@SSj_Ness For whatever reason I can't directly quote you, so I'll talk in general terms and quote you manually.
I've never spoken or even directly alluded to the law or legality in any of my posts except to specifically answer that one guy regarding the chances of someone actually getting arrested over loli. I've not been dealing with this from a legal perspective at all.
Your position seem to be that nothing except what's probably illegal is beyond the pale.
No that's not my position, and its seems that you've somehow failed to grasp my position even though I've been very clear on it. Every thing that involves real children is beyond the pale for me, whether its illegal or not. Legality does not enter into the equation. Its the inclusion of
real children that makes it wrong for me.
Moral relativism isn't a good position to hinge your argument on. By that "different strokes" mentality one could easily say that your previously mentioned limits like deepfakes or stories are just for "different folks".
I'm not hinging my argument on moral relativism. I'm acknowledging the fact that we are talking about fictional cartoon characters, and thus any standard we can place upon them will constantly find itself at odds with other issues, like freedom of speech, and with the fact that nobody really cares if someone jacks it to fictional characters. Let me make this clear; my argument does not cover people doing things involving real children. We are talking about drawings and must simply acknowledge that fact. I don't actually believe in moral relativism myself.
I believe you made that claim before I addressed you in particular, either as a general post or to someone else. So I'm asking you to make good on a public claim you've made on this subject, in this very thread, before we even engaged. That's not an outlandish request.
My response has always been a direct rebuttal to anyone making the claim of a connection between artwork and pedophilia. My response is, at its basic "You have no evidence to back up your assertions and there is none as far as I'm aware. Therefore I will immediately discount everything you say." You want to assert there is evidence? Then produce it. You can't prove a negative, in same way you can't prove that someone is not guilty of a crime. You can prove them guilty. You think there's evidence? Go find it, then get back to me. If there is, it shouldn't be hard to find. That's the last I will say on the matter; if you don't produce anything, I will assume it doesn't exist. Maybe there is some European study done in Denmark or something that proves there's a link, but I'm not looking for it because its not my point to prove, its yours.
Then let's clear this up. I'm discussing this from the perspective of morality, not legality. Not everything legal is moral, and I'm asserting that certain types and styles of porn are well beyond the pale.
Once again, I've never brought legality or the law into this discussion except in response to another poster's post. None of my discussion with you has even mentioned the legality of lolicon nor used its legality as point of argumentation. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth and bringing up things we didn't talk about?
I'd simply like you to justify its existence beyond "different strokes", and also explain how it doesn't appeal to pedophiles. I mean, gerontophiles aren't the target audience are they?
I don't need to justify anything's existence. Art exists for itself. You don't justify art. Lolicon appeals to those who like lolicon; those people maybe pedophiles, they may not be. Doesn't matter to the artist or in regards to the art itself. A lot of people get off to rape scenes in movies. They may or may not be people who actually want to rape someone in real life. Whether or not they do is not a reflection of the film or the film maker.
Let's discuss this logically. If a gerontophile is attracted to Genkai (Yu Yu Hakusho hentai), then who would be attracted to Pan (Dragon Ball Super hentai)? Simple questions, direct logic.
Your logic is flawed. A person can be attracted to Genkai and not be a gerontophile. A person can be attracted to any human in Yu Yu Hakusho, who are all Japanese, and not, say, have a race fetish for Japanese people. Just because this one person who is attracted to Genkai is a gerontophile, doesn't mean everyone who is attracted to her is. An old man can be attracted to Genkai, because he's her age group, and not be a gerontophile. Same with Pan. Or Sailor Moon, or any number of other anime girls who are underage.
I'm against porn in general but acknowledge the reality that there's different degrees of degeneracy and that there needs to be a limit to what's tolerated in society. Your limit is literal deepfakes of actual people, so stuff that's basically illegal anyway. I disagree with your limit and think you need to do a better job justifying it.
It's not confusing at all. Your limit is too far. That's it.
Once again, you misunderstand my actual stance, but I'm repeating myself. So you say there should be limit to what is tolerated in society, but have actually failed to coherently argue what that limit is, why it should be imposed, or why your perceived limit is some standard you expect everyone else should live by. My limit is
anything that involves real children, because that would obviously require victimizing an actual child. Legality has nothing to do with it. I don't need to justify that limit to anyone, you included. But I think that is a limit almost everyone except actual pedophiles would agree with.
And it's not magical, it's a logical limit. You haven't once tried justifying your position beyond "everything up to and including photorealistic art is okay because it's fictional". Well no shit it's fictional, but it doesn't make it acceptable.
No its not a logical limit. You haven't actually expressed what your limit is. That's what I'm telling you. And what you personally find acceptable is irrelevant here. That is your personal opinion, and opinions are like assholes; we all have them. You may find it unacceptable. Other people won't. Your standard is no more objective than anyone else's. My standard is based on the most basic idea that is acceptable in our modern society; victimizing children is wrong. Maybe you want to argue that that standard is also subjective. Maybe your right. There was a time when things like child prostitution were considered acceptable in society, and its commonly practiced illegally in many places today, but if we must establish a moral, ethical, or legal standard, this is one standard that most of society will agree upon.
Yeah, it was very black and white. If it's not illegal (making porn out of pictures of actual people) then it gets a greenlight from you. That's as black and white as it gets. Everything from literal stick figure up to photorealistic art is all on the table according to you, there's a total lack of any reasonableness in that stance, zero nuance. EVERYTHING is okay to you but it's not.
Clearly everything IS NOT okay with me if I oppose things like deep fakes. And my stance is actually quite nuanced. It accepts that artwork is a matter of self-expression and that no one an put an objective standard on art. My stance also does not demand you accept lolicon or give it your personal stamp of approval. It merely says that it has a right to exist as art and everyone should live and let live. Nothing gets a personal "green light" from me. I merely accept that it exists and acknowledge that no one is being harmed by it. That's actually a fairly nuanced take, and there is nothing unreasonable about. Your "my way or the highway" approach is what is unreasonable.
I'm still waiting on that research you claimed existed.
Once again, I never claimed any research existed. I stated there was a dearth of research proving your claim. I'm arguing that there is no research that proves the point. Also, weak rebuttal.
Second, that's a lie; I've never once accused anyone of being rapists, I've assigned no actionable intent to anyone. I've merely logically concluded that anyone attracted to depictions of what closely resembles actual human children is, unsurprisingly, a pedophile. No different from how someone attracted to old people is a gerontophile, except much more sick. How you can deny this is baffling.
Sophistry. You've all but said that you consider anyone who looks at the type of loli you dislike to basically be a pedophile. Unless you are one those who likes to scream "NoT aLL PeDOs Are RAPists", we both know what I meant.
No, some truths are held as self-evident. We don't need everything scientifically demonstrated. Some things are philosophically true, things which can't be measured. Murder is wrong whether you can prove it or not, and any civilized, decent society will agree. So, too, I believe, do those same societies agree that realistic sexual depictions of minors is wrong. If you want science to lead you to moral conclusions you'll be sorely disappointed!
I'm amazed you can make this claim when we've had many societies where having sex with children was widespread and perfectly legal, including Ancient Greece and pre-Modern Japan. Some things aren't "self-evident" unless you are looking only through a very narrow scope of history that includes only everything from the 20th Century on. As late as the 19th Century, child marriage and child prostitution were perfectly acceptable in Europe and the British Isles, and the age of consent was either non-existent or, in later years, pitifully low.
Murder, rape, theft, and pedophilia are moral stances virtually universally considered to be wrong, it's interchangeable with absolute truth.
You may WANT to think that, but in many Muslim societies right now, marrying children is perfectly legal, there are academics arguing for pedophilia to be decriminalized and this has been going on for over a century, there is a controversial trial going on right now about whether or not a young teen committed murder or acted in self defense (with many stupid people convinced of the former), and there are people trying to stretch the definition of rape to include a woman simply regretting having sex with a man after the fact, even if she consented to it at the time.
I don't agree that "legal and cultural censure should be left for things that directly hurt others". If we want a moral society we need boundaries beyond what merely directly affects other people.
While that old fashioned idea maybe considered laudable in certain quarters, that is simply no longer the prevailing moral attitude among society now, including people on the right, such as libertarians. For my part, I think that trying to force a set morality on society outside of preventing direct harm is always either doomed to failure or subject to tyranny.
Nobody should want a society subjected to open pedophiles, animal torturers, Satanists, and all manner of wickedness merely because it doesn't cause direct harm.
For pedophiles and animal torturers, that would fall under the "direct harm" principle, since those people directly harm other beings (children and animals, respectively). But why Satanists? You sure as hell aren't going to get much support for going after them, considering freedom of religion and all. Besides, most modern Satanists are just religious trolls, like those bozos at the Church of Satan.
