And I did read it, it's a good post but I ultimately disagree with his conclusion despite him making some good points.
Whether you disagree with his conclusion is irrelevant. The point is, he explains how pedophilic attraction actually works, and breaks down its components, and very handily explains why loli really doesn't do anything for them.
Uh...it means stick figures doing anything isn't considered particularly obscene by the average person,
The average person, or the average parent? Because I'm sure the average parent would be alarmed if you showed their child a picture or animation. of stick figures shagging.
This is why fiction can be disturbing to people, a lot of people can't stomach gore in films like Saw, but they wouldn't bat an eye to stick figures committing any number of atrocities.
Well of course. Fiction is designed to engender certain reactions, extreme fiction more extreme reactions. This is common sense. But its irrelevant.
Well, tell them that. It's not new, this dates back to the 70's when homosexuality was removed from the list of mental illnesses.
And that was also a change motivated by
politics, not science. But in any case, all this talk about science is irrelevant. Its not the point of the thread.
You're trying to erect barriers in the debate at every turn to artificially limit my options to just showing you studies that don't exist so you can "win".
No, I'm trying to keep this discussion
on track so that we can stop writing novellas for posts. We keep going off in the weeds and down rabbit holes about points that don't mean anything and are getting away from the actual question this thread posits. We don't need to get sidetracked by discussions regarding life, the nature of good and evil, the purpose of the law, etc. They are not relevant to the ultimate point. STOP CHASING RABBIT HOLES. You may have forever to write these long ass posts, but I don't, and in case you haven't gathered from other's comments, other people are tired of looking at them.
Correct, but we have only have one direction. The anarchists think a good society is one without laws, the antinatalists think a good society is one where we die off. We literally cannot appease every vision of a good society.
This is a rabbit hole Ness. The point of my comment is that this is a pointless rabbit hole for which there is no real basis for agreement. Its pointless to argue about this.
This was a Christian nation from its inception, people can try to argue to the contrary with misrepresented separation of church and state arguments and such, but any honest reading of history is clear about it. If people don't like that then they're free to move.
Whether the U.S. was a Christian nation at its inception is debatable. It surely isn't one
now, which is what's relevant for us.
He can claim to, but objective reality remains. Gaslighting people into doubting their own senses isn't a viable argument, don't poss down my back and tell me it's raining.
Nobody is gaslighting anyone Ness. Nobody is telling you to doubt your senses. This is a straw man argument. Just admit you don't get how fiction works and lets move on. We're going around in circles. Its just tiresome at this point.
If you showed hentai to a minor and said "ackshually this chick getting every hole filled twice over is a ball of yarn" you'd still end up in jail because we can perceive things accurately and have faculties of reason. You cannot dispute this, but you're free to test it yourself if you have any doubt.
You are conflating two different things Ness. You are conflating an artist's ability to tell a fictional story by messing around with abstract concepts, like "humanity" and "what does it mean to be human", with the ability to perceive the objective lines on a page. An artist who draws a human being that is both genders (a hermaphrodite or futanari), has still created an objectively human looking figure with the genitalia of two both sexes. You would say that a human being can't be a hermaphrodite in real life. That is irrelevant to the fact that one has now been drawn on this page. The artist can then further interpret the image how they like; they can say that this hermaphrodite comes from a world where humans can be born hermaphrodites, turn into hermaphrodites, or maybe all of them are hermaphrodites. That is for the author to define. On the page, the hermaphrodite objectively exists, everything else is part of the abstract world the author can create.
To bring this back to the actual subject, if I draw a petite female human, you can see that its a petite female human. That is obvious. Nobody argued otherwise. I, the artist can choose define that character as 15 years old (underage) or 18 (an adult). There is the objective, yes, but there is the subjective in art. Both intermingle, and its not one way or the other. The artist can try to fool your objective perception, such as with an optical illusion, but I'm not even arguing that here.
To go back to the apple example, the apple, as drawn, objectively looks like an apple. The author may say its an apple. If the author says nothing, people will assume its an apple, and if the author doesn't contradict them, then it is. The author can come back and say that its a fruit that looks like an apple but has the inside of a watermelon, and it originates from a comic he's writing. It still,
objectively, looks like an apple. But the author has merely chose to define it within his work. If two characters are drawn engaging in coitus, they objectively look like two characters engaging in coitus. The author may say, the male is actually The Thing from the John Carpenter movie and he's assimilating the female via sex. It still looks like sex. The author has merely defined it differently.
This ability to change an image objectively and subjectively will exist to varying degrees. For simple concepts, like an apple or sex, its not going to change much, unless the images themselves are complex, like optical allusions, things aren't as they appear. When it comes to, say, determining a character's age, the author can freely define that because there are few objective indicators of that, and those can be misleading even in real life (people prematurely age and certain medical conditions slow down biological aging). You seem to not be able to parse the confluence of the objective with the subjective.
It depends on what legal standard we apply,
That's the point Ness. Obscenity isn't a firm legal standard. It's, by its very nature, entirely subjective.
Stop. You know I'm not. I've made it abundantly clear. They're not real, but it's still a bad thing sexualize fictional children
First of all, this isn't really directed at you but other people in this thread. Second of all, even though you say you don't consider them real children, you clearly are conflating them with children on some level. That's why you consider banning it. If you didn't conflate these fictitious, nonexistent children with the real live ones, you wouldn't even bother arguing the points that you do. You may
intellectually claim you recognize the difference, but you morally don't really believe it.
Artistic expression isn't unlimited either, a man was jailed for a meme recently.
First of all, I'm going to need a citation. I can't comment on this because I have no context. When did this happen? Where did this happen? What was actually in his meme? Freedom of speech and expression are limited throughout much of the world, outside the United States and Japan, so we need to establish context here.
Second of all, is that the society
you want to live in? One where a man can be jailed for a meme?
We know what it was traditionally. Now we have a confused, disordered, jumbled up patchwork of inconsistent and contradictory morals & standards applied all at once at odds with each other in a cacophony of clashing ideals. Our society is schizophrenic, and our legal system reflects this, as does the state of our culture.
Is this what you want?
Doesn't matter what I want. Its the world we live in. We need to try to find a way to make it work for everyone. We can't turn back the clock and go back to the 1700s when the U.S. constitution was written and America was a slave owning "Christian nation". The world changed. Traditional moral values aren't enough anymore. But we need to set some kind of standard. A standard where other's don't infringe on the writes of others seems like a good baseline.
To different degrees, depending on what it looks like.
Those degrees are largely irrelevant Ness. They also aren't as prevalent as you think they are. The people who want to ban loli aren't going to care that much about art style and such, they want to ban it all, and vice versa. Laws written on the subject won't attempt to even parse that because its impossible to put a workable standard on it.
Debate the subject or concede, simple as that.
I am debating. If you can't back up an assertion, there's nothing really to debate.
And when you say "prove it", I'll say "argue it".
There's nothing to argue. If you make an assertion of objective fact, the onus is on you to back up that assertion and prove it. The onus isn't on me to disprove something for which no proof has been offered. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, period. This is basic argumentation. Don't claim something you can't back up. That's what real debaters and researchers learn. Never assert something without evidence. Best case scenario, you are simply dismissed. Worst case, you leave yourself wide open to your opponent to come in and undermine you and assert his own information, backup with actual facts. This will also help any subjective statements you make; an opinion backed up by facts is a much stronger opinion.
Guess what, it doesn't matter what the studies say either way, what matters is what makes sense and what is true
How can you determine whether or not something is true when you can offer no objective proof for it? Truth has some objective, fact based basis. Your truth means little if there is nothing factual supporting.
what you can logically argue.
Just because you can "logically argue" something, doesn't make it true.
If you can make an argument for why or why "lolicon / shotacon [should] be considered drawn child pornography" or not, then do so. "It's art" is insufficient.
Once again, you try to reduce my argument to its most reductive state to try to make it seem weaker than it is. That shows intellectual dishonesty on your part.
Nobody's talking about these supposed non-child lolis, so it's irrelevant.
That's just flat out WRONG. In fact, its plainly a lie. We are talking about lolis in general. I've brought up non-child lolis multiple times. You've made it clear, several times, that you don't believe the lolis contextual ages matter. To say that we "aren't talking about" non-child lolis is either to show yourself delusional, or not arguing in good faith.
And you can easily tell that the image I provided is a drawn image of a fucking cat which quite accurately looks like one and resembles NOTHING ELSE but a cat, which is DOES accurately resemble. I never said it was photorealistic.
They are masturbating to what can be described only as something which looks exactly like a cat, but is not actually a real cat. The person cannot say they're fapping to an elephant or ANYTHING but what's anatomically accurate art of a cat.
All of this is irrelevant to my point. I never said the image wasn't a that of a drawn cat. Merely that it was clearly a drawn cat, so not comparable to a real one or a picture of a real one.
Indistinguishable visually, as in, it resembles nothing but a cat, and does so very accurately. Such a person can reasonably be concluded to be attracted to the anatomy of cats. There's not a jury in the fucking world that would come to a different conclusion if that was illegal.
Once again, whether or not it resembles a cat is a) variable, by art style, and b) irrelevant, at the end of the day. Its a drawing. Nothing more. Whether a person is "attracted to the anatomy of cats" is irrelevant. If you think that should be illegal, you are literally arguing for thoughtcrime, that person's potential interest in real life cats, expressed through their interest in
drawings of cats, is, in and of itself, dangerous or even criminal.
False, she looks virtually identical in Dragon Ball as she does in Z, I posted images illustrating this.
That does not at all contract my statement that most adult characters look far older than her.
Bulla is obviously not an adult, Bulma looks like other adults but Bulla doesn't.
Yes, Bulla looks younger than Bulma ever did (because
she is). That does not mean that her mother looks like other adults.
Disturbing as that'd be conceptually, the imagery would depict adult anatomy, so it'd be the lesser of two evils, but how about just don't include kids in porn stories or imagery? Is that difficult?
There you go conflating fictional children with real ones again. You just can't help yourself. You can lie to yourself Ness, but you will always show your true feelings here.
it's a problem to encourage thinking of their age group sexually, which this does.
Prove it. Prove, with some kind of study, paper, or research that finding a cartoon character attractive encourages you to think of children sexually.
Your position is indefensible and uncompelling, so a ban should be enforced.
That is one HELL of a leap in logic. My position is uncompelling
to you, so now we should just all hop aboard the government tyranny bandwagon? Because you say so? Even though your position has been equally uncompelling to me?
If at every turn you are incapable of saying more than "it's not real", "cite studies", and "I don't have to", then society should just walk past you and ban it because your justifications begin and end at "it's not real".
The only thing I'm asking
you to do is prove your assertions. You can't even do that. All you do is hem and haw about "science" and "logic" when its all sophistry and distracting from the point.
Guess what? We know it's not real. We still want it banned anyway.
And you've yet to articulate a good, compelling reason for why you feel that way.
The definition of pedophilia does not distinguish between a fictitious depiction of a paraphilia and a real depiction of a paraphilia.
This is just a lie. Pedophilia is a primary attraction to real life prepubescent children. Period.
There is a philia for specifically being attracted to fictitious characters: fictophilia. They don't confuse fiction from reality. They know it's fake.
Good, I'm glad you understand that, though I've already long pointed this out.
Would you call someone who is attracted to the dogs from 101 dalmations a fictophile? No. They would be called a fictophilic zoophile (attraction to dogs who are also fictitious).
Wrong. They are just a fictophile who's attracted to cartoon dogs.
What do you call someone who is attracted to children who happen to be fictitious characters? A fictophilic PEDOPHILE
THEY'RE STILL A PEDOPHILE
A SEXUAL ATTRACTION TO CHILDREN IS THE DEFINITION OF PEDOPHILIA
This is just manipulating terminology. If they are not attracted to real children, they are not pedophiles. Stop abusing words. If they are attracted to cartoon characters, they are fictophiles. These are two different fetishes.
Debate the subject or concede, simple as that.
