Nocilol

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Lolicon

Slippery slope is inconclusive at best. There have been studies done where people who enjoyed lolicon were more apt toward CP because of it, and there have been studies done where people who enjoyed lolicon were less apt toward CP because of it. It varies from person to person.

Assuming we're discussing the United States, lolicon should not be illegal because it falls under freedom of expression, as it were. In relation to the airport bomb note, that doesn't for the same reason that you can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater - your freedom of expression gets squished under the rights of a society to be/feel safe. It has not been proven that lolicon presents an immediate real life danger; the Supreme Court realized this back in 2003 or 2004 or whenever and ruled that making lolicon illegal would thus be unconstitutional.

[Squeek]

Re: Lolicon

Not just once, Kilga. They shot down about 3-5 different laws that had anti-loli in them, among other things. The worst one was the workaround law that was to be the foundation for others since the previous ones all failed. This one (forgot the name) would force libraries to install filters in order to keep funding. It was shot down because the filters were either too difficult to upkeep or filtered legitimate websites along with the illegitimate ones.

Ultimately, the decision came from "No actual children are being harmed here." Yes, it can be used for wrongdoing in the wrong hands, but then again, everything in the world can be used for wrongdoing in the wrong hands. That's not a good enough reason to ban anything.

Which, as jamuko said, makes the violent video game movement all the more retarded.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Lolicon

So you guys think it's okay to masturbate to drawn images of a child's nude body in suggestive poses/penetration? I mean really, if you're in support of it, obviously you feel this way. If anything it would fuel a person's desire to look into child pornography.

I don't agree with that whatsoever. I mean, sure, like Kilga said, it varies from person to person, but if you want child porn, you can easily get it. EASILY, with most any P2P software (there was a discussion on what an acronym used in the cp circles meant, and I got curious and wondered how many hits it would get on Limewire. Thousands).

People look at lolicon because not only is it legal, when you look at it there's no actual child to remind you that his or her life is being destroyed as a result of molestation.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Lolicon

lalalala slippery slope lalala

Did you completely miss the part of my post where I said studies have been done and produced conclusions in both directions? Your righteous indignation and "well it might" mean jack shit in the face of people that have gone out and actually produced observable data that supports the inconclusivity of this theory.

Please, if you're going to state that the slippery slope is inevitable, go out and do some research to prove conclusively that it's true.

And yes, I think it's okay to "masturbate to drawn images of a child's nude body in suggestive poses/penetration". What other people do in the privacy of their own home is not my business (note that CP leaves the "privacy of their own home" boundary by hurting kids outside of it), and it isn't yours either. I don't do it myself, but far be it from me to say that it's disgusting or wrong just because I may or may not do/like it.

[Afrobean]

Re: Lolicon

So you guys think it's okay to masturbate to drawn images of a child's nude body in suggestive poses/penetration? I mean really, if you're in support of it, obviously you feel this way. If anything it would fuel a person's desire to look into child pornography.

Have you ever played Grand Theft Auto? Have you ever walked down the street slaughtering innocent bystanders and police officers, all the while looking for a car to jack?

CP leaves the "privacy of their own home" boundary by hurting kids outside of it

Yeah, if you're gonna molest children, they need to already be in your home.

I don't do it myself, but far be it from me to say that it's disgusting or wrong just because I may or may not do/like it.

Dude that giant titty **** is disgusting I am seriously offended I think you should go to jail etc. Also, ****ting dick nipples.

ps have you guys seen that guro ****? I'm pretty sure all of it is loli and that **** is brutal. Imagine murder + rape + S&M + loli. If you're gonna argue for anything to be illegal it should be that ****.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Lolicon

Even if I feel it is justified for lolicon style imagery to qualify as child porn (which my country also seems to think) that doesn't mean that it should be treated in all instances as 100% identical either.

I mean, hitting someone is hitting someone, and there are a great many different types of assault charges.

Stop dodging the question. What's inherently harmful or immoral about lolicon imagery?

[Wlfwnd91]

Re: Lolicon

ps have you guys seen that guro ****? I'm pretty sure all of it is loli and that **** is brutal. Imagine murder + rape + S&M + loli. If you're gonna argue for anything to be illegal it should be that ****.

Guro can actually be very artistic and express a lot if it's done right. Yes, some is horribly done and just retarded, but if you find good guro it's an amazing art form.

[Wlfwnd91]

Re: Lolicon

Links to these studies please.

Anyways, as you say it does go in both directions, would you really want to take a chance and let the people who became more interested into pedophilia continue to look at lolicon until it no longer satisfies their desires and they finally take their sexual frustration out in the real world? Even if looking at lolicon reduces the desire in some people, the ones wanting more are more of a THREAT than they were before.

Also, there's no way you could correlate violent games to lolicon. Video games are for entertainment, not to satisfy sexual cravings. The industry is regulated so that parents are able to decide what's best for their children. They're simply pure entertainment value; nothing more, nothing less. However lolicon constitutes as a sexual satisfaction or a fetish.

It is very easy to correlate the two. Who would play a game like Grand Theft Auto (seems to be the popular one, so I'll use it) if some part of them didn't enjoy shooting innocent people, running red lets, or hell, driving through anything and everything they can find while trying to get away from the cops? If none of that lifestyle appealed to these kids or adults they wouldn't play the game. Some people find youth to be attractive, and that's the underlying factor of it all. The same as some enjoy the adrenaline rush of out-running a cop or killing a hooker to get their money back. It doesn't mean they're going to go out and do it, but there is the possibility that it feeds those urges and sets them over the edge, but in that case they had more underlying problems than a video game.

I enjoy loli, but I think child porn is disgusting and evil beyond a lot of things, and would have serious urges to slaughter anyone who engaged in it (but I wouldn't because I have *gasp* self control)

[Wlfwnd91]

Re: Lolicon

Like I said, video games are for entertainment only and everyone for the most part realizes that. Yes, there are a few who take it to the extremes and reenacts those acts in public and video games are taking the heat for it already, but this is dealing with a sexual desire.

Desires are desires, and the same as some people lose control of what's real and what's not with violent video games there's those who lose control of what's real and what's not with loli, but just because of a few bad apples you can't just outlaw something (well... I forgot that in America if one person screws up and blames it on something then that something is immediately banned.) All I'm saying is that, yes, loli may end up causing some to engage more-so in their desires, but for others it's simply an artform or an escape to feel like they can be themselves, and those are just 2 reasons some people may like it. There's certainly plenty more.

[Squeek]

Re: Lolicon

It's not that they're condoning drawings of children involving sexual situations.

It's that it infringes on the Freedom of Speech.

That is why it was shot down in the Supreme Court four times.

Anyway, the biggest argument that anti-video game activists have is that we're all getting more and more violent because of games. I can look at the Department of Justice website and see the exact opposite. Around the same time PlayStation became popular, crime began to fall dramatically. That decline continues today, even after GTAII, VC, SA, and all of the violent FPS games to date.

Why? Kids are no longer bored enough to go out and buy/sell drugs or be in gangs. They have things to do. Games.

I could say the same here. It's a legal outlet that keeps sickos from affecting real children.

[devonin]

Re: Lolicon

On 30 April 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) which again criminalizes cartoon child pornography. The Act introduced 18 U.S.C. 1466A which criminalizes both Miller Test obscene cartoon depictions of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and, as noted by the 11th Circuit in United States v. Williams, cartoon depictions of a minor or what appears to be a minor engaging in overt sexual intercourse (not merely sexually explicit) and need satisify only the third part of the Miller Test, that it lack serious artistic value. In February 2006, Senator John McCain introduced S.519, which would add a mandatory 10-year sentence in jail to anyone who uses the Internet to violate the PROTECT Act

- Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
- Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions [2] specifically defined by applicable state law,
- Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary and/or artistic, political, or scientific value.

So evidentally, unless the depictions have "serious artistic value" they are not only illegal in the United States, but some legislators are looking to make it quite punitive.

[devonin]

Re: Lolicon

Er...then how, in 2006 was a proposal put forward to -add- to that law, if that law had been struck down?

Edit: Further searching reveals:

On April 6, 2006, in United States v. Williams, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that one component of the PROTECT ACT, the "pandering provision" codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) of the United States Code, violated the First Amendment. The "pandering provision" conferred criminal liability on anyone who knowingly

advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits through the mails, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains (i) an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (ii) a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

The Williams court held that although the content described in subsections (i) and (ii) is not constitutionally protected, speech that advertises or promotes such content does have the protection of the First Amendment. Accordingly, § 2252A(a)(3)(B) was held to be unconstitutionally overbroad. The Eleventh Circuit further held that the law was unconstitutionally vague, in that it did not adequately and specifically describe what sort of speech was criminally actionable. The government did not appeal this ruling.

So even though it is in fact still illegal, it was ruled unconstitutional to stop you from trying to convince people that they ought to look at it.

[devonin]

Re: Lolicon

Er...no, the addition I was talking about was Senator McCains that said "If you use the internet to violate the terms of the PROTECT act, you should get an additional 10-year minimum sentence."

[jamuko]

Re: Lolicon

Shox, I don't think alcohol is really the best example for this. For one thing, it literally intoxicates you and causes you to not function as you normally would. Loli does no such thing... I don't even know how to compare the two. Bad things come of drunkenness because people are incapable of making the same good judgments they do when sober. Loli... really has no direct harmful effect.

And for the bigger loophole... even though there are restrictions, drinking is actually legal. But wait! They actually did decide to make it completely illegal one time! That worked pretty well, didn't it? Oh wait....

But seriously, I can't understand how you're making such a large distinction between this and violent video games. Pretty much every argument you've had could be applied to games as well. Sure, games are just "entertainment"... but so are sexual fetishes, are they not? They're just more taboo and embarrassing, and sure, I guess you could say they are more powerful, but I still wouldn't put them on such a different level that another set of logic has to be used on them.

[jamuko]

Re: Lolicon

But.... the age limit was upped for alcohol as a direct result of the effects of being drunk. It was determined for one reason or another that people below age 21 were not capable of handling the substance with good judgment.

They tried outlawing it completely and that was a miserable failure.

For loli, there is no age at which you would be able to take it better than another.

I don't think I'm forming this argument very well, but the point I'm getting at is that the alcohol "bad apples" scenario isn't a close enough parallel to this one, so it doesn't really make good backup for your argument.

Edit: I want to make clear that I mean no offense with any of my arguments; a good debate is no fun without someone on the opposing side. :P