Should lolicon / shotacon be considered drawn child pornography?

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Dude, people having a bad perception of you is entirely your own fault.

In that case it should be unnecessary to be deceptive, shouldn't it?

It's slimy tactic, and in your reply you conveniently skipped over the fact that I called you out on resorting to bringing up an entirely separate subject of debate into this because you can't articulate a defense for loli.

you always take the most pro-authoritarian stance imaginable, and always justify ideas that would essentially amount to a Police State with vague notions of "morality."

I apologize for having consistent moral convictions, I'll be sure to donate to Drag Queen Story Hour in the name of freedom.

Seriously though, what would the world look like in my ideas were implemented? Truly it'd be a hellscape if transgenderism, pornography, and infanticide were banned, a veritable 1984!

And in terms of law, America has no better example than the Mike Diana case. To briefly sum up, this was a man who was arrested and convicted on "Obscenity" charges... for personal drawings he only ever distributed to friends. This happened in Florida, unsurprisingly, but the fact remains that if it happened once, it can always happen again.

One can only hope.

So are most of SSJ_Ness's arguments.

They legit sound like the kind of thing a cartoon villain would say, so why not put him up against his own kind?

This is the most hilarious thing I've ever heard said about me, it's at least more creative than the average libtard's accusation of being a Nazi but is no less delusional.

There's nothing moral about driving a car, or choosing not to drive one. But some people have a vested interest in encouraging one policy or the other. Not everything is tied to morality.

Climate activists would strongly disagree.

Most people see order as good yes. You can make moral arguments for Order being an inherent good. You can make religious arguments behind God being a God of order. But governments push for Order not for any moral reason, but because their power is based in them being the sole enforcers of order. Fascist societies are generally seen and stereotyped as being very orderly, though most see them as immoral. Same with Nazi Germany

But even Nazis thought they were doing good for their country, I don't think it's impossible to even make an argument that Hitler had good intentions for Germany, thinking he was operating in its best interests.

Morality is not the sole judge and arbitrator of the law. Politics, personal ambition, culture, practicality, etc. are all equally, and most of the time, more important.

Even in the most extreme case, personal ambition, there is still a fundamentally moral consideration. Remember, what is moral is simply defined, rather broadly, as "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior". To have personal ambition one must decide that doing so is right or wrong, at least for themselves.

Every decision you make is based on this, it can be a very selfish moral decision but is still classified as in the sphere of morality in decision making, and this selfishness is rightly considered bad. There are certain virtues, and lacking them is immoral, but we're delving into philosophy too deeply and soon we'll be citing Aristotle in a thread about loli.

The ultimate point is that it is not "morals" that influence NK laws. Its the protection of the Kim Dynasty's power. Moral considerations are not even considered.

They are, as explained above.

The U.S. was falling apart due to the unworkability of the Articles of Confederation, and the nation's early leadership feared that if the U.S. collapsed, it would be an easy target for the likes of Great Britain. So political considerations overrode moral ones.

I see how you'd come to that conclusion, but it's not seeing the whole picture. The U.S existing was itself considered a moral good, so concessions were made for the greater good, as the wise (such as the Founders were) know not to let perfection be the enemy of good. They still asserted all men are created equal, but just didn't live up to that standard immediately. Moral consideration was absolutely at the very core of the founding, the existence of concessions does not invalidate this fact.

Now you are conflating elements. You say "laws are passed for the purpose of good". Were the Nuremburg laws passed for the purpose of good?

Someone thought so, didn't they?

My initial point was that laws have to be clear on what they do and don't regulate.

Then what's not clear about regulating depictions of minors in cartoon pornography? Seems clear to me.

You are too smart to believe that. Plenty of things are illegal in many nations that have no actual moral reasoning behind why they are illegal. To use North Korea, an already cited example, there is no moral reason to ban foreign films or Bibles. They are banned because they are foreign influences that NK regime believes will undermine them.

I appreciate the sentiment, though I'm really not lol

But would the regime consider those influences good or bad? Did we not consider communist influence bad in USA? We may consider different things good or bad, but the moral component is present. It's an inescapable reality for humans.

Cats do not consider whether it is right or wrong to eat a mouse, they do so on instinct. Vegans exist because humans have a moral understanding of their actions at the absolute lowest level for virtually all decisions.

America is no longer the nation of her founding fathers. And even during the founding, Christian morality alone was not the only consideration.

This is true, but it doesn't undermine any point I've made.

Regardless of which view of morality is superior, the fact is the Christian has to live in his country with the "hedonistic left" and both have a say on policy. No one side will automatically prevail.

Right, but my point is a moral view will prevail. Big talking points in the 2024 presidential election will be things like averting wars and fixing the economy, which are obviously moral considerations. The left and right will both make moral arguments on these subjects, again, morality is ever present in politics.

The drawing hasn't been defined for the purposes of this argument, so neither one of us knows exactly what type of drawing we are discussing, nor can we make any bold statements or declarations on it either way.

I thought it went without saying that the drawing is loli hentai. As most people understand that to mean depictions of fictional children, that's what the thread is about specifically.

If you show me a "lolicon" drawing, that could mean a lot things. It could be pornographic, it could not be pornographic; it could depict an underage character, it may not depict an underage character. I don't know. If you show me the picture, I would describe what I see. In either case, its just a picture.

Okay, to be clear, it is pornographic. Also, the characters in question are underage.

The point is that a picture can "objectively" show something that looks like an adult human, but people will still subjectively define it however they want to define it.

How so? Anatomy textbooks in school depict drawings and are considered useful and accurate for education, and nobody contests this. I doubt a single human being who is not medically retarded has ever misunderstood what they're seeing depicted.

Why, then, would this suddenly change when the purpose is not educational not pornographic? Why suddenly can people not be sure if they're looking at adult anatomy or not? Is arousal cutting off bloodflow to the brain?

My rights would be guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights in particular.

That's not true though, because even your freedom of speech is actually rather limited despite what the First Amendment says, there have since been reasonable exceptions carved out since everyone knows free speech absolutism is untenable in a civil society.

Abortion and gay marriage are not rights protected under the U.S. Constitution.

Right, but neither are drawings depicting sexualized images of fictional children, correct? Or even pornography more broadly, perhaps.

What's on that drawing is subjective.

Without the author telling you or anyone else, what do you think this is a drawing of? And also, do you think there's a reasonable person who would confuse it for a watermelon? Furhermore, could someone confuse it for a person performing sex acts?

The only one of us who could objectively be wrong is me because I'm not the author.

So if someone showed hentai to a minor but claimed they were showing them a fruit basket instead of an orgy, what would happen?

Being divorced of that context means that it resembles an apple.

This is what is is taken issue with, that the drawing resembles an apple. Or, in the case of loli, sexualized minors.

To use the watermelon example, if you show me in a second picture the apple cut in half with the insides of a watermelon, that would make the apple a watermelon and your original assertion that it was such correct.

But the first picture is what is taken issue with. If I make a film that's pornographic, then a second part which reveals the entire thing to actually be kittens playing with a yarn ball, I don't think the first part of the film would be rated suitable for general audiences just because it was canonically not pornographic.

This line of argument is really obtuse, I don't think many would find it compelling.

If we get more abstract, and lets say I show you a picture of a drawn circle, and I ask you what it is, you'd probably tell me its a circle. But I would say, "No, that's the sun." You couldn't tell me I was wrong, because the sun is a circle, and it very well could just be a picture of the sun with no coloring or features added. Neither of us is technically wrong. The sun is spherical object and on a 2D plane looks like a circle. And I was intending to draw the sun. We are both right.

If you just draw "a circle", sure. But there's a difference between these images, one can not reasonably be argued to be anything but the sun:




Are you going to try to tell me that character is looking at an unidentifiable object? A circle, a UFO? It's the sun and there's zero ambiguity. Even if the artist said it's actually a blackhole or a refrigerator, it's not. Somewhere between the two extremes there could be ambiguity, but at some point there's no room for interpretation.

Are you familiar with the concept of a reasonable person? Applying that standard would yield the obvious results.

Conservatively, to bring this back to the point, if I show you a picture of a petite girlish female human having sex with youngish looking male human and asked you what you saw, you might say its lolicon/shotacon. And, by definition, you might be correct. But if you say "That's a little girl having sex with a little boy", I might respond, "Nope, both characters are 18 and therefore adults." At that point, who's right and who's wrong?

It depends, if you drew a teenager there's no way to determine a 17 year old cartoon from an 18 year old one. But if you showed me an image of two photorealistic infants there'd be zero doubt as to the nature of the image.

You must think I'm saying there's no ambiguity, there is, but you refusing to concede any ground makes you seem to be arguing in bad faith. Certain age ranges and art styles make room for reasonable doubt, but the more the art trends towards realism and the younger the characters are, the more clear and easy condemnation becomes.

The characters cannot be over or under the age of 18 except by the context I've given you, because they don't objectively exist outside of being drawings.

They don't need to exist outside of being drawings, what you're drawing is reflecting reality. If you draw a dragon, they don't exist, or if you draw a stick figure child which no human resembles, you could do as you wish. But once you reflect observable reality (visually, not story-wise, the image is what's the issue, not the story), that's now something we can identify beyond the bounds of artistic interpretation.

You really want to leave the interpretation of art up to a judge? We've seen, on this very site, time and again, judges being out of touch morons. And now you want to give unelected, unaccountable judges the power to declare whether something is "legal" are or not?

Of course not, I'd prefer a benevolent dictator, but we have a different system and unfortunately this is how it works. It's not ideal, but you operate within the system you have. We can't just make nothing illegal because judges are retards.

If we are to assume that picture is pornographic, then yes, showing it to a child would be illegal.

But according to you the author can simply say the image is whatever they want it to be. It could be hardcore pornography, but the artist can say it's actually leaves blowing in the wind. Then they could pass it around outside a school by your logic.

Its not possible for a woman to look like that now, but in the future, it may be possible for a grown woman to clone herself as an infant and put her adult mind into a infant body, or transfer her mind to an infantile cyborg body.

I'm not trying to be condescending when I say this, but I laughed heartily reading this. Come on man, appealing to hypothetical future scientific scenarios is the stretchiest of stretches, and at any rate we're living in the present. Maybe we can revive the dead in the future so killing people should be legal, that's just not how it works.

I like hypotheticals though, so to touch on it as an aside; it almost certainly wouldn't be legal to have sex with a mind-transferred person in that scenario (unless the left keeps winning long enough) or at least shouldn't be, which I'd hope you at least agree with.

that is completely possible within the confines of fictional story, and an artist could very well write such a story with such a premise (and I wouldn't be surprised if multiple artists have already done so).

Sure, but the obscenity of the visuals would still remain obscene, story aside, because again, the story is not in question, the images are.

would the mere fact that most people found it obscene be all that's needed to establish it as obscene? And is that enough to ban something?

Under our current system probably not, judges would determine it, but in the absence of a dictatorship/monarchy, I think the country should be allowed to determine its norms and standards. So yes, if most people find something obscene it should be banned, and if you're angling this at religion next, no, it would be exempt for obvious reasons I can elaborate on if required.

Whether or not something is obscene is subjective. Whether or not something is sexual or pornographic is far more objective.

Are you speaking from a legal standpoint only?

So, if I added batwings and fangs to the loli, its not a loli anymore? That seems mighty arbitrary.

The mere addition of one non-human element wouldn't be enough in my opinion, the subject would need to be substantially differentiated from a human. Gothita is the perfect example, a Pokemon designed with the "lolita" concept, from which the word "loli" is derived. Gothita vaguely resembles a young girl, but is immediately recognizable as non-human and therefore deserves artistic protections. Just drawing sexualized kids does not warrant such protection there is no serious artistic merit.

I think you wouldn't even need to go as far as to make the character as non-human as Gothita either. If the character is a mermaid for example, that'd be sufficient despite being more human-like. But just adding wings to a fully normal human body does not distinguish the character sufficiently from actual human anatomy.

Your right; fapping to Pokémon isn't loli. Its bestiality, which most people find equally abhorrent. Either way, its fictional, so why should anyone care who gets off to it?

It's not bestiality because Pokemon aren't animals, though you could make that argument for some of the more realistic ones, like Pidgey or something. Vaporeon doesn't resemble any actual animal sufficiently, degenerate and weird as it is to fap to.

Why care? Because upholding norms and standards is our right, if not at the national level then at the very least a local level. Why should we forfeit the right to expect decency and normalcy in our community? Your same logic of "why care" is exactly what trannies argue, the left will "why do you care" us into Sodom & Gomorrah if we let them.

There are a lot of things we don't permit and yet they still become (or remain) popular, like prostitution and weed. If being non-permissive was all it took to stop negative behaviors, then that would be a) an argument for a totalitarian society, and b) completely defeated by the society we already have.

I didn't say it would stop negative behavior, but it discourages it. When something is illegal you virtually get less of it if you actually enforce the law sufficiently. You may refer to the prohibition era, and I'll point at the part where I said "if you actually enforce law sufficiently", which they either didn't or couldn't in that case. Abortions went up after they were legalized with RvW, and down after it was overturned, so you can't tell me it has no effect.

While you and I probably fundamentally agree on the traditions and moral that need to be upheld, where we fundamentally disagree is that I realize that I want a nation that protects personal freedom, first and foremost.

True, we typically seem to agree on a lot, at least in theory, but when it comes to ideas that could actually fight the things we oppose, I think mine are the only viable ones. Anything short of wielding government power will be inept, and the opposition has no qualms using it to their own ends.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Dude is kinda misrepresenting it.

Basically, its a time travel thing. Chibiusa is from the future, back in time to find something that doesn't exist in her time but does in modern day, and she meets her parents when they were still teens and dating... and they apparently look different enough that she thinks they're strangers.

Once she figures out who they are, she stops "making moves on her dad" (said moves are, IIRC, more like a kid wanting attention rather than actual romantic overtures).

So... she's 6000 years old and tried fucking her dad. You realize the writers wrote her to do that, right?

many things wrong here.

Wanting legislation because of "morality" is the same bullshit gun control advocates use. Legit at no point in history has trying to legislate morality ever worked out for the better. Remember Prohibition?

Secondly, the whole "lolicon turns people into pedophiles" bullshit. Art can not make people something they don't already have the capability for. This is no different than Jack Thompson arguing that playing Grand Theft Auto will make people go out and steal cars or that watching Superman will make kids think they can fly if they put on a cape. I frankly already did a whole topic about why these kinds of takes are dumb, and its frustrating that I'm still hearing Jack Thompson or Anita Sarkeesian-esque takes from a forum that is supposed to be smarter than these people.

Third, basically you're saying things ought to be banned because you're mad people say things online. TOUCH GRASS.

Porn isn't a right. Simple as. Loli is evil. It draws out the gay and pedophile tendencies from people. Burn it down.

 

[skykiii]

In that case it should be unnecessary to be deceptive, shouldn't it?

It's slimy tactic, and in your reply you conveniently skipped over the fact that I called you out on resorting to bringing up an entirely separate subject of debate into this because you can't articulate a defense for loli.

>Goes on about "deceptive" "slimy tactics."
>Insinuates I was ever trying to defend Loli.

Great "moral conviction" there.

I apologize for having consistent moral convictions, I'll be sure to donate to Drag Queen Story Hour in the name of freedom.

At least when I brought up the abortion thing, that's a thing you actually said. When did I ever defend Drag Queen Story Hour or the smorgasbord of things you're laying at my feet?

What, are the things I actually said too reasonable, that you have to put words in my mouth to even have a chance, Mr. "consistent moral convictions?"

Seriously though, what would the world look like in my ideas were implemented? Truly it'd be a hellscape if transgenderism, pornography, and infanticide were banned, a veritable 1984!

Nice motte-and-bailey fallacy there.

 

[skykiii]

So... she's 6000 years old and tried fucking her dad. You realize the writers wrote her to do that, right?

She didn't "try fucking her dad," at most she just wanted to hang out with him.

(Also, I don't know where the other guy got "she's 6000 years old" from).

This is starting to remind me of people who got offended at that one Japanese McDonalds ad because they misinterpreted a family spending time together as having some weird sinister undertones.

Porn isn't a right. Simple as. Loli is evil. It draws out the gay and pedophile tendencies from people. Burn it down.

This isn't an argument, this is just desperate chest-beating. Maybe if we were still cavemen this would be impressive, but sorry Chuck Rock, I'm not impressed.

Pal, you'll find that most people here are violently opposed to anime in general, including High Lord Josh. Have fun

Saying you're "opposed to anime" is like saying you're opposed to books or movies.

I get why it happens--people only see one or two anime and they think the few they saw represent the whole. In the 1990s it was "all anime is Pokemon." In the 2000s it was "all anime is ninjas." In this thread its "all anime is lolicon."

I'm sure there's people out there who think all novels are violent fantasies about political squabbles because of Game of Thrones too, and are probably saying all books--including this little thing called The Bible--should be banned because they're all full of rape.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Are ANY of these lolis/sexualized? If so, please explain.

The first one's age seems more ambiguous than the others, though I'd still say probably underage, 16 is my guess. The second one is quite clearly a little kid, like 6. The Sailor Moon one is probably around 12 or 13. The last image doesn't show the full character but that seems young.

Obviously none of them are sexualized at all.

Skirt is too fucking short, screams panty shots, and way too much thigh.

It's not much different from Japs' real school outfits, assuming anime is at all accurate.

Sorry, i am a sucker for suction cups....

I appreciate the pun, but you should refrain from posting your fetishes here, it's for actual debate.

like can we worry about actual kids instead of pixels?

It's a false dichotomy, we can ban loli and still worry about actual kids, banning loli wouldn't divert any resources.

Slippery slope is dumb and overused 99% of the time.

It's right 50% of the time--the time conservatives use it, it's right. Liberals act like banning gay marriage will somehow result in banning interracial marriage, but we knew legalizing it would result in the current LGBT movement.

Secondly, the whole "lolicon turns people into pedophiles" bullshit. Art can not make people something they don't already have the capability for.

If a man faps to gay hentai, is that man gay?

Porn isn't a right.

It's been willed into a "right" just like abortion.

>Insinuates I was ever trying to defend Loli.

Then I misunderstood but you certainly seem opposed to banning it more than not, so clear it up. Are you for banning it or not? If so, you're not defending it, and if you're not, then you are defending it.

I'm not accusing you of partaking in it yourself in either case, so don't be so upset.

At least when I brought up the abortion thing, that's a thing you actually said.

Except that's not true, as I explained.

When did I ever defend Drag Queen Story Hour or the smorgasbord of things you're laying at my feet?

Your reading comprehension is poor, I never said you did.

Nice motte-and-bailey fallacy there.

So would things I propose result in a dystopia or not? You literally said I'm like a cartoon villain bro

In this thread its "all anime is lolicon."

Who's saying that in here? Is there even 1 or 2?

 

[WelperHelper99]

She didn't "try fucking her dad," at most she just wanted to hang out with him.

(Also, I don't know where the other guy got "she's 6000 years old" from).

This is starting to remind me of people who got offended at that one Japanese McDonalds ad because they misinterpreted a family spending time together as having some weird sinister undertones.

Buddy I've watched my fair share of weeb shit. Nothing good comes from old school magical girl shit. It's for pervs. Don't try complicating a simple situation

This isn't an argument, this is just desperate chest-beating. Maybe if we were still cavemen this would be impressive, but sorry Chuck Rock, I'm not impressed.

No, it's not a argument. It's a fact. Stop jerking off to hentai.

Saying you're "opposed to anime" is like saying you're opposed to books or movies.

I get why it happens--people only see one or two anime and they think the few they saw represent the whole. In the 1990s it was "all anime is Pokemon." In the 2000s it was "all anime is ninjas." In this thread its "all anime is lolicon."

I'm sure there's people out there who think all novels are violent fantasies about political squabbles because of Game of Thrones too, and are probably saying all books--including this little thing called The Bible--should be banned because they're all full of rape.

I was simply saying he's gonna have a rough time if he says he likes loli out of nowhere, calm down

It's not much different from Japs' real school outfits, assuming anime is at all accurate

That makes it worse

 

[UnsufficentBoobage]

She didn't "try fucking her dad," at most she just wanted to hang out with him.

(Also, I don't know where the other guy got "she's 6000 years old" from).

Did you ever watch or read Sailor Moon? Atleast check the wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chibiusa

Nothing good comes from old school magical girl shit. It's for pervs.

I am still baffled how classic ones had little girls turn into grown-ups to do stuff. It is a skeevy concept by itself.

 

[BULLY HUNTER_78]

You shouldn't need to give me the Bible's worth of justification to tell me why drawings of kids is somehow ok to jerk off too.

I can give you a Bible’s worth of justification why drawing kids is somehow ok to jerk off to:

MATTHEW 18:6

Real talk: you and @SSj_Ness are doing the lord’s work ITT.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Climate activists would strongly disagree.

I'm sure they would. But they are a distinct minority. I'm sure there are people who find us frequenting this site inherently immoral. Same deal.

But even Nazis thought they were doing good for their country, I don't think it's impossible to even make an argument that Hitler had good intentions for Germany, thinking he was operating in its best interests.

I don't think any of the country's leadership thought they were doing anything for the "greater good". The likes of Himmler, Goering, and Reinhard Heinreich, were very much bad men who had no compunctions about what they were doing, especially Goering, who was a genius level sociopath who didn't even believe in Nazi ideology and mainly used his position for his own enrichment. These men weren't motivated by "the greater good", they were motivated by, at best, in Hitler's case, all consuming nationalism that put "the nation" beyond questions of good and evil. At worst, they were like Goering, and motivated entirely by their own self-interest. In other words, they were either amoral or immoral.

There are certain virtues, and lacking them is immoral, but we're delving into philosophy too deeply and soon we'll be citing Aristotle in a thread about loli.

You're probably right. Greater men than us have debated morality in politics.

I see how you'd come to that conclusion, but it's not seeing the whole picture. The U.S existing was itself considered a moral good, so concessions were made for the greater good, as the wise (such as the Founders were) know not to let perfection be the enemy of good. They still asserted all men are created equal, but just didn't live up to that standard immediately. Moral consideration was absolutely at the very core of the founding, the existence of concessions does not invalidate this fact.

I don't doubt that they considered the existence of the U.S. ultimately good for the people of the United States, but that doesn't change that they were willing to put aside their personal moral compunctions due to the greater non-moral (real geopolitical) considerations.

Someone thought so, didn't they?

I doubt anyone saw stripping German Jews of the property, rights and citizenship as a good action. It was motivated by vengeance regarding the Stab in the back myth, but I don't think anyone even at the time would argue that they were being done for some greater moral good.

Then what's not clear about regulating depictions of minors in cartoon pornography? Seems clear to me.

Because there is no such thing as a cartoon minor. Cartoon characters have no objective age. Its an easy issue to bypass by just saying that all characters in a work are of age.

But would the regime consider those influences good or bad? Did we not consider communist influence bad in USA? We may consider different things good or bad, but the moral component is present. It's an inescapable reality for humans.

When you say "good or bad" you are talking in the sense of moral good or bad. All that the regime cares about is whether or not something is good for the regime, regardless of the relative morality of it. While human can consider morality, human beings are just as capable of putting aside their morality for their decisions. And some decisions just aren't moral decisions at all, such as which pair of shoes you are going to wear today. A question is only a moral question if you personally deign to involve your morality in it.

Right, but my point is a moral view will prevail. Big talking points in the 2024 presidential election will be things like averting wars and fixing the economy, which are obviously moral considerations. The left and right will both make moral arguments on these subjects, again, morality is ever present in politics.

Yes, moral debates will happen, but we live in a society where no particular moral debate will prevail in the end. Things are always at dialogue, and morality will always shift. And as morality shifts, the government and the law will follow eventually.

I thought it went without saying that the drawing is loli hentai. As most people understand that to mean depictions of fictional children, that's what the thread is about specifically.

The thing is, lolicon doesn't just refer to hentai. Any character who is childlike may be referred to as a loli, even if they aren't a child. Stories with prominent little girl characters may get tagged as loli stories, even if they aren't pornographic. This is why one must understand their terms. Give a legal example, many people believe that sodomy laws only regulated anal sex between gay men, but his is incorrect. Those laws regulated anal sex period, and sodomy also includes oral sex as well. So anyone who committed anal or oral sex with anyone else technically violated those laws. One must understand the full extent of the terms they using before they seek to regulate or control them.

How so?

"How so?" Come on my man, you've been on this site long enough. You've seen people misinterpret actual full on photographs and video, either intentionally, with malicious intent, or unintentionally simply through their own subjective lens, because they see what they want to see. And with animation, with how art styles work, it wouldn't be that hard for people to misinterpret something. Once again, perfect example with Uzaki chan.

That's not true though, because even your freedom of speech is actually rather limited despite what the First Amendment says

Wrong. There are very specific exceptions to free speech that the Supreme Court has very clearly and carefully defined, such as Fighting words, terroristic threats, defamation, and of course the famous example of shouting fire in a crowded theater. Free speech is actually extremely unlimited, which is one of the things that separates the United States from most other nations.

Right, but neither are drawings depicting sexualized images of fictional children, correct? Or even pornography more broadly, perhaps.

Pornography specifically is generally considered to be obscenity, which, as of now, is not perfectly protected under the first amendment. But there are plenty of stories, films, artwork, books, etc. with sexualized imagery, depictions, and even full on sex scenes which are protected under the first amendment. The delineation between the two is the fuzzy limit of obscenity, which is why obscenity is slowly dying out in the United States.

Without the author telling you or anyone else, what do you think this is a drawing of? And also, do you think there's a reasonable person who would confuse it for a watermelon? Furhermore, could someone confuse it for a person performing sex acts?

That looks like a picture (not a drawing) of an apple. Would I confuse it for a watermelon? Not on first glance, no. And no a person wouldn't confuse for someone performing sex acts. But it is a picture for which there is little room to interpret and you've given me no other context than the picture itself, given me no real room to speculate.

So if someone showed hentai to a minor but claimed they were showing them a fruit basket instead of an orgy, what would happen?

Probably the same thing that would happen if someone showed a minor real life pornography.

But the first picture is what is taken issue with. If I make a film that's pornographic, then a second part which reveals the entire thing to actually be kittens playing with a yarn ball, I don't think the first part of the film would be rated suitable for general audiences just because it was canonically not pornographic.

This line of argument is really obtuse, I don't think many would find it compelling.

Its suppose to be obtuse. That's the point. Art isn't always straight forward. That's why you have to take an entire work together, not just take one part out of context and judge it on that.

Somewhere between the two extremes there could be ambiguity, but at some point there's no room for interpretation.

Yes, there is an extreme point of no ambiguity and an extreme point of nothing but ambiguity. Most things live between the two extremes. This was just a simple illustration to elucidate the point, more than anything else. I was never arguing that you could add detail and make the picture unambiguous, only to illustrate that ambiguity exists in the artistic context.

Are you familiar with the concept of a reasonable person? Applying that standard would yield the obvious results.

Here's the thing about the reasonable person standard:
1. Reasonable people can come to two completely different reasonable conclusions about the same thing
2. Not every person is reasonable.

It depends, if you drew a teenager there's no way to determine a 17 year old cartoon from an 18 year old one. But if you showed me an image of two photorealistic infants there'd be zero doubt as to the nature of the image.

Once again, you are going to the immediate extreme, the obvious edge case, to argue the point, when most things live in the ambiguous middle. If photorealism is where you draw the line, and than 99% of lolicon/shotacon would be a-ok in your book, because it isn't photorealistic at all.

You must think I'm saying there's no ambiguity, there is, but you refusing to concede any ground makes you seem to be arguing in bad faith. Certain age ranges and art styles make room for reasonable doubt, but the more the art trends towards realism and the younger the characters are, the more clear and easy condemnation becomes.

And what would you be condemning? That the art style was too realistic? If it was more cartoony, would you be fine? And what's the functional difference between the realistic younger looking character, and cartoony less clear character that leaves room for doubt. My point is not simply to make concede the ambiguity but to recognize the sheer scope and size of it and recognize that no government will be able to take the time to really try to understand or parse it.

They don't need to exist outside of being drawings, what you're drawing is reflecting reality. If you draw a dragon, they don't exist, or if you draw a stick figure child which no human resembles, you could do as you wish. But once you reflect observable reality (visually, not story-wise, the image is what's the issue, not the story), that's now something we can identify beyond the bounds of artistic interpretation.

Once again you run to the extremes; this time its stick figure drawings. What you aren't acknowledging is that outside the extremes, there can still be ambiguity. Even when artwork "reflects" reality, it isn't reality.

Of course not, I'd prefer a benevolent dictator, but we have a different system and unfortunately this is how it works. It's not ideal, but you operate within the system you have. We can't just make nothing illegal because judges are retards.

Nobody is saying we should make nothing illegal. But lets leave the issue of legality to tangible things in real life, that can be studies, measured, controlled, objectively observed, and defined, like murder, or rape, or fraud, or theft.

But according to you the author can simply say the image is whatever they want it to be. It could be hardcore pornography, but the artist can say it's actually leaves blowing in the wind. Then they could pass it around outside a school by your logic.

Well, lets clarify this point so that we both understand it; authors are the ultimate interpreters of their work. Audiences can also interpret what they see. A character can be a man or woman, and they can have represent some concept in the story that the author is trying to say. But even then, there is some level of objectivity.

Going back to the apple/watermelon analogy we used, I acknowledged that the image "looked like an apple". It looked like an apple. My subjective reading of the objective image you showed me is that it looks like an apple. To go back to the example I used, of the two young looking people having sex, I objectively acknowledged that they were having sex. What I didn't objectively acknowledge at first was their age. I just gave you a rough physical description, then revealed that they were supposed to be 18. What you are trying to get at is that there is a level of objective reality. I never denied that. What I'm saying is that there is a subjective reality beyond that objective reality which only the author can define.

To go back to your point, if I showed a pornographic image, or even just a sexual image with no genitalia to a child, anyone could see that it is what it is, or interpret it that way if its less clear. Immediate visual interpretation often times leaves no room for nuance. Whether or not it is pornographic or sexual will argued in court, which will cost me, taxpayers, and the lawyers time and money. But this is a simple problem to avoid; don't show any sexualized image to children. What you are supposing is to force this level of subjective interpretation on the courts constantly by forcing them to have to look at any given piece of art and determine whether or not it meets some arbitrary level of kosherness or not. To judge whether or not the art piece even has a right to exist, versus whether or not I personally went out of my way to show something sexual to a child.

I like hypotheticals though, so to touch on it as an aside; it almost certainly wouldn't be legal to have sex with a mind-transferred person in that scenario (unless the left keeps winning long enough) or at least shouldn't be, which I'd hope you at least agree with.

While I agree that this is something that shouldn't be legal, I sadly can't say that it will be illegal, if and when it is possible to do so.

Sure, but the obscenity of the visuals would still remain obscene, story aside, because again, the story is not in question, the images are.

If the visuals are in question, then the story must also be in question. You cannot really separate one from the other. They are inextricably linked. Both are basically exploring the same idea. Whether its shown visually, written down as part of story or told verbally is a moot point. If the medium is a comic, where the story is both literary and visual, the all the more.

Under our current system probably not, judges would determine it, but in the absence of a dictatorship/monarchy, I think the country should be allowed to determine its norms and standards.

I have no problems with the nation determining its norms and standards. I have no problem, for instance, with people shaming shotacons and lolicons. Its when you start calling for the government to ban something that I take umbrage.

Are you speaking from a legal standpoint only?

I'm speaking from a general standpoint, not just legal. Obscenity is entirely subjective. Whether or not something is sexual is more objective, and can be understood by anyone who understands human sexuality. Pornography is less subjective than obscenity, but also less objective than sexuality. Even a great legal mind, when asked to define porn, could only answer "I know it when I see it." These days, I could take a sex scene from a film or tv show, show it to you by itself, divorced of context, and you'd probably think it was taken from a porn, before I shock you by telling you that its from a mainstream work. The line between the pornographic and non-pornographic has become blurred in recent years.

The mere addition of one non-human element wouldn't be enough in my opinion,

In "your opinion". When dealing with the law my friend, we can't just go off of your opinion, we need something objective to latch on to.

It's not bestiality because Pokemon aren't animals, though you could make that argument for some of the more realistic ones, like Pidgey or something. Vaporeon doesn't resemble any actual animal sufficiently, degenerate and weird as it is to fap to.

I consider the act of getting it on with any creature of sub-human intelligence and lacking true sentience and sapience to be bestiality, but that's just me.

Why care? Because upholding norms and standards is our right, if not at the national level then at the very least a local level. Why should we forfeit the right to expect decency and normalcy in our community? Your same logic of "why care" is exactly what trannies argue, the left will "why do you care" us into Sodom & Gomorrah if we let them.

The only reason why I give a shit about trannies is because they won't stop pushing their shit on me and everybody else. If they just stayed in their little corner of society, I wouldn't care less. Its their lives. When they try to force me to sign off on it, or they try to groom kids into their lifestyle, is where I draw the line. Once again I have no problem with society upholding norms and standards, just keep the government out of it.

 

[WelperHelper99]

I can give you a Bible’s worth of justification why drawing kids is somehow ok to jerk off to:

MATTHEW 18:6

Real talk: you and @SSj_Ness are doing the lord’s work ITT.

" But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

Thank you for that delightful message of what should happen when you make children impure fren

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Accidently hit "post" early. Since I can't quote in an edited post, I'll continue here:

I didn't say it would stop negative behavior, but it discourages it. When something is illegal you virtually get less of it if you actually enforce the law sufficiently. You may refer to the prohibition era, and I'll point at the part where I said "if you actually enforce law sufficiently", which they either didn't or couldn't in that case. Abortions went up after they were legalized with RvW, and down after it was overturned, so you can't tell me it has no effect.

Except what you said really isn't the case. Something being "illegal" doesn't really seem to effect demand for it or its prevalence at all. The number of abortions, for instance, actually increased after Roe v Wade was overturned.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

That makes it worse

I'm not sure I understand.

Real talk: you and @SSj_Ness are doing the lord’s work ITT.

I'm just stubborn honestly lol, but thanks.

Accidently hit "post" early. Since I can't quote in an edited post, I'll continue here:


Except what you said really isn't the case. Something being "illegal" doesn't really seem to effect demand for it or its prevalence at all. The number of abortions, for instance, actually increased after Roe v Wade was overturned.

I'll address the rest of your post separately later, but it's necessary to correct the record here because this subject is very important. I phrased it wrong, but here's what I was actually referring to:

Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, at least 30,000 babies have been born that would have otherwise been aborted, according to a new study published this month.

That is 30,000 people who will look back and see they have the overturning of RvW to thank for not being killed. It's a tangible difference pro-life conservatives have made, and I'll be rubbing it in the faces of baby killers for a long time.

 

[WelperHelper99]

The only reason why I give a shit about trannies is because they won't stop pushing their shit on me and everybody else. If they just stayed in their little corner of society, I wouldn't care less. Its their lives. When they try to force me to sign off on it, or they try to groom kids into their lifestyle, is where I draw the line. Once again I have no problem with society upholding norms and standards, just keep the government out of it.

This is why your and the pro loli argument is reprehensible.

No. There comes a point where your shit becomes my shit, because you wont shut up about little girls panties. Dont quote philosophy. You're sexulizing children,which leads to jerking off to child porn eventually, every time. This site is proof of that. I need say no more.

I'm not sure I understand

Japan has such a upskirting problem that legally every camera has the shutter sound always on. The sailor outfit is fucking tainted

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Japan has such a upskirting problem that legally every camera has the shutter sound always on. The sailor outfit is fucking tainted

Those sailor outfits aren't actually worn as school uniforms anymore. Neither are those blue "bloomers" worn was gym clothes anymore. They just persist in anime because of their cultural popularity.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Those sailor outfits aren't actually worn as school uniforms anymore. Neither are those blue "bloomers" worn was gym clothes anymore. They just persist in anime because of their cultural popularity.

What anime do you watch? Gym shorts are common. And I haven't seen a sailor outfit in years. You're searching for that shit

 

[Duke Nukem]

This is why your and the pro loli argument is reprehensible.
View attachment 5535898
No. There comes a point where your shit becomes my shit, because you wont shut up about little girls panties. Dont quote philosophy. You're sexulizing children,which leads to jerking off to child porn eventually, every time. This site is proof of that. I need say no more.


Japan has such a upskirting problem that legally every camera has the shutter sound always on. The sailor outfit is fucking tainted

This picture is what the normies of the future will be like. Lord knows what's going to happen to the rest of the world.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

What anime do you watch? Gym shorts are common. And I haven't seen a sailor outfit in years. You're searching for that shit

I'm not understanding what you are trying to get at? All I said was that the sailor uniform and the gym bloomers are no longer worn as uniform outfits and haven't been for years now. They just continue in anime because of their cultural popularity. That's all.

No. There comes a point where your shit becomes my shit, because you wont shut up about little girls panties. Dont quote philosophy. You're sexulizing children,which leads to jerking off to child porn eventually, every time. This site is proof of that. I need say no more.

Nobody here is talking about little girls panties or jerking off to child porn. Seriously, stop it, you just come across as unhinged. I think you need to step away from the topic and calm down.

 

[WelperHelper99]

I'm not understanding what you are trying to get at? All I said was that the sailor uniform and the gym bloomers are no longer worn as uniform outfits and haven't been for years now. They just continue in anime because of their cultural popularity. That's all.

Yeah and it's because animators are pervs.

Nobody here is talking about little girls panties or jerking off to child porn. Seriously, stop it, you just come across as unhinged. I think you need to step away from the topic and calm down.

My guy you are talking about keeping loli legal. No. Because it just leads to terrible things and degenerative effects on society as a whole. It's evil. Black and white. Lolicons are no better than child molesters. I've seen them talk on /a/. They are wretched creatures, not even human. If you searched their hard drives, 10 out of 10 you'd find actual child porn. That is how I approach this subject.

 

[Devout Muslim]

Wanting legislation because of "morality" is the same bullshit gun control advocates use. Legit at no point in history has trying to legislate morality ever worked out for the better. Remember Prohibition?

Gun control advocates aren’t morally opposed to gun access. Their argument is one of expedience (i.e. removing access to guns is an expedient way to prevent school shootings) in the face of trampling on people’s (gun) rights (which they acknowledge as existing to varying degrees).

Secondly, the whole "lolicon turns people into pedophiles" bullshit. Art can not make people something they don't already have the capability for.

That’s your assertion but it’s there’s no evidence to suggest it’s true. I think you even undercut your own point by calling child pornography art. As George Orwell so eloquently put it, all art is propaganda. The proliferation of incredibly niche sexual fetishes makes it patently obvious that humans are sexually impressionable. Unless you think there is a gene that codes for bukakke fetish?

I'm still hearing Jack Thompson or Anita Sarkeesian-esque takes from a forum that is supposed to be smarter than these people.

no u

Third, basically you're saying things ought to be banned because you're mad people say things online. TOUCH GRASS.

He’s saying they’re disgusting and contrary to the public interest. That’s sufficient reason to ban them. Nobody has an unlimited right to be tolerated in public.

 

[skykiii]

If a man faps to gay hentai, is that man gay?

..... Duh.

Then I misunderstood but you certainly seem opposed to banning it more than not, so clear it up.

The confusion was that it came off as conflating "not wanting it banned" with "liking/approving of it."

I've said before I'm against bans because they just make things worse, not better.

It's a false dichotomy, we can ban loli and still worry about actual kids, banning loli wouldn't divert any resources.

It actually would, because laws have to be enforced, otherwise the ban would be a ban in-name-only. And enforcement means resources.

Besides, people only ever want to ban media because its easier to apply a band-aid and pretend they solved a problem, rather than actually handle complicated social issues that aren't so easily nailed down.

Except that's not true, as I explained.

You do know that the other forum you're known to hang out at compiled screencaps of you being happy the ten year old girl didn't get to abort her rape-baby, right? Thankfully they linked to the relevant thread so I don't have to indirectly funnel Kiwis to a competitor.

But yeah, I'm not sure how there's any ambiguity about how extreme your views are. I recall even another anti-abortion Kiwi said you basically sounded like a monster.

Your reading comprehension is poor, I never said you did.

Okay, let's look back:

Keep in mind, the below was in response to me saying your ideas were too extreme and would "amount to a police state." To which you replied:

I apologize for having consistent moral convictions, I'll be sure to donate to Drag Queen Story Hour in the name of freedom.

Seriously though, what would the world look like in my ideas were implemented? Truly it'd be a hellscape if transgenderism, pornography, and infanticide were banned, a veritable 1984!

Yeah, dude, I think if anyone else were in my place, getting this response, they would see it as "he's saying I support all these bad things."

And now you're trying to backpedal because I called your bullshit, Mr. "Stubbornly Honest."

So would things I propose result in a dystopia or not? You literally said I'm like a cartoon villain bro

You want an absurd amount of control, seemingly have a wide list of things that should be not allowed (And IIRC, should incur the death penalty), and I believe more than once you said your ideal time period was 1920s America (unless I'm getting you mixed up with someone else), which from all I've heard was not exactly a happy time to be alive.....

"At least kids aren't having their genitals mutilated!" is small comfort when they're instead being tommygun'd by mobsters.

Who's saying that in here? Is there even 1 or 2?

.... Admittedly I think my brain made a cognitive error:

Topic where a lot of people are having an extreme "think of the children!" stance on lolicon.

Topic where at least one person said they hate all anime.

It's easy to take those two facts and think some people think "all anime is lolicon."

Buddy I've watched my fair share of weeb shit. Nothing good comes from old school magical girl shit. It's for pervs. Don't try complicating a simple situation

What? How am I "complicating" anything? If anything it takes more mental gymnastics (or a dirtier mind) to think she's "trying to fuck her father" than to think she's just a kid who wants attention.

Also, "its for pervs?" Sailor Moon was aimed at little girls.

I am still baffled how classic ones had little girls turn into grown-ups to do stuff. It is a skeevy concept by itself.

This is another thing frustrating about these topics, taking something that's actually pretty simple and seeing something wrong or dirty about it.

Kids like to fantasize about what they'll be like when they grow up. A kid who can magically turn adult and be a doctor or a spy or something else is a fun fantasy for them (and in some cases anime uses this as an opportunity to educate them on the realities of these professions).

If you're seeing anything "skeevy" about this, then maybe you're the sick one.