the Muslim people I know wasn't the drawing, it was that they occasionally got blamed for the work of complete psycho(whos cause they did NOT believe in). If there are any hardcore fundamentalist of any religion I'm that there are tons of images on this site that offend them.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Shouldn't the thread be about the guy how got jailed instead of...most of the things "depicted" so far.
He was translating, not creating the content. The court case itself isn't explained well either.

This is more of an attack on freedom of speech, and a display of imperfect law.

I feel bad for the guy. They didn't just wrongfully attack and charge him, they also ruined his life and lively-hood.

As the news story said, the company the guy worked for cut ties with him because they wanted to get the heck out of it so that they didn't get dragged under by these crazies doing the prosecuting, judging, and lawmaking.

I don't know what all the guy did to make money, if this was his only job link/client. But because these crazies did this, he is out of a job, and good luck to him finding another with this crap pinned onto him.

 

[mrwoo6]

(snip)


But yes; Thinking of sex with children is sick; thinking of outlawing harmless depictions for no other reason than offence over such thoughts equally so.

but see the depictions aren't harmless, as they highlight thoughts of sex with children. if you draw/enjoy images of children naked, you probably think they're arousing in some way or another, making them not harmless

Quite, Just as in the same sence that when i enjoy stabbing someones face off in manhunt i enjoy stabbing people in real life, or perhaps enjoying fire spells in magicka makes me a pyromaniac, or even thinking that the undead mage looks oddly hot makes me a necrophiliac, or only using melee kills in fallout and chopping everyones limbs off makes me a psychopath murder who enjoys cutting peoples limbs off. Perhaps if i think of gay sex i will catch "the gay" and enjoy being a homosexual! dear god! That is one rather silly statement. Rethink what you have said, good sir.

People can be turned on by real girls, but not be turned on by hentai why does this not work the other way around? why can't people enjoy the hentai version but the real version? If a half wolf half man beast appeared in real life do you think furries would try had have sex with it? no.

 

[Eri]

(snip)


But yes; Thinking of sex with children is sick; thinking of outlawing harmless depictions for no other reason than offence over such thoughts equally so.

but see the depictions aren't harmless, as they highlight thoughts of sex with children. if you draw/enjoy images of children naked, you probably think they're arousing in some way or another, making them not harmless

Quite, Just as in the same sence that when i enjoy stabbing someones face off in manhunt i enjoy stabbing people in real life, or perhaps enjoying fire spells in magicka makes me a pyromaniac, or even thinking that the undead mage looks oddly hot makes me a necrophiliac, or only using melee kills in fallout and chopping everyones limbs off makes me a psychopath murder who enjoys cutting peoples limbs off. Perhaps if i think of gay sex i will catch "the gay" and enjoy being a homosexual! dear god! That is one rather silly statement. Rethink what you have said, good sir.

People can be turned on by real girls, but not be turned on by hentai why does this not work the other way around? why can't people enjoy the hentai version but the real version? If a half wolf half man beast appeared in real life do you think furries would try had have sex with it? no.

I like this post. Thumbs up!

 

[yundex]

(snip)


But yes; Thinking of sex with children is sick; thinking of outlawing harmless depictions for no other reason than offence over such thoughts equally so.

but see the depictions aren't harmless, as they highlight thoughts of sex with children. if you draw/enjoy images of children naked, you probably think they're arousing in some way or another, making them not harmless

Quite, Just as in the same sence that when i enjoy stabbing someones face off in manhunt i enjoy stabbing people in real life, or perhaps enjoying fire spells in magicka makes me a pyromaniac, or even thinking that the undead mage looks oddly hot makes me a necrophiliac, or only using melee kills in fallout and chopping everyones limbs off makes me a psychopath murder who enjoys cutting peoples limbs off. Perhaps if i think of gay sex i will catch "the gay" and enjoy being a homosexual! dear god! That is one rather silly statement. Rethink what you have said, good sir.

People can be turned on by real girls, but not be turned on by hentai why does this not work the other way around? why can't people enjoy the hentai version but the real version? If a half wolf half man beast appeared in real life do you think furries would try had have sex with it? no.

I think we can all agree that we don't touch ourselves when we kill things in video games. I think we can also agree that straight males aren't looking for drawings of two guys sucking each other off.

 

[MassiveGeek]

But, I should also have a right to be disgusted by this, because I think that its really gross. I should have a right to react to this information in a negative fashion and express my opinions about why I feel it's not really okay. Though, I'd never try to stop you, because it's unnecessary, no fucking harm is being done here.

But this would be a reaction based on common sense. And can´t have that, can we ?
To be able to react in such a way, you would have to have realized that there is a difference between "I don´t like this." or even "I find this disgusting." and "This is wrong, it should be forbidden.".
Many people are incapable of seperating those things.

But where does this actually fall between the line "I personally find this digusting" and "this is wrong and should be forbidden"? That's the question.

Have you seen that Magritte piece, Ceci n'est pase une pipe?
Or in English This is not a pipe.

Yet, what is that image depicting? It's a pipe - but it's not actually a pipe. So in the same sense you can view lolicon - it's a depiction of a young-looking or actual minor in a sexual manner - but it's not an actual minor in a sexual situation.
So, it falls on us to determine how we should handle this, and I'm not sure taking it away from everyone is the right thing to do. Because again, the images themselves aren't actually harming anyone - people hurt people, images don't. It's reversing the cause and the effect, I think.

 

[s0denone]

I think we can all agree that we don't touch ourselves when we kill things in video games. I think we can also agree that straight males aren't looking for drawings of two guys sucking each other off.

Hitting the nail on the head here, mate.
Draw a picture of a naked woman? Porn.
Draw a picture of a two naked men sucking eachother off? Gay porn.
Draw a picture of a naked child? Child porn.

It is as simple as, really. I have no idea where this argument is coming from.

 

[TheAmazingHobo]

So, it falls on us to determine how we should handle this, and I'm not sure taking it away from everyone is the right thing to do. Because again, the images themselves aren't actually harming anyone - people hurt people, images don't. It's reversing the cause and the effect, I think.

Well yes, I think in this case the situation is rather clear.
While the existence of such pictures feels somewhat "wrong" to me, I would not advocate to make them illegal, as my reaction is based purely on emotions, not on anything else, seeing how those picture take no part in harming anyone.

And legislation based purely on moral outrage tends to be a rather shitty idea,
generally speaking.

 

[MassiveGeek]

So, it falls on us to determine how we should handle this, and I'm not sure taking it away from everyone is the right thing to do. Because again, the images themselves aren't actually harming anyone - people hurt people, images don't. It's reversing the cause and the effect, I think.

Well yes, I think in this case the situation is rather clear.
While the existence of such pictures feels somewhat "wrong" to me, I would not advocate to make them illegal, as my reaction is based purely on emotions, not on anything else, seeing how those picture take no part in harming anyone.

And legislation based purely on moral outrage tends to be a rather shitty idea,
generally speaking.

... Yes, that is what I've been saying for the whole time.

 

[TheAmazingHobo]

Well yes, I think in this case the situation is rather clear.
While the existence of such pictures feels somewhat "wrong" to me, I would not advocate to make them illegal, as my reaction is based purely on emotions, not on anything else, seeing how those picture take no part in harming anyone.

And legislation based purely on moral outrage tends to be a rather shitty idea,
generally speaking.

... Yes, that is what I've been saying for the whole time.

Of course you do,
as you at least seem to be a somewhat mature, non-insane person.
Did not mean to contradict you in any way.

Just meant to point out that many people are simply unwilling to take a step back and reflect on their feelings. Which brings us such enjoyable debates as "Rock & Roll: Satans Theme song ?" and "Video Games: How fast will they turn your kid into a mass-murder ?".
I apologize if that seemed redundant.

 

[badgersprite]

This is ridiculous. By this logic, anyone who legally marries a dwarf or a short, flat-chested woman should be arrested for having sex with someone who "looks childlike". And yes, it is the same thing, because, when it comes to drawn characters, they have no age. Age is a concept being applied to drawn characters based on how they look. So, clearly, marrying anybody who looks like they could be under 18 when they're not makes you a child abuser!

What's next? Are we going to arrest people who write books that have rape in them as rapists? HOW DARE YOU ABUSE NON-EXISTENT FICTIONAL CHARACTERS!

 

[Danish rage]

It´s so clear many of you are not parents.

I´d like this discussion with people that actually cared for other than themselfes.

Where are you´re harts? How can you under any circumstances condone any misuse of children, even if it´s only a drawing. When did all of this imginary kiddyrape get legal? I sure as hell didn´t get the email, memo whatever. Oh shit people.

Come back when you can spell hearts, you retard.

Feeling trolish much?

 

[Kortney]

My ex gf is 22. She is just 5ft tall. She looks like she is about 14 years old. She has no mental defects and her IQ is slightly above average. Should I have been arrested for having sex with her on the basis she looks very underage? She's older than me for christ sake. You can't just say "it looks underage therefore I declare it TO BE underage and also therefore illegal".

This is ridiculous. By this logic, anyone who marries a dwarf or a short, flat-chested woman should be arrested for having sex with someone who "looks childlike".

The difference is, in this sort of art, the images are deliberately drawn to look like children. In many countries (particularly in the Commonwealth) it is also illegal to make a pornographic film with adult performers portraying children. The legal system obviously feels that doing so is harmful. Maybe they feel it encourages child pornography. Maybe they feel it's just sick. Maybe they feel it is child pornography (I subscribe to this view). I really don't know - but I can understand both sides of the debate.

 

[MassiveGeek]

Well yes, I think in this case the situation is rather clear.
While the existence of such pictures feels somewhat "wrong" to me, I would not advocate to make them illegal, as my reaction is based purely on emotions, not on anything else, seeing how those picture take no part in harming anyone.

And legislation based purely on moral outrage tends to be a rather shitty idea,
generally speaking.

... Yes, that is what I've been saying for the whole time.

Of course you do,
as you at least seem to be a somewhat mature, non-insane person.
Did not mean to contradict you in any way.

Just meant to point out that many people are simply unwilling to take a step back and reflect on their feelings. Which brings us such enjoyable debates as "Rock & Roll: Satans Theme song ?" and "Video Games: How fast will they turn your kid into a mass-murder ?".
I apologize if that seemed redundant.

Ah, thanks for clarifying, I got really confused with what you were trying to achieve with this exchange.

Yes I agree, this is just like those things you mentioned a process that will take a while to resolve. If it won't be accepted, perhaps it will at the very least be understood and left alone.
And for the cases where the people who embrace lolicon actually have issues not acting on actual attraction to children, they shouldn't be pushed away and pushed down by society, but helped.

 

[Kortney]

Because again, the images themselves aren't actually harming anyone

This issue is nowhere near as cut and dry as what you are making out here.

I think that illustrated child pornography can harm people. It's a depiction of a criminal activity for the purpose of arousing people. That can definitely be harmful. It may not be a lot of the time, but don't discount the whole thing just because it doesn't involve real people. The ideas can be just as real.

 

[MassiveGeek]

Because again, the images themselves aren't actually harming anyone

This issue is nowhere near as cut and dry as what you are making out here.

I think that illustrated child pornography can harm people. It's a depiction of a criminal activity for the purpose of arousing people. That can definitely be harmful. It may not be a lot of the time, but don't discount the whole thing just because it doesn't involve real people. The ideas can be just as real.

Yes, and when those ideas or images inspire people or somehow prompt them to acting on it then that's a seperate case.
And nothing is clean cut, there's always another side of the coin, and the cases in question should be treated appropriatly for the situation at hand.
Blaming the images though is reversing the cause and the effect.

 

[TheAmazingHobo]

Yes I agree, this is just like those things you mentioned a process that will take a while to resolve. If it won't be accepted, perhaps it will at the very least be understood and left alone.
And for the cases where the people who embrace lolicon actually have issues not acting on actual attraction to children, they shouldn't be pushed away and pushed down by society, but helped.

I agree with the helped part. Those who realize they have a real problem and might actually be a danger to children need (because they are a real danger to someone, as opposed to the nebulous and "potential" danger ascribed to pictures) and deserve help.

As opposed to those who actually HAVE acted on their impulses.
Those people might also need help, but I would prefer if they get help AFTER a thorough punishment. Preferably involving large, blunt instruments.
And there goes my ability to seperate emotions from actual judgement, which is why I should not and will not ever be a judge ^^